Climate naysayers are giving climate skeptics a bad name

Guest essay by S. Fred Singer

(originally published on American Thinker reprinted here with permission of the author. I endorse this opinion, though not the personal labels. We can all do with less labeling and name calling but for this piece I’m making an exception as it helps to illustrate the point – Anthony)

Gallia omnia est divisa in partes tres — This phrase from Julius Gaius Caesar about the division of Gaul nicely illustrates the universe of climate scientists — also divided into three parts. On the one side are the “warmistas,” with fixed views about apocalyptic manmade global warming; at the other extreme are the “deniers.” Somewhere in the middle are climate skeptics.

In principle, every true scientist must be a skeptic:

 

That’s how we’re trained; we question experiments, we question theories. We try to repeat or derive independently what we read in publications — just to make sure that no mistakes have been made.

In my view, “warmistas” and “deniers” are very similar in some respects — at least their extremists are. They have fixed ideas about climate, its change and its cause. They both ignore “inconvenient truths” and select data and facts that support their preconceived views. Many of them are also quite intolerant and unwilling to discuss or debate these views — and quite willing to think the worst of their opponents.

Of course, these three categories do not have sharp boundaries; there are gradations. For example, many “skeptics” go along with the general conclusion of the “warmistas” but simply claim the human contribution is not as large as indicated by climate models. But at the same time, they join with “deniers” in opposing drastic efforts to mitigate greenhouse (GH) gas emissions.

I am going to resist the temptation to name names. But everyone working in the field knows who is a “warmista”, “skeptic”, or “denier”. The “warmistas”, generally speaking, populate the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and subscribe to its conclusion that most of the temperature increase of the last century is due to carbon-dioxide emissions produced by the use of fossil fuels. At any rate, this is the conclusion of the most recent IPCC report, the fifth in a series. Since I was an Expert Reviewer of IPCC, I’ve had an opportunity to review part of the 5th Assessment Report.  AR5 published in 2013 uses essentially the same argument and evidence as AR4 from 2007; so let me discuss this “evidence” in some detail.

IPCC-AR4 uses only the global surface temperature (GST) record (shown in fig. 9.5 on page 648).

AR4 Figure 9.5a - annotated by Bob Tisdale

AR4 Figure 9.5a – annotated by Bob Tisdale

It exhibits a rapid rise in 1910-1940, a slight decline in 1940-1975, a sharp ‘jump’ around 1976-77 — and then a steady increase up to 2000 (except for the temperature ‘spike’ of the 1998 Super-El-Nino). No increase is seen after about 2001.

Most everyone seems to agree that this earlier increase (1910-1940) is caused by natural forces whose nature the IPCC does not specify. Clearly, the decline of 1940-1975 does not fit the picture of an increasing level of carbon dioxide; nor do the ‘jump’ and ‘spike.’ So, the IPCC uses the increase between 1978 and 2000 as evidence for human (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW).

Their argument is somewhat strained and their evidence is questionable. They claim that their models simulating the temperature history of the 20th century show no warming between 1970 and 2000 – when they omit the warming effect of the steady, slow CO2 increase. But once they add the CO2 increase into the models, they claim good agreement with the reported global surface temperature record. Ergo – evidence for AGW.

There are three things wrong with the IPCC argument: It depends very much on detailed and somewhat arbitrary choices of model inputs, e.g., the properties and effects of atmospheric aerosols, and their temporal and geographic distribution. It also makes arbitrary assumptions about clouds and water vapor, which produce the most important greenhouse forcings. One might therefore say that IPCC’ evidence is nothing more than an exercise in curve fitting. According to physicist Freeman Dyson, the famous mathematician John von Neumann stated: “Give me four adjustable parameters and I can fit an elephant. Give me one more, and I can make his trunk wiggle.”

The second question: Can IPCC fit other climate records of importance besides the reported global surface record? For example, can they fit northern and southern hemisphere temperatures using the same assumptions in their models about aerosols, clouds and water vapor? Can they fit the atmospheric temperature record as obtained from satellites, and also from radiosondes carried in weather balloons? The IPCC report does not show such results, and one therefore suspects that their curve-fitting exercise may not work, except for the global surface record.

The third problem may be the most important and likely also the most contested one. But first let me parse the IPCC conclusion, which depends crucially on the reported global surface warming between 1978 and 2000. As stated in their Summary for Policymakers (IPCC-AR4, vol 1, page 10): “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

But what if there is little to no warming between 1978 and 2000? What if the data from thousands of poorly distributed weather stations do not represent a true global warming? The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (both from satellites and, independently, from radiosondes) doesn’t show a warming. Neither does the ocean. And even the so-called proxy record — from tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, corals, stalagmites, etc. — shows mostly no warming during the same period.

Now let me turn to the “deniers”. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all — because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics; i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.

Then there is another group of deniers who accept the existence of the greenhouse effect but argue about the cause and effect of the observed increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. One subgroup holds that CO2 levels were much higher in the 19th century; so, there really hasn’t been a long-term increase from human activities. They even believe in a conspiracy to suppress these facts. Another subgroup accepts that CO2 levels are increasing in the 20th century but claims that the source is release of dissolved CO2 from the warming ocean. In other words, they argue that oceans warm first, which then causes the CO2 increase. In fact, such a phenomenon is observed in the ice-core record, where sudden temperature increases precede increases in CO2. While this fact is a good argument against the story put forth by Al Gore, it does not apply to the 20th century: Isotopic and other evidence destroys their caset.

Another subgroup simply says that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is so small, they can’t see how it could possibly change global temperature. But laboratory data show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly. Another subgroup says that natural annual additions to atmospheric CO2 are many times greater than any human source; they ignore the natural sinks that have kept CO2 reasonably constant before humans started burning fossil fuels. Finally, there are the claims that major volcanic eruptions produce the equivalent of many years of human emission from fossil-fuel burning. To which I reply: OK, but show me a step increase in measured atmospheric CO2 related to a volcanic eruption.

I have concluded that we can accomplish very little with convinced “warmistas” and probably even less with true “deniers”. So we just make our measurements, perfect our theories, publish our work, and hope that in time the truth will out.

Quotes:

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” — …Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” — …Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” — …Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” — …Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” — ..Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment


S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, specializing in climate science and energy policy. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committeeon Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute and of the Independent Institute. In 2007, he founded and chaired NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change). For recent writings see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and Google Scholar.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Katabasis

“D*niers”?
Really?

Katabasis, yes I know, We can all do with less such labeling. But for the purposes of this piece, I’ve made an exception and noted a caveat as to why.

Of course the denier epithet in the mouths of warmists is nothing but a scurrilous ploy. No need to debate with people who aren’t even accepting of reality. It’s on a par with the ludicrous “anti-science.”. What is Michael Mann even saying when he calls a superb scientist like the Judith Curry “anti-science.” I have great respect for Dr. Singer, but he does the skeptical cause no good by using…and thereby legitimizing… such terms. I don’t see much point in this post anyway. There’s nothing here most us don’t already know.

Want to take back my crib of the general import of this piece. There are plenty of details that are helpful concerning the case the IPCC is trying to make.

argg. sorry, not “crib”…crit

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

Denying what?

Denying what?
============
Greenhouses warm by limiting vertical circulation of air. They do not rely on downwelling radiation for their warming.
Thus, it is scientifically correct to deny that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, because the mechanism behind which CO2 is claimed to cause warming is not the same mechanism as found in greenhouses.
This is basic, fundamental science that is ignored time and time again when arguments over belief levels in global warming are raised. CO2 does not restrict vertical circulation of air and thus cannot warm the earth in a manner similar to greenhouses.

Agree with Anthony on both points – this was worth republishing ‘as is’ – and if anything I’d go further than Katabasis. As I put it on Bishop Hill eleven months ago:

I am wholly in agreement … that we should resist anyone being called ‘denier’, however much we disagree with their science. In other words I would never be happy with ‘slayers’ or other forms of greenhouse doubters being called deniers, because of the clear, and prior, application of the holocaust analogy in the climate field. It’s far too great a weight to put on any scientific difference.

I’d prefer Fred Singer adopted this approach but it’s worth remembering this is a problem created by those who first used denier and made the analogy with Holocaust denial explicit. On just how inappropriate such language is for scientific debate I doubt anyone will improve on Science of Doom in February.

Alx

I think the idea is to identify blind extremists in the debate using terms warmistas and deniers. Both do not care about the evidence or any rational discussion, their positions are faith based in their particular ideologies.
Using the term denier still is a mistake, as it assumes a flawed premise. The label denier is derogatory, it has an established singular purpose in the debate. The term denier is broadly accepted and used against anyone who does not rigidly toe the IPCC line on AGW. When it has been used to create an atmosphere of fear in challenging that line, it cannot magically be transformed into a term that only identifies extremist, non-evidenced based views.
The warmistas the article describes are extremists but they are only following the IPCC lead. The IPCC conclusions on AGW are an extremist view. Even though popular the conclusions are not reasonable, nor supported by evidence.
It would be nice if we could weed-out extremist non-evidence based views, but then there would be no debate since the primary source of half of the debate, the IPCC, would be “weeded out”.

MarkW

Unfortunately, it’s human nature.
A crank on our side is just a crank.
A crank on the other side is proof that everyone on that side is crazy.

KTM

You’re just codifying the use of a slur, and every other person that uses it can now refer back to your support as evidence that slurs are justifiable with the proper “context”. Big mistake IMHO.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

My point is that if you call someone a ‘denier’ you have to frame what it is that they are denying. The word is far too general EVEN WITHIN climate talk, as is witnessed above by saying, “Then there is another group of deniers.” I (and lots of others here) deny that catastrophe will occur as a result of our emissions of CO2. But i don’t deny that we have some effect on the environment from our actions, though I think the effect is small. I don’t deny the physical process of how CO2 works within the atmosphere, but negative feedbacks work too. If I am to be labelled a denier, then I want to know what that person is saying I am denying.

AlexS

The caveats are illegitimate . This is a dark day in WUWT.

The problem is more than just the use of labels.
Why do the alarmists get the less inflammatory “warmistas” label, and skeptics get the holocaust inferred “deniers” label. Especially when in truth the alarmists are denying a whole lot more than the skeptics.

Yes. Deniers. There are some who deny that CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation and hence a whole slew of thermodynamic effects that follow, including a surface temperature that is warmer with a CO2 containing atmosphere than without. Effects that have been documented and carefully measured in great detail by many researchers, most of whom don’t really care a whit about climate. They design other things, like blast furnaces, radiant heaters, cooling towers. Things that work. Things that assume CO2 is, for want of a better term, a greenhouse gas. The sky dragons deny science that is so settled we call it engineering. They give the rest of us a bad name. And that name is denier.

Katabasis

Singer casts the net quite wide, for example, there are the various groups he categorises as follows:
“Then there is another group of d*niers who accept the existence of the greenhouse effect…” – I see some legitimate lines of inquiry in that paragraph.

CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation
==================
CO2 also absorbs IR radiation from the sun, and radiates some of this to space. This has a net effect of cooling the earth, as some energy that would have otherwise reached the earth is otherwise intercepted by CO2 and radiated to space.
Also, CO2 absorbs energy from rising air, and radiates some of this to space. This has the effect of cooling the atmosphere, which ultimately cools the surface when the air descends, as compared to an atmosphere without CO2.
Both these factors to some degree offset the warming that results from CO2 absorbing IR from the surface and radiating this back to the surface.
Whether to sum of these effects is positive of negative depends on the ratio of LWR/SWR from the sun, as well as the rate of vertical circulation of the atmosphere. Neither of which depend on CO2 concentrations.

Katabasis: Did we read the same article? The line you quote . . . Factually correct. There are those who claim CO2 levels, as seen over the last 50 years, are attributable entirely to increasing warmth, while also claiming that temperatures haven’t increased. As Dr. Curry says, my cognitives are dissonating. There are those who “support” this claim, yet deny the fact that we can find clear evidence that a proportion of the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere contains carbon, long isolated from cosmic rays,atomic bomb tests, etc., that is, carbon dioxide with carbon from fossil fuels. These people too give the rest of us that bad name. Singer is pointing out that one need not deny science to prove that CAGW is a myth (emphasis on the C). Convincing people who are not well versed in science that science tells us that there really isn’t anything to worry about is a lot easier when one doesn’t deny science.

Alx

I don’t know of these people who deny the law of thermodynamics in the debate. Anyone denying the laws of thermodynamics may also believe the earth is 6,000 years old and so who cares. It would be dishonest to conflate people who deny simple natural laws with people who feel the laws of thermodynamics are mis-applied.
A capable designer knows that if you do not understand the relationships between components of the design you will never have a good design. It is what differentiates a poor design from good design, a well designed blast furnace (or anything else) from a badly designed one.
The green house effect is only one component of climate. It is ignorant to claim understanding of how the climate works because we understand thermodynamics. It is like claiming to know how a combustion engine works because we understand fire. Or understanding how the human bodies work because of an understanding of fluid mechanics.
Yes. Climate. One heck of a system.

KaiserDerden

what are they … like 3 people in the world ?

Fredberple. Your assertion that CO2 absorbs energy coming from the sun is correct. However. The wavelengths of absorption tend to the longer wavelength end of the EMR spectrum. As such, a lot of energy gets through the CO2 coming in and warms the surface. The energy radiating out from the hot surface is at longer wavelengths, hence CO2 (and water) tend to force a hotter “hot side” to allow for thermal equilibrium.

Nikolai

It seems like you’re forgetting that CO2 is a very, very small part of what makes up our “greenhouse gases” when water vapor is included, and only an absolute fool would not include water vapor in their argument.

I am reminded in these debates over whether the Laws of Thermodynamics support or refute CAGW of some really funny stories my father, an electronics engineer back in the 3rd quarter of the last century, would tell after a day working on US Navy ships as a contractor in San Diego. The Navy EEs were very well trained in electronics theory, but they just couldn’t get their heads around the fact that when you scale from the abstract molecular level to an actual radio, you introduce a whole slew of unintended consequences of material juxtapositions and interactions that my father included in his mental “model”, even for a “simple” function, but which the Navy guys left out of theirs. He would make a setting on an instrument that the EEs knew was outside theoretical bounds for the parameter, and yet perfect operation always ensued. He never put the Navy guys down, just said that he had perfect confidence that over time they would learn to enhance their knowledge of the physics as they encountered the way electrons flow in multi-component, multi-material manufactured artifacts.
My point is that, measuring what the observers believe are the same process in the laboratory setting and the real-world setting, we may find context to have some importance. Some of the d*niers who pick up on this kind of problem with CAGW exegeses, it seems to me, may not actually be d*nying the GHE, merely d*nying that it alone, in an atmosphere of rising pC02, neatly explains GW. However, the rhetoric on this point does usually miss any subtle points related to context, and it is easy to encounter in such findings the fallacious claim that since a specific result on one atmospheric measurement does not match a (supposedly) analogous measurement in the lab setting, that there cannot therefore be any such thing as “the GHE” in the atmosphere.
Luckily, here at WUWT, as soon as anyone posts any such “basic physics” sermons that either mischaracterize the actual physics, or make logical oversteps, one of our many “basic physicists” sets the record straight forthwith.

Mr. Pettersen

As a labeled denier i can prove you wrong. We dont deny the properties of co2. the only thing we deny is the automatic asumption you all seems to have that backradiation must convert to heat at the surface. The surface has a higher temperature than the back radiation represent and thus no energy is exchanged form air to ground. And that we learned from the law of thermodynamics.
If you are going to label me a denier please use the correct reason….

Steve Reddish

Alx April 16, 2015 at 6:49 am
” Anyone denying the laws of thermodynamics may also believe the earth is 6,000 years old and so who cares. It would be dishonest to conflate people who deny simple natural laws with people who feel the laws of thermodynamics are mis-applied.”
It would also be dishonest to conflate people who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old with anyone denying the laws of thermodynamics.
SR

george e. smith

“””””….. But laboratory data show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly. …..”””””
Well I’m a Fred Singer fan, but I did find this statement from his essay to be troublesome.
I have not one scintilla of doubt, that a CO2 molecule can and does “Strongly absorb IR radiation.” Notably in the Long IR spectral region around 15 micron wavelength, and also in the region around 4.0 microns as well as other places.
My problem with the “laboratory demonstrations of ‘strong IR absorption by CO2’ ” is that these measurements DO NOT typically use a laboratory source Of LWIR radiation, that is appropriate to the effect in the atmosphere.
The sun for example emits approximately 99% of its total radiant energy as it arrives at earth, at wavelengths no longer than that 4.0 micron CO2 absorption band. So some of that solar radiant energy will actually get absorbed by the atmospheric CO2; which means it WILL NOT reach the ocean surface as solar radiation, nor the land, so that is actually a surface cooling effect of CO2.
My Infrared handbook also shows CO2 absorption bands at about 1.4 microns (1.3-1.5) and also at 1.9 microns (1.8-2.0) and between 2.3-3.2 microns, so presumably somewhat more than 1% of the solar spectrum incoming energy gets absorbed by atmospheric CO2 and thus never reaches the surface as solar spectrum energy.
Now all of those bands I just mentioned, also have H2O bands at the same places, so how much of those regions is water absorbed and how much is CO2 absorbed I cannot tell.
No they do not both absorb the same wavelengths, because the individual spectral lines do not match for CO2 and H2O.
Just coincidently, these wavelength from 1.3 to 3.2 microns, happen to be extremely strongly absorbed in sea water, within way less than 50 microns of the surface, So they Would tend to cause enhanced evaporation if they did reach the surface. So those wavelengths are not going to become deep ocean stored energy (in my view).
In any case this results in less solar spectrum energy at the surface so it must be a cooling feedback, as is the associated water vapor absorptions of solar spectrum energy going back to as short as 700 nm wavelength.
But an important point is that the Long Wave Infra Red Radiant Spectrum emitted by the earth surface or atmosphere at a global mean Temperature of 288 K contains virtually NO IR radiant energy at wavelengths shorter than 5.0 microns, so the 4.0 and shorter wavelength CO2 absorption bands are completely inactive, as regards involvement in CO2 inspired feedback of surface emitted LWIR via “back radiation” or “down welling radiation” or whatever you want to call it.
It can only be the 13.5 -16.5 micron CO2 band that is in anyway involved in the so-called green house effect; and whether greenhouses work the way they do or not, we ALL know exactly what is meant be the greenhouse effect as it involves IR active gases in the atmosphere.
But meanwhile, back at Dr. Singer’s laboratory measurements of very strong CO2 absorption of IR Radiation.
Well I agree completely; BUT I’ll wager that NOT ONE of those laboratory IR absorption experiments ever used an LWIR radiation source that is operating at a black body Temperature of 288 K which would be the appropriate source to use to find out just how much (or how little) actual Temperature increase of the sample actually occurs.
The “globar” or similar sources of infrared radiation operate at Temperatures of hundreds of deg. C and those will in fact emit screeds of 4.0 and shorter wavelength IR wavelengths that are CO2 active.
The totally ludicrous CO2 demo done by “The Science Guy” , Bill Nye using a 100 Watt incandescent light bulb, is a source that operates at one half of the Temperature of the solar surface, so it is 1/16th the surface brightness of the sun (total spectrum). That is 10,000 times as bright as a 288 K atmospheric or surface of the earth source, and the peak spectral radiance, is at 1.0 micron wavelength rather than 10.0 microns wavelength, and at that peak wavelength, it is 100,000 times brighter than the surface of the earth at 15 deg C or 288 K.
1.0 microns is a wavelength that is very strongly absorbed by water vapor, and I doubt that Nye’s air samples were dry enough to have excluded water absorption heating from his experiment.
In any case, I think Dr. Singer should be careful about relating laboratory measurements of CO2 infrared absorption with the real world practical sources of 10.0 micron LWIR emitted from the earth surface or from the atmosphere.
Yes CO2 does absorb at 10.0 microns; but as to just how much that increases either air Temperature or subsequently the ground Temperature due to back radiation, is another question altogether.
A related problem with the accepted model of reality, as exemplified by the Kevin Trenberth et al global energy model, that has always bothered me, is that he mentions surface to atmosphere conducted (heat) energy at so many W.m^-2 and also surface to atmosphere Latent “heat” of evaporation both of which are of course “heat energy” amounts; but then he blithely sums these with other “forcings” which are actually power densities of EM radiant energy sources, from the sun or elsewhere.
It seems to me to be erroneous to add Temperature changes in the atmosphere from actual heat energy inputs, to those that might result from non radiative absorption of EM radiation sources.
The heat sources should directly result in Temperature changes. The Radiation source absorptions have to go through additional gyrations before becoming atmospheric Temperature changes.
Am I the only one bothered by this. It seems to me that all forcings are NOT the same.
G

Brett Keane

Then you must deny the Gas Laws, to start with. Indeed, it is such Process Engineers who make the most cogent arguments for ‘denial’. Brett

george e. smith

“””””……
John Eggert
April 16, 2015 at 7:17 am
Fredberple. Your assertion that CO2 absorbs energy coming from the sun is correct. However. The wavelengths of absorption tend to the longer wavelength end of the EMR spectrum. ……””””””
So John; what is your source for such an assertion ?? I ca find no basis for supporting such a claim.
The solar spectrum extra-terrestrially is fairly close to a 5760 K black body radiation spectrum, with some anomalies at the UV end.
Such a spectrum, has its peak spectral radiant intensity (per micron) at 500 nm wavelength.
Everybody who claims to have some understanding of the Planck theoretical black body radiation spectrum (there is ONLY a theoretical model, since BBs are not real); knows that a BB spectrum has 25.0% of its total radiant energy at wavelengths shorter than the peak which is a half micron for the solar spectrum, and therefore 75% of the energy is at wavelengths longer than the peak wavelength.
Moreover only 1% of the total energy is at wavelengths shorter than half od the peak wavelength, or 250 nm for the sun, and only 1% of the total energy is at wavelengths greater than 8 times the peak wavelength which for the sun is at 4.0 microns.
So there is considerably less than 1% of the solar spectrum energy that falls in the 4.0 micron CO2 asymmetrical stretch mode band of CO2, but somewhat more available at the shorter wavelength CO2 bands between 1.3 and 3.2 microns wavelength.
By the time you get to the all important degenerate bending mode of CO2 at 13.5-16.5 microns, which is the cause of all the global warming fuss, the solar energy remaining is many orders of magnitude down from its peak, so that mode is not involved in solar radiation absorption.
So there really is NO available solar spectrum energy to be absorbed by CO2 beyond 4.0 microns, and as I explained, less than 1% for that 4 micron band.
The earth LWIR radiation spectrum, which cools us down, has a peak wavelength at 20 times that of the solar spectrum or 10.0 microns corresponding to a 288 K effective BB Temperature, which is the supposed 15 deg. C mean surface or lower Troposphere Temperature of the earth. That is the number which has skyrocketed to dizzying heights of less than 1.0 degree C since the 1850s start of the modern records. Why that matters when the total daily temperature range on earth on any day is perhaps 100 deg. C from coldest to hottest places, and could in extreme cases be as much as 150 deg. C.
So whether the 165 year change is one deg. C or 2 deg. C seems pretty irrelevant to me.
But NO ! I do not discount the possibility that such a change has occurred in the last 165 years; but I do not place a lot of credibility in the recorded data prior to about 1980, since much of that data comes from rather ad hoc ocean water Temperatures, which don’t even correlate with oceanic air Temperatures.
So I believe that climate changes. I believe that it has NEVER not changed, and I believe that CO2 does delay the escape of LWIR radiant energy from the earth surface, but so does water vapor, and much more so than CO2 does.
I do not believe that water vapor needs to get kicked into action by an increase in atmospheric CO2. H2O is perfectly capable of interacting with both the solar radiation incoming, and the earth LWIR radiation leaving, and it needs NO assistance from CO2 or ANY other catalyst to get it up and running.
But that is just my opinion of the situation, and others will probably have different views from mine. Mine are based on reading the available literature on experiment weather / climate data recording, and my understanding of simple basic Physics concepts.
No I pay NO attention whatsoever to ANY and all supposed climate computer “models” of what is supposed to happen, as I see no evidence that the models do, or even attempt to reproduce what is already recorded history.
Assuming that the earth is an isotropically illuminated and isotropically radiating isothermal body, as in the Trenberth model, makes absolutely no sense to me.
The earth rotates and receives a beam of solar radiation at a mean level of 1362 Wm^-2 over the yearly cycle, which never stops, but varies a small amount with solar activity. It is not even remotely an isothermal body radiating at any constant effective BB temperature; in fact it radiates mostly from the hottest daytime tropical desert areas, with very little cooling going on from the earth’s coldest areas (by more than an order of magnitude.
So I’m a skeptic of the catastrophe viewpoint; mostly because I see no real basis for such alarm.
g

george e. smith

“””””…..
george e. smith
April 16, 2015 at 6:42 pm
“””””……
John Eggert
April 16, 2015 at 7:17 am …..”””””
I see a slip of the tongue down below.
I used the term “Spectral Radiant Intensity” in reference to the solar and BB spectra.
That is an error and should read “Spectral Radiance.” The Planck curve is not a plot of Radiant Intensity (W / steradian) per micron (of wavelength) but Watts per metre squared per steradian per micron of wavelength.
Chemists tend to use a plot of a frequency or wave number basis, which would be watt per metre squared per steradian per wave number. Such a plot of the solar spectrum would not have a peak at the frequency corresponding to 500 nm wavelength. I don’t use that form so I don’t know what the peak wave number is for the solar spectrum on a frequency basis.
G

@ george e. smith April 16, 2015 at 1:11 pm

Well I’m a Fred Singer fan, but I did find this statement from his essay to be troublesome.

george e., ….. I also found two (2) of the professor emeritus’s statements quite troubling …. and utterly disappointing as a matter of fact. To wit:

[S. Fred Singer] One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all — because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics; i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.

“DUH”, the per se “greenhouse effect” is determined by the measurement in the “change in temperature” …. and/or ….. the “thermal energy content” of the entity that is being measured, …. irrespectively of the direction the energy is flowing. It is the “quantity/direction” that matters, not just the direction.

[S. Fred Singer] Another subgroup simply says that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is so small, they can’t see how it could possibly change global temperature. But laboratory data show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly.

Yeah, “Right”, and a sponge absorbs H2O very strongly ….. but iffen you dip a sponge in a large swimming pool it won’t affect the level of the water enough to measure the change.

the natural sinks
=============
what we do know is that natural sinks are increasing in size, and this rate of increase does not depend on the total CO2 in the atmosphere, rather it depends on how much humans are releasing each year, which is a fantastic co-incidence.
Every year 1/2 of human emissions for the year disappear into the natural sinks. But how is this possible, because the increase in the sinks should result from total CO2, not the human component. How can the natural sinks identify human emissions?
This argues strongly that there is something going on with CO2 that is poorly understood by science. Or there is a most amazing co-incidence at work, because if current theories are correct, the natural sinks must grow according to total CO2.

G. Karst

The enlarged CO2 sinks give me worries – if anthropogenic CO2 were to be suddenly reduced by political actions, the system would overshoot to low concentrations, in response. Low CO2 levels would be very bad for veggies, critters, and humans alike. GK

MarkW

The ocean sink is based on the difference in concentration between the atmosphere and the ocean. As the atmospheric concentration increases, of course the oceans will be able to absorb more until equilibrium is reached again. (Since the area of transfer is limited to the surface, and the oceans are deep, it takes a long to reach equilibrium.)
Another major sink is plant life. As CO2 increases, so does the amount of plant material on the planet.
Another major sink comes from the weathering of rocks, as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the amount of CO2 being weathered also increases.
When they say that 1/2 of the CO2 generated by humans is being absorbed, they are just using lazy language, they mean that the increase in CO2 concentration is only half what would be expected given how much CO2 was generated by man. They are claiming that the sinks are differentiating between human and non-human sources.
By trying to make such arguments you fall into the category that Dr. Singer was talking about. People who make the rest of us look bad.

G. Karst

@MarkW – I was primarily thinking of the biosphere as the reason for the over-response. High CO2 (and wamth) promotes an expanded biosphere, by lets say 30%. Greens then reduce CO2 anthro-emissions, while the biosphere, is at an enlarged state (big sink) causing an overshoot in the negative direction. Any subsequent cooling would, of course, accelerate CO2 solubility into seawater.
Sorry I “make the rest of us look bad”. Interesting point to bring to a skeptical argument. GK

J

Plants?

G. Karst

J – Yes plants, bacteria, fungus, plankton which feed insects, reptiles and mammals. GK

MarkW

G.Karst, I was replying to ferd, should have made that clear.

When they say that 1/2 of the CO2 generated by humans is being absorbed, they are just using lazy language
=========
no, you fail to grasp the argument. total CO2 is increasing at rate A. Human CO2 is increasing at rate B, which is a much higher rate than A.
The sinks should be increasing proportional to rate (A+B), according to theory. But they are not. Observations continue to show the sinks are increasing proportional to rate B.
This cannot be possible over any period of time according to AGW theory. But it is happening and has been happening for 60+ years.

Ferd,
The sinks are not responding to rate B neither to rate A+B, they are responding to the total increase in the atmosphere above the equilibrium for the current temperature. Thus sum(A+B-S) over time.
Where A natural emissions, B human emissions and S natural sinks.
That the increase in the atmosphere is near halve the human emissions per year is not fully coincidence, it is caused by the slightly quadratic increase of human emissions over time, which causes a slightly quadratic increase in the atmosphere and a slightly quadratic increase in sink rate. That all gives a quite linear ratio between human emissions/year and increase rate in the atmosphere…

Catherine Ronconi

Ferdinand,
Please indulge a school marm.
“To halve” is a verb. You mean “half”.

Cathy R,
Thank you. I didn’t want to correct Ferdinand, but he has been misusing ‘halve’ for ‘half’ all along. I didn’t say anything because he speaks at least four languages, so I’m not one to criticize.

Catherine Ronconi

I speak other languages, mostly badly, and would appreciate correction, except that in some languages there would be no time left over for conversation if every error were pointed out to me.
He is a scholar and gentleman, so I hope will not be offended. To a native English speaker, it’s a little jarring, so distracts from appreciating his lucid expositions.

Catherine,
Thanks for the correction, no offence at all, to the contrary…
Some mistakes seems to be rather hard to correct, if one uses the wrong one for a long time, half/halve is one of them in my memory… I had the same problem with often using wich for which, but the automatic spelling corrector then knocks on my fingers, which it doesn’t for half/halve…
I like to learn different languages, even if only a few words of the local language when we are traveling. Be it that it is getting more and more difficult with a fading memory…
We have the advantage here to live at the crossroads of different cultures: 150 km (100 miles) in any direction, they speak Dutch (little difference with Flemish, officially the same language – like English English and American English) or French or German or English (2 hours between Brussels and London with the high speed Eurostar train…).

AndyG55

“the natural sinks must grow according to total CO2”
I would have thought that they would have grown according to AVAILABLE/USABLE atmospheric CO2.
For plants, anything below 200-250 ppm is pretty much unusable so its the growth above this value, due partly to human activity, that has helped the biosphere expand.
The planet luv CO2.. it is one of the major building blocks of life on this planet, and it has been at very low values for a long, long time.

John S

To see Dr Singer validate the denier slur is disappointing…
Dr Singer clearly shows he is not a politician. For a politician understands that to achieve a common desire that you unite people….not divide people. The alarmists agenda will do nothing meaningful to affect climate and will cause great harm to our economic life and reduce our personal freedoms. It is a titanic struggle of great importance. And Dr Singer is doing what? Attacking those who share his desire to stop the madness of the climate alarmists. Some communications unite people with a common purpose….this article divides people with a common purpose. Dr Singer’s article is one of 100% pure ego. Perhaps one day Dr Singer will regain control of his ego and look back with embarrassment that he wrote such an article…

“Dr Singer clearly shows he is not a politician. For a politician understands that to achieve a common desire that you unite people….not divide people. ”
—–
You really have missed the progressive’s primary tactic.
They like to divide people up every way they can.
Then you preach to each group differently.
1%, poor, women, race, religion, union busting or what you like to chew on at night etc.
They want everybody needing them..begging them to pass a law so they may be saved.
Somehow it has gotten lost that we have no constitutional right to not be offended.
So far only the progressives and media folks supports this.

John S

For any politician to achieve a result, they need to build a coalition of at least 51%+. Even the alarmist politicians need to build coalitions of 51%+. The goal of skeptics is to convince at least 51%+ of the people that alarmists are not credible. Dr Singer’s attack on skeptics that think differently than him serves to divide the skeptic side which only serves to further the alarmist cause. If we pass purity tests on our own side, then Dr Singer and those that think like him can feel “right” however this is not about feeling right…it is about stopping the alarmists and their insane agenda… Let’s spend our time dismantling the alarmist arguments…rather than attacking people who share common goals with us skeptics…

MarkW

John S. You convince those in the middle by convincing them that your side is the most reasonable.
Having unreasonable people pushing unreasonable positions pushes those who’s minds are not made up, into the other camp.
That is by protecting the 1%, you offend the 20% in the middle.
It’s been the extremist doomsayers who have done the most damage to the warmist camp.

rw

I think it’s quite appropriate – and I’m astonished at how sensitive so many of the commenters here are. As far as I’m concerned he’s calling a spade a spade. I could go further and note that skeptic comment threads sometimes sound like the meeting of a witches’ coven – just like those of the warmistas. It looks like Osgood’s cognitive balance factors are, indeed, always in play, at least with many people. I.e. if your words don’t push the requisite feel-good buttons, many people begin to get uneasy and annoyed. Thus, the underlying message of many of these comments seems to be, “Fred, get back in line!”

Jaakko Kateenkorva

Above everyone are those who know where the origo is and can also tag people around it. Once we have sunken to this level, they also need a label. Any suggestions?

Evan Jones

What Anthony said.

Gubulgaria

[snip – pointless name calling – Anthony]

Daniel Kuhn

“Most everyone seems to agree that this earlier increase (1910-1940) is caused by natural forces whose nature the IPCC does not specify. ”
“A long-term increasing trend in solar activity in the early 20th century may have augmented the
warming recorded during this interval, together with internal variability, greenhouse gas increases and a hiatus
in volcanism.”

That’s not specifying, that’s guessing.

MarkW

Would that be the same increase that continued and grew bigger in the latter half of the 20th century, not ending until the current solar cycle?

Evan Jones

Hmm. The Solar Maximum (last one was ~450 BC, IRRC) manifested as recently as 1960. This makes for some correlation with the overall record, but I think there is not enough effect for a prime driver.
Besides, if you are going to lean on solar, you have to consider that there was a Gleissberg cycle early on and an overall increase after that. So if solar is an issue (which I doubt), it would have had an overall warming effect, and that would have to be subtracted from the attributed effects of CO2.
It is getting to the point where the CAGW (not mere AGW) argument is getting so untenuous that I can’t see an argument. As the recent NASA paper points out, the “missing heat” is not indicated to be residing in the deep oceans. And if it is being convected out or reflected back, then Spencer and Lindzen are vindicated, so that does the CAGW crowd no good.
I surmise, however, that you are middling high on the AGW scale, but are not at the stage where you are standing on the CAGW side of the line. I.e., that you think it is a crisis that needs immediate attention, but not an existential sword of Damocles.

Yes, there is a greenhouse effect. But it is a log effect, so at ≈400 ppm there isn’t much warming being done. Most of the warming has already happened:comment image
And we can see that even if CO2 doubled from here, the rise in temperature would probably not even be measurable.

Daniel Kuhn

[snip – you aren’t going to bring your “pressure broadening” argument from the other thread onto this one – Anthony]

Splice

@dbstealey
Graph is a fake. As I can see it assumes temperature increase of about 0.4 Celcius degree per CO2 doubling.

Owen in GA

Splice,
I take it you have done the laboratory experiment and know the exact value a doubling of CO2 concentration will provide. Or are you just spouting the consensus that climate sensitivity has to be about 3K? 280 to 400 is almost 2/3 of a doubling and the temperature has increased 0.7K. Of course we were coming out of the little ice age so some of that 0.7K is undoubtedly natural. 0.4K may be about right.

higley7

CO2 doubling is a red herring, as it makes us look away from the real world. As CO2 partitions 50 to 1 into water, we would have to add 51 times the amount of CO2 in the air to double the CO2 in the air. 50 out of 51 molecules would go into the oceans.
There is simply not enough available carbon for us to burn to do much more than raise CO2 by 20%. Talking about doubling is bogus and a waste of time.
The five-year half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere should also be mentioned, as it means that CO2 is very dynamic and our emissions do not accumulate. If CO2 could do what we say, ceasing all CO2 emissions would have no detectable effect on the climate, any possible effect being in the hundredths or thousandths of a degree.

Hugh

280 to 560 is a doubling.
2/3rds of 280 is 187 which will occur at 466
..
We are at 400 which is +120
120/280 = 43% or less than half of a doubling

Yeah… kinda.
ln 560/280 = ln 2 = 0.69
ln 400/280 = 0.36
So, on logarithmical scale, 143% is about half doubling. Clear? 🙂

Hugh

J Peter,
It is more than ‘less than half of a doubling’. Not two thirds, but over one half on ln scale.
If I’m not demented, that is. That’s way I asked if I sounded clear 🙂

Tom Crozier

Hugh, log2 (400/280) = .5146….. About half a doubling assuming exponential growth. But is it exponential?

BFL

Isn’t everyone forgetting that CO2 is just considered a multiplier/amplifier of the real warming gas water vapor? And that multiplying factor in the models is mostly a guess?

george e. smith

If you are talking doublings then 2/3 of a doubling means 2^(2/3) = 1.5874
So 1.5874 x 280 = 444.47
So we aren’t even close to 2/3 of a doubling yet
I suggest using numbers we know, from the MLO record.
315 ppm in 1957/58 up to 400 today which is 0.34 of a doubling.

j.peter@baloney.com says:
Dbstealey has been demanding measurements of man made global warming now for a long time, and it seems that you’ve finally pointed out the measurements he was asking for.
Isn’t this little alarmist amusing? He actually believes that after years of asking for empirical, testable, verifiable measurements quantifying the specific fraction of global warming attributable to human CO2 emissions, that someone like Gates would suddenly produce what was asked for — when no one else has ever said they could produce any empirical, testable MMGW measurements? The MMGW scare has colonized the minds of some folks to the point that they will believe anything. j.peter is one of them. And of course, that isn’t what Gates did anyway. So far, no one has produced those measurements.
If we had a widely accepted measurement of AGW, then the central question would finally be answered: what is the climate sensitivity number?
The IPCC can’t answer that. They began guesstimating up to 6º+, but in the years since then they have done a major climbdown. Now they’re still too high, but at least they are going in the right direction.
Prof. Richard Lindzen, holder of the Alfred P. Sloan Meteorology Chair at M.I.T., states that the sensitivity number is ≈0.66 for a doubling of CO2. That seems to reflect observations. Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi states that the sensitivity is 0.00, based on measurements of LWR. Others estimate from zero to around 2º per doubling. But no one knows for sure.
There is no widespread agreement on the sensitivity number, for the simple reason that there are no real world measurements quantifying AGW. There are models. There are guesstimates. But there are no empirical, testable measurements.
That can be explained one of two ways: either AGW is too small to measure, or it doesn’t exist. I personally think AGW exists. But since it is too minuscule to measure, it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.

Daniel Kuhn

“If we had a widely accepted measurement of AGW, then the central question would finally be answered: what is the climate sensitivity number?”
how little you understand…..

When someone has absolutely zero evidence, or facts, but only their eco-religious belief, then they will write a content-free post saying something like:
how little you understand…..
It takes the place of thinking. No wonder Kuhn lost the argument. That is the sum total of his knowledge, evidence, or information.
Keep amusing us, Kuhn. You are a perfect example of a know-nothing numpty.

Tom Crozier

“315 ppm in 1957/58 up to 400 today which is 0.34 of a doubling.”
Log2(400/315)=.34464817…. So my first excursion into the math of this science tells me there are so many ways to manipulate the measurement scale that almost any number can be presented to an uninformed public.
Personally I think base 2 logs are a reasonable tool to calculate growth rates of many things; but feel free to correct me.

Daniel Kuhn

” so at ≈400 ppm there isn’t much warming being done.”
what is your evidence for this claim?

Kuhn (challenging dbstealey. Yet again.)

” so at ≈400 ppm there isn’t much warming being done.”

what is your evidence for this claim?

??? It is fundamental from the thermodynamic equations, the radiation equations and the kinetic energy calc’s of each gas molecule (CO2, O2, N2, water vapor), the gas concentrations of each, and the net earth heat balance.
And the fact that global average temp’s haven’t gone up as CO2 increased almost 34% just confirms that the equations (the class room) are following the real world.

Walt D.

Google Hansen’s model in the IPCC reports for a theoretical explanation. Monckton has a more complicated version of this simple formula.

Brandon Gates

RACookPE1978,

??? It is fundamental from the thermodynamic equations, the radiation equations and the kinetic energy calc’s of each gas molecule (CO2, O2, N2, water vapor), the gas concentrations of each, and the net earth heat balance.

No, it’s just 0.5 * ln(CO2) with the coefficient literally pulled out of thin air. Here’s what fundamental thermodynamic, radiation and kinetic energy calcs have to say:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SZQS7bzEf1U/VMtageyyD9I/AAAAAAAAATk/QPvS-LfWFxs/s1600/TMEAN%2Band%2BCMIP5%2BRCP60%2Bvs%2BCO2.png

And the fact that global average temp’s haven’t gone up as CO2 increased almost 34% just confirms that the equations (the class room) are following the real world.

As Dr. Singer alludes in the head post, we’ve seen some pauses before:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MW_NJp28Udc/VNS3EAEqpOI/AAAAAAAAAUs/hjhuLZFkdoM/s1600/hadcrut4%2Bhiatuses.png
We’re 20 years into this one, or about half of the length of the two previous. Note that the slope of this one is slightly positive whilst the two previous were clearly negative. This is consistent with an 80ish year cycle of internal variability acting alternatively with/against the increased radiative forcing from CO2. The 80 year cycle correlates well with the the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is well-documented but poorly understood. Hence making predictions like “we’ve got 20 more years of ‘hiatus'” are not scientifically valid.
‘Tis a tempting wager, though.

Brandon Gates

Errata: slope of this one is slightly positive
s/b: …just slightly negative.

Eustace Cranch

DK, do you believe that 400ppm CO2 (or 500, or 600) makes this planet more dangerous for humans, and other life?
What is your evidence?

Splice

do you believe that 400ppm CO2 (or 500, or 600) makes this planet more dangerous for humans, and other life?
As 550 ppm is twice the preindustrial level and will cause increase in sea level by at least 10 meters
http://www.floodmap.net/?ll=41.010686,-37.275281&z=4&e=10
???

Daniel Kuhn

When you want to learn why you and your graph are wrong.
you should ask Dr. Spencer.
this is an essential part of his work with the MSU/AMSU instruments.
if you are corret, the MSU/AMSU data is wrong and not working.
Ask him, he will give you all the experiments and measurements you need.

Eustace Cranch

Splice, that’s not evidence, it’s speculation. Actually it’s pure fantasy.
Unless you’re trying to be funny.

mobihci

Gates, the models have no hindcast ability. they only show agreement with the past because they are shown the past. the predictive power is the true test of the model, and the current version has failed in a more dramatic way than the previous attempts. the graph of temp observations against a models training period to attempt to show skill it does not have is just pure propaganda. omit the satellites? why?
why present us propaganda? we dont need lies with every graph you guys produce.
it would be nice to see just some real graphs from you guys for a change so we can see that you actually are trying to make some case, instead it just looks like you are just used car salesmen trying to flog of a beaten up car.
the facts are that no matter which way you look at it, the current batch of models fail to fit reality. they are wrong. the understanding is wrong. they need to be corrected, and no-one will believe the correction unless there is an admission of failure.
The temperature graph you post shows clearly how much more influence the ocean cycles have over global temperature. considering the warming started before 1800, and the sea level has been rising since 1900, well before co2 had any influence, i would think it would only be logical to conclude that there has been warming.. natural warming from multiple sources. if you remove both the rise from the little ice age and the ocean cycles, what do you have left over the past 60 years? peak to peak the rise from 1870s to 1930s was about 0.4°C (natural), the 1940s to 2000s was about 0.45°C(natural+120ppm co2), so you are in effect saying that co2 has caused the climate to change by 0.05°C from an additional 120ppm.

MarkW

Basic physics

MarkW

Your claim that a level of 550ppm will cause oceans to rise by 10m is not supported by any known science.
It is not evidence, it’s a projection based on faulty models.

Hugh

do you believe that 400ppm CO2 (or 500, or 600) makes this planet more dangerous for humans, and other life?
As 550 ppm is twice the preindustrial level and will cause increase in sea level by at least 10 meters

Sure, at least. And immediately. Have you checked what scientists say?

RWturner

For you to understand this perhaps you should think of a simple analogy. If you were sieving sand with a specific size of sieve and you kept adding the same size sieve underneath it what would happen? No extra sand would be sieved because the sieve you are using only has the ability to catch sand grains down to a certain size.
CO2 is the sieve in this loose analogy and CO2 only reacts with a narrow band of IR and there is a limited amount of this band of IR to be captured. As dbstealy points out, most of this absorption takes place with the first traces of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Brandon Gates

mobihci,

Gates, the models have no hindcast ability. they only show agreement with the past because they are shown the past. the predictive power is the true test of the model, and the current version has failed in a more dramatic way than the previous attempts. the graph of temp observations against a models training period to attempt to show skill it does not have is just pure propaganda.

Ok, you’ve told me what you think is wrong. Tell me how you’d do it instead.

omit the satellites? why?

I haven’t written a thing about satellites in this thread. What are you talking about?

why present us propaganda? we dont need lies with every graph you guys produce.

Your question and statement imply you know the actual truth. How about showing me your evidence?

it would be nice to see just some real graphs from you guys for a change so we can see that you actually are trying to make some case, instead it just looks like you are just used car salesmen trying to flog of a beaten up car.

the facts are that no matter which way you look at it, the current batch of models fail to fit reality. they are wrong.

All models are always wrong, else they would be reality.

the understanding is wrong.

How?

they need to be corrected, and no-one will believe the correction unless there is an admission of failure.

Well, I know for a fact that you don’t speak for everyone. Namely me.

The temperature graph you post shows clearly how much more influence the ocean cycles have over global temperature.

That statement is extremely dependent on what timeframe one considers.

considering the warming started before 1800, and the sea level has been rising since 1900, well before co2 had any influence, i would think it would only be logical to conclude that there has been warming..natural warming from multiple sources.

From 1800 to about 1840 the Sun is one candidate …
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itsi_wls_ann.png
… which is not in dispute as a known natural forcing. What other natural factors are you thinking about?

if you remove both the rise from the little ice age and the ocean cycles, what do you have left over the past 60 years? peak to peak the rise from 1870s to 1930s was about 0.4°C (natural), the 1940s to 2000s was about 0.45°C(natural+120ppm co2), so you are in effect saying that co2 has caused the climate to change by 0.05°C from an additional 120ppm.

I’m not saying that, you are. Here’s how the IPCC figures it since 1950 in AR5:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig10-5.jpg
Figure 2. Assessed likely ranges (whiskers) and their mid-points (bars) for attributable warming trends over the 1951–2010 period due to well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHG), other anthropogenic forings (OA), natural forcings (NAT), combined anthropogenic forcings (ANT), and internal variability. The HadCRUT4 observations are shown in black with the 5–95% uncertainty range due to observational uncertainty.
Same chapter, showing what CMIP3 and CMIP5 do when only natural forcings are considered vs. natural + anthro:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigFAQ10.1-1.jpg

indefatigablefrog

Brandon Gates – in your post you have drawn a trend line of 13 years in length from the start of the current hiatus.
But, you have chosen to compare this with 40 years periods during which the temperature trend was negative. Is this fair?
You chose the start dates. 1870, 1935, 2001 – so let’s take a look at the first 13years of these periods.
And abracadabra – suddenly the 2001 period shows a decline and the other periods were periods of RAPIDLY rising temps.
And what this shows, I suppose, is that choosing dates for trend lines can be used to prove almost anything whatsoever.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/from/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1870/to:1883/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1935/to:1948/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2014/trend

‘Splice’ says:
Graph is a fake
Baseless assertion noted.
There are other charts from different sources, which show exactly the same thing. Here is still another one:comment image
Those charts accurately reflect observations. And I note that the chart Gates posted is no more than another future prediction, which shows a ≈1ºC temperature rise from another 100 ppm CO2. Since no alarmist prediction has ever happened, I have my doubts about that one, too. But even if global T rises another degree, on net balance it will be entirely beneficial.
Next, ‘Splice’ posted a fabricated map claiming that with only another 100 ppm CO2 rise, we will see a TEN METER rise in sea levels — 33 feet!!
The more wrong the alarmist crowd is, the more extreme their scares get. But their false alarms aren’t working any more. They’ve cried “WOLF!!” too much and too often, for too long. No one believes them any more.
A 10 meter rise in sea levels, from only a 25% rise in CO2?? Since CO2 has already risen by about 35% with no unusual sea level rise or acceleration, how does that work, exactly?
If a skeptic had made such a preposterous statement, there would be other skeptics saying he was wrong. So where are the alarmists? So far, not a single one has reined in ‘Splice’ for his wild-eyed scare. No one has even questioned it.
That’s the difference between skeptics and alarmists. Skeptics criticize the occasional truly ridiculous (and rare) assertion from other skeptics. Anthony does that regularly. But alarmists never police their own. As they say, silence is concurrence.
So I suppose they all believe there will be a 33 foot rise in sea levels when CO2 reaches 500 ppm. Whatever is Algore going to do with his beachfront mansions? Sit on the roof?

Brandon Gates

indefatigablefrog,

in your post you have drawn a trend line of 13 years in length from the start of the current hiatus.
But, you have chosen to compare this with 40 years periods during which the temperature trend was negative. Is this fair?

I think it’s fair when the charge being rebutted is “18 years of no temperature rise”.

And what this shows, I suppose, is that choosing dates for trend lines can be used to prove almost anything whatsoever.

Yup, trend analyses will always be sensitive to endpoints. That’s where plotting the 1st derivative can help out:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/derivative/mean:360/scale:360/plot/jisao-pdo/mean:360

mobihci

Gates, dont you find it interesting the even the IPCC use the same propaganda technique of showing the models training period compared with observations, and a tiny bit on the end which is prediction, a prediction that is fudged out in a mass of multi-model spaghetti? considing this-
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
you must look at where the models are failing to have understanding, and that means everywhere the models predict. just turning a blind eye to the utter failure and only presenting a mess of models to obscure the truth to the viewer point to purpose, not science.
you of course will say that it is a different region than the IPCC graph etc, but the reality is, the models make that prediction above. it points clearly to the problem ie lack of understanding. this is how science is conducted and it is perfectly reasonable to expect this observation be dealt with before moving on with assumptions based on this understanding. next, a reason for this failure should be presented by those that create this obviously failed model.
as i said before, a correction and new model will do nothing to increase understand or apparent skill, it is not possible to show hindcast skill in a model that requires training until the current time. what needs to happen is an acknowledgement of the failures, and a true shift forward in understanding.

Brandon Gates

dbstealey,

And I note that the chart Gates posted is no more than another future prediction, which shows a ≈1ºC temperature rise from another 100 ppm CO2.

That plot does also show observations between 280 and 380 ppmv inclusive.

There are other charts from different sources, which show exactly the same thing. Here is still another one:comment image

lol, well yes, it’s not that difficult for someone to multiply the natural log of CO2 concentration by one-half then plot the first difference.

Those charts accurately reflect observations.

I see, so today it is possible to measure temperature response to CO2 forcing. Care to share with us the observations which finally convinced you?

Brandon Gates

mobihci,

Gates, dont you find it interesting the even the IPCC use the same propaganda technique of showing the models training period compared with observations …

I find it interesting that I asked you how you’d do it, and you have not answered.

… and a tiny bit on the end which is prediction, a prediction that is fudged out in a mass of multi-model spaghetti?

I expect a lot of spaghetti due to the inherently unpredictable nature of internal variability, and I have zero issue with using model ensembles to create bounded estimates — not just for the “noise” of ocean/atmospheric couplings but for the high degree of uncertainty in the assumptions which go into producing the projections. That on top of all the things the IPCC are very open about saying could very well be wrong with CMIP5. See AR5 WGI, Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
Nothing you’re saying to me is any more “interesting” than the IPCC have already told me.

Brandon Gates

One would think. However, since he habitually complains that my pointing out his gross logical fails constitute “nit-picking”, I infer that self-consistency is not one of his main operative constraints.

Daniel Kuhn

[Reply: Anthony told you to stop cluttering up the thread with your pressure broadening comments. Please have the courtesy to comply. ~mod.]

Why is it that … NO ONE …. has or wants to …… conduct a “closed system” environmental testing ……. in an actual outdoor “greenhouse” to measure the “warming” effect, if any, of the atmosphere inside of said “greenhouse” with different concentrations of CO2 ppm.
I mean like, construct two (2) identical “greenhouses”, one (1) containing 400 ppm CO2, the other one containing 500 ppm CO2, and begin the experiment with both at the same internal temperature …. and then let them be subjected to the “daily” environmental factors while monitoring their internal temperatures for the next 48 hours.
If the “added” CO2 causes any additional “warming” of the internal environment then the highly sensitive thermocouples (or whatever) will surely detect it.
Cheers

TonyL

Hello db,
Nice graph, I have seen it many times here, as you know. Can you provide a source for the data? I am working on an idea which I will share here if it pans out.
Thanks.

Brandon Gates

First derivative of 0.5 * ln(CO2) with respect to CO2.

Hugh

Graph is a fake. As I can see it assumes temperature increase of about 0.4 Celcius degree per CO2 doubling.

Source for the graph is probably here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
It is David Archibald’s guest post.

Hugh

And the graph, to my eyes, looks horrible junk. You know, drawing a graph does not prove it is right nor convince the reader, if the point is quantitatively suspicious, let alone qualitatively unclear.
Put it another way: the graph looks so unconvincing that I don’t bother reading how Brandon assasinates it.

TonyL

Thanks, Hugh.
That was most helpful.

MarkW

Pretty accurate

@j.peter:
They are not ‘my’ graphs. They are graphs from different sources, and they all show the same thing because they are based on radiative physics. They accurately reflect real world observations.
So far I’ve posted three graphs, each from a different source, but all showing the same CO2/temperature relationship. Intelligent readers can learn a lot from those charts.
But from your comment, I see you’ve got nothin’ as usual. Just another site pest posting an ad hominem insult. You certainly won’t learn anything that way.

policycritic

What about this graph from Thermal Physics by Stephen and Katherine Blundell, 2010, Oxford University Press, p. 454. It shows the radiative effect of a doubling of CO2.
http://s29.postimg.org/bu7rxdlxz/Infrared_Sky_001.jpg

Brandon Gates

The radiance of that 15 micron abosorption band at 220 K is indicative that they were emitted somewhere around the tropopause, ~10 km in altitude. The clear implication is that the atmosphere below that is opaque to radiation in that spectral region. It turns out at sea level, a few tens of meters is all it takes for transmission to drop to zero in that band.

higley7

This Beer’s Law effect refers to converting IR radiation to heat energy in the atmosphere, which on a sunny day is a wash because the same molecules can do the reverse and convert heat energy to IR radiation.
This has nothing to do with the supposed Greenhouse Effect, which stipulates that IR from the upper tropical troposphere at -17 deg C can warn Earth’s surface at 15 deg C. This is thermodynamically impossible, as the surface is ALWAYS hotter than the troposphere. Remember, the models are daylight only, solar input 24/7 because they are using a core program for star that they cooled down to a planet—stars do not do night time.
During the night, CO2, water vapor and the tiny amount of methane serve to convert heat energy in the air into IR which is lost to space. There is no solar input to counter this, so they serve to cool the atmosphere, as evidenced by how quickly the air cools down after sunset or under scudding cloud shadows on a partly cloudy day, when small local breezes kick up in the shadows.
As the warmists know that their hotspot in the tropical per troposphere has failed totally to exist, they conflate the Beer’s Law effects with it and pretend that’s the Greenhouse Effect, which it is not and does not exist under their model conditions.
They also prefer to completely ignore that evaporation and the convectional warm, moist air to altitude and the return of cold water to the surface constitutes a huge global heat engine. In their limited models, they assume that water vapor complements CO2 in it false Greenhouse Effect. Estimates are that about 85% of the solar energy input is moved away from the surface by this powerful heat engine that would ramp up in its activity with warming, serving as a negative feedback mechanism. They completely ignore this simply water cycle that we teach in grade school and does indeed exist.

MarkW

Sigh, no matter how many times this nonsense is refuted, there are those who continue to cling to it.
It’s as bad as those who proclaim that we are all going to die based on the output of broken models.

Crispin in Waterloo

higley7
You are confusing heat conduction with heat radiation. That is a pretty basic error. Radiation travels outward all the time from all things with a temperature above absolute zero. Before emitting radiation the objects have no way to detect the temperature of all other objects that might received it, whether it is 1 foot or 1 billion light years away. They just emit it. All surfaces receive all incoming radiation, whatever the temperature.

mellyrn

@MarkW — I’m sorry, but I’ve never seen this argument before. It follows that I have never seen it refuted. What about it is nonsense? Do you mean that warming would not increase evaporation, and/or that evaporation does not cause cooling?

Brandon Gates

Crispin’s answer is the correct explanation.

Evan Jones

I think we’d wind up with a ~1C increase, like old Henny was saying back in aought-6.
And that amount of warming would result in what the IPCC quaintly refers to as “net benefit”.

I understood that the ‘d’nier term was used by team agw to represent anyone and everyone who merely thought humanity may not be the predominate cause of warming……

correct. the D word is applied to anyone that denies that the earth has warmed and humans are the cause, and if this process is not stopped great harm will result.
if you suggest that science doesn’t in fact know if this is true, then you are a D’er because the science is settled. labels like naysayer don’t describe the problem properly, because that is considering the problem from a science point of view, while belief and opinion are the provinces of religion and politics.

KaiserDerden

the science is never settled mor*n … this just proves you are the denier of science …

Duster

In fact, what can be stated empirically based upon geological data is that no level of CO2 in the atmosphere can have “catastrophic” effects. There is considerable “revisionist” drivel, primarily by “warmists” chasing grants that attempt, badly, to show that CO2 did bad things at various points in the geological record, but there has been no corroborative independent studies supporting any of these ideas. If CO2 in the atmosphere could cause a catastrophe, then the catastrophe would have taken place more than 250 million years ago. Constraining any discussion of CO2 effects to the last 1,000, 2,000, or even 800,000 years is cherry picking, regardless of the stance on AGW.
If CO2 does have some warming effect, and there is no sound reason to think it does not, then geological evidence suggests that on this planet that warming effect apparently tops out at a global mean temperature of about 25-deg. C, which is not a catastrophe. Similarly, due to entropic effects, there is less carbon available biologically now than there was two million years ago, and less then than 150 million years ago, and less then than at the appearance of complex life in the paleontological record. Life removes carbon from the atmosphere, much of it is loss in the deep oceans and will not become available again for a very long geologically, if ever. The vast majority of carbonate rocks on the planet are the result of biological removal of carbon from the environment, and there are immensely greater volumes of carbonate than of petroleum.

MarkW

When CO2 starts getting around 4% of the atmosphere, people start dying.
However there is no chance of that happening.

Evan Jones

I am part of the problem, I guess. I have no problem with ascribing recent warming to man. For my calcs., I “assume” that 100% of warming is anthropogenic and results directly or indirectly from CO2.
But even after all that, it is only mild lukewarming: No net feedback in evidence.

milodonharlani

This is why I think it’s wrong to use d*nier at all. The slur was invented to tar all skeptics with the same brush, from our host to the Slay*rs whom he has banned.
To d*ny, ie be skeptical of, CACA, ie Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism, is good science. IMO the Slay*rs are unscientific. Maybe not as bad as anti-scientific biological creationists, but close. The Warmistas are also anti-scientific, IMO, because they change their data instead of their miserably failed models, among other violations of the scientific method.

Daniel Kuhn

“The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (both from satellites and, independently, from radiosondes) doesn’t show a warming. ”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2000/plot/uah/from:1980/to:2000/trend

Hugh

The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (both from satellites and, independently, from radiosondes) doesn’t show a warming

I fail to understand this statement. What I see between 1978 and 2000, is warming. What I see after 2000, is insignificant warming.

“But once they add the CO2 increase into the models, they claim good agreement with the reported global surface temperature record. Ergo – evidence for AGW.” The same would be true if they would correctly add solar variability into the equation. Dips and spikes in TSI since 1880, match the surface temperature record quite well.

I’m sure there are other things that correlate too. The issue is that once they found that CO2 correlated they had their answer. This is CO2 as “the filler of the gap”.
Once they had positioned CO2 in the gap they had to make sure that nothing else could get a look in, because that would reduce the size of the gap and therefore the importance of CO2. (Real) scientists would say, “what else might be happening?”, while AGW pseudo-scientists say, “move along, there’s nothing to see here, it’s all settled”.

Charlie

Only the left has enough blind ideological followers to run a scam this long. When you believe you are in the stratosphere of intellectualism just because of the way you vote this is the result. How this political faction got a hold of soft academia is a mystery to me. If this was the right or even a libertarian scam this phony propaganda hustle could mean the end of those two political parties. When the poop hits the fan most likely there will be a lot of” passing the puck” of blame and claiming “the science wasn’t there yet.” or “we were just being good environmentalists.” The blatant fraud and all the useless followers most be called out an dealt with in a fair and appropriate way. The breakdown of scientific integrity on this issue ans a few others is an epic violation that can’t be smoothed over.

As I told my friend Ebenezer Rabbet, I´m in the middle. THis is a very comfortable position to be in, because it allows me to listen to arguments flowing back and forth. I pick off the arguments I like, and use them to develop my own ideas, which are very practical and pragmatic. And I also integrate other issues.
Which brings me back to my favorite subject: it seems to me we are running out of fossil fuels. I realize this is a very controversial position to take, but it´s based on my own are of expertise (I have been in the business of extracting said fossil fuels for 40 years).
Anyway, when I couple the climate sensitivity described by Dr. Curry in her recent paper to accepted fossil fuel resource estimates, the global warming problem becomes a secondary issue ( it doesn´t really matter much which resource estimate one uses, except for the resource estimates prepared by the Alice in Wonderland Institute, or the guys preparing the IPCC´s RCP8.5 case).
Now I´ll give you an example of what I mean. Here´s a one page summary of the US Energy Information Agency´s 2015 Energy outlook, issued earlier this week. The URL takes you to the summary, and that links you to the 100+ page report, which makes an interesting read if you want to wade through it. I suggest you focus on the share of renewables in energy production by 2040, the CO2 emissions, and the fossil fuel prices.
The fossil fuel prices are particularly interesting. The EIA is aware we are gradually running out of easy fossil fuels to extract. They don´t make a big deal out of this, but the idea is reflected in their predictions. They predict prices will rise relentlessly in the future, in real terms. Such an increase means the industry will have to work extra hard (and at higher expense) to deliver the products to the market.
Their prediction is also a clear contradiction of the RCP8.5 oil production forecast, which climbs to an incredible 170+ million barrels of oil per day.
The URL to the EIA summary review is here.
http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/p/the-2015-energ.html

There seems to be an abundance of natural gas, also a fossil fuel.

dickon66

There are still huge amounts of fossil fuels that could still be extracted, but up until recently only the relatively easily and cheaply extracted fuels have been used. Fracking is a way of getting at the not-so-easily extracted fuels and in the future we’re going to need to work out new ways of getting at the even harder to get at fuels. I remember when I was at school, my geography teacher telling my class that the Alaskan oil sands would never be an economical source of oil; time and technology changes our perspectives.

RWturner

All sorts of claims have been made over time, including oil will never be found west of the Mississippi and there is no oil in the Middle East.

MarkW

The fact that we are producing more fossil fuels than ever is proof that we are running out?

johnmarshall

And what empirical evidence does Dr. Singer have that the GHE actually happens?

Bob

Dr. Singer wrote:
“One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface.”
You can do the experiment yourself. Buy an infrared thermometer. About $10 to $30 on Amazon. http://goo.gl/abOU6s.
Test that thermometer on various objects—stove top, boiling water, refrigerator, freezer, etc. When you are confident it works pretty well, take it outside at midnight and point it at the sky. It there is no greenhouse effect (no downwelling infrared radiation), it will read about -400 degrees Fahrenheit. If it reads a whole lot warmer than that, say it reads only -40 degrees, then something between you and outer space is radiating a lot of heat your way.

That is true, but, so what? The ground is radiating it right back. CO2 from TOA radiates in all directions, and the fraction that comes down is absorbed and thermalized miles above ground. Thus, increasing CO2 could warm up the atmosphere miles above the surface, but not the surface. Who cares? No one worries if your airliner is flying through -55 C instead of -54 C…

Oops, darned negative signs, “-54 C instead of -55 C”

RWturner

So you are saying that the absorption and radiation of IR from gases only occurs in the upper atmosphere but not in the lower atmosphere?

MarkW

Temperature is determined by the balance of energy flows. In this case radiative and conductive.
The fact that a small amount of radiation from the sky exists means your net temperature will be higher than if that flow wasn’t there.

Brett Keane

That effect is purely caused by the presence of mass in a gaseous state, intercepting some of the solar flux after it has been re-emitted by the surface at night. For the gas to add heat to itself would be reverse entropy. Doesn’t happen, as has been demonstrated. Brett

taz1999

For reasons not here or there, my job has given me tours of some of the finest Deserts our country (US) has. And the US has a bunch of desert BTW. I’ve always opined that if you really want to study CO2 AGW study in the Desert. Generally the Desert starts to minimize water vapor as a variable the equation. Deserts go from remarkably hot to remarkably cold, remarkably quickly. If CO2 is significantly damping the effect then you should be able to quantify it. Also disclosure I live in a place where humidity dominates the weather/climate

Kurt in Switzerland

First problem: scientists need to agree on a definition for “Global Warming” (and stick to it).
Second problem: scientists need to agree on a metric to calculate “Global Warming” (and stick to it).
Once that’s done, we can BEGIN to address whether someone’s prognoses are indeed accurate (and whether the corresponding model(s) indeed have merit or not).
Only then can we rationally address whether there is a “problem” of sustained anthropogenic GHG emissions threatening the planet (as well as the relative wisdom and/or effectiveness of proposed measures to combat said problem).
BTW, the onus is on those proposing the phenomenon to define it and select the appropriate parameter to either confirm or reject it. (P.S.: there needs to be a rejection criteria, a.k.a. “falsifiability.”)
To date there has been far to much duplicity, goal post moving, reliance on re-analysis to massage data, etc.
Meanwhile, throwing around the “D” word does nobody any good.
My thoughts anyway,
Kurt in Switzerland

First problem: scientists need to agree on a definition for “Global Warming”
============
exactly. What does “Global Warming” mean? Is that all warming including natural, or only that caused by humans?
And what is “Climate Change”? Does that include natural change, or only that caused by humans? Does it include “Global Warming” or not? Is there “Climate Change” that does not include “Global Warming”?
Every other branch of science start with defining its terms. Where is the formal definition of Climate Science terminology? How can it be a science without a formal language?
Politics on the other hand relies heavily on imprecise language, allowing politicians to promise two mutually exclusive things to two different groups of people..

Bubba Cow

I agree, but to be even more so, I want to know what Climate is – and I don’t want that average weather over whatever period. I want to know all the functions (earth, ocean, solar, cosmic . . . whatever) and their relative quantitative contributions to the, I imagine, massively dynamic, complex, inestimable, function of Climate so that we can compute the first derivative of that big C with respect to time. I realize that this is completely unreasonable – that’s part of the point – so that then we can think about “well that came out positive, what the heck could that mean”?
Without clear definitions and precise language prerequisites to any arena of science, is it surprising that there is disagreement (not talking about faith or belief, alarm or denial)?

Jim Francisco

Ferdberple. I applaud your efforts to correct the terminology that is used in these discussions. When I was a young person trying to learn about the instrument and autopilot systems of aircraft we used up to three different names for the same component. It was very confusing.

Duster

Bubba Cow
April 16, 2015 at 6:31 am

+1

Kurt in Switzerland

Bubba and Fred:
Thank you for your comments. If some clear ground rules (such as suggested below) were established (and adhered to), several positive results would transpire:
1) we would be able to have constructive debates (too often, one side merely “talks past” the other).
2) a great deal of the “misinformation” would be quickly called out and thereafter ignored by most.
3) we would actually have a basis to assess the effectivity of the myriad “policy alternatives” being suggested.
4) the science would progress.
This subject should be brought to the level of a main post – I would like to think that such a step would be welcomed by scientists and politicians alike (on both sides of the debate).

cnxtim

If it is considered important to put labels on those who have a deep interest in the phenomenon of man made climate alteration then OK, place me on the cusp between Sceptics and Deniers.
For what is nothing more than a theory which has been afforded international accord it has simply not earned.
AGW is a theory based on the non-existence of correlated evidence.
Scottish law has a good way of expressing this, Guilty Innocent or Unproven

Travis Casey

I agree. That there has been no warming since 1980 is shown by satellite and weather balloon data is a bizarre claim.

Evan Jones

The thermometers I have seen say different. So do both UAH and RSS. It was a positive PDO period.
It has been flat since 2001, when the PDO hit an apex, and went negative in 2007. It should be cooling a bit, but instead what we see is a flat period similar to the negative PDO of 1950s/60s.
In that sense, the “pause” is a statistical artifact. But the flip side of that is that only ~half the warming from 1976-2001 is anthropogenic. One must average both positive and negative phases to obtain the actual warming signal.

DaveF

Have I got this wrong, or is Professor Singer saying that the satellite, radiosonde and proxy records show little or no warming in the late twentieth century but anyone who says there has been no warming is a denier?

Hawkward

Yep, you have it wrong.

Bruce Cobb

There are two basic groups; Climate Realists, and Climate Liars. Now, you can divide those two basic groups into sub-groups if you like, though I don’t really see the point of that. One side is interested in the truth about climate, and the other isn’t. It is as simple as that.

Owen in GA

But who decides truth…to an CAGW believer, they are the realists, to a CAGW skeptic, they are the realists. Each tends to think the other the liars.
Me, I think there are many CAGW scientists who truly believe they are doing good science in trying to tickle out a signal from hopelessly noisy data. I believe them misguided, but fundamentally honest. There are a few that are definitely lying and know they are lying as the famous email release showed. There are others that are following the crowd and looking for a niche to stake their careers on. This group I kind of feel sorry for as they may be getting a bit of a queezy feeling that something isn’t right, but their continued employment and advancement relies on toeing the party line and they can’t see a way to break out and continue to make a living.
I am unconvinced that the data is any where near good enough to say one way or the other, and I hate (let me restate HATE!!!) the very mention of the “precautionary principle”. If we followed the precautionary principle no one would have invented fire or the club or the sharpened stick because all these things can be misused to harm ourselves. With the precautionary principle, we would all live like the family at the beginning of the animated film “The Croods”. I, for one, do not wish to live that way.

Bruce Cobb

Sugar coating it doesn’t change the situation. Participation in a lie makes you a liar by default. As for the truth, no one gets to decide that. The ultimate arbiter of the truth about climate is the earth itself. The Climate Liars have their models, which are based on what they think the climate should and will be doing. We have reality.

Evan Jones

There are two basic groups; Climate Realists, and Climate Liars.
[*icy grin*] Why, yes. And they abound on both sides of the debate.

Walt D.

A problem is that how man-made CO2 affects the total CO2 in the atmosphere is not well understood.
We do not have a clear answer to the question of what effect the adding of x billion tonnes man made CO2 will have to the total CO2 in the atmosphere. The model currently assumes that CO2 is not re-absorbed.
A scientific approach as described by Feynman would require us to know this before we start modelling.

Daniel Kuhn

“The model currently assumes that CO2 is not re-absorbed.”
really? why do they talk about ocean acidification then?

richardscourtney

Daniel Kuhn
You ask

“The model currently assumes that CO2 is not re-absorbed.”
really? why do they talk about ocean acidification then?

Surely you do know that “ocean acidification” is merely the next attempt at a scare now that global warming has stopped.
Richard

Walt D.

“Why do they talk about ocean acidification then”.
Because they never took a college course in chemistry. The oceans are alkaline and ph changes both seasonally and regionally.
You assume with no proof that changes in ph are primarily caused by the absorption of man-made CO2 from the atmosphere.

billw1984

We don’t have a good record of ocean pH. They are just seriously starting to measure it. The pH data is even more sparse than the ocean temperature data. The ARGO network is great but it still only samples a small part of the ocean and only for ~ the last ten years. Arguments about pH are just speculation.

Daniel Kuhn

Walt D.
first you say
“The model currently assumes that CO2 is not re-absorbed.”
then you say
“You assume with no proof that changes in ph are primarily caused by the absorption of man-made CO2 from the atmosphere.”
what is it now, is “the mdoel” currently assuming that CO2 is not re-absorbed or that it is re-absorbed (atleast partially) by the oceans for example?
make up your stupid mind.

Crispin in Waterloo

Daniel Kuhn
“really? why do they talk about ocean acidification then?”
Because people have no idea what they are talking about. Really. There have been some appallingly bad claims attributed to AG CO2, and the ‘acidifying of the oceans’ is probably the worst (though it gets stiff competition).
There are places in the world with really high ocean temps, and low pH. They have lots of shellfish and coral just like the ‘regular’ oceans.

Crispin says:
Because people have no idea what they are talking about. Really.
Exactly right. There is a mountain of information in the WUWT archives, if Daniel Kuhn is really interested in finding out why ocean “acidification” is a baseless scare.
All he has to do is start reading. The threads are still open. He can ask all the questions he wants, in the proper place.
But the elevator speech is this: ocean “acidification” has not gained any traction in the mainstream scientific community because all the available evidence shows that it isn’t happening.

Daniel Kuhn

amazing how you stupids miss the point, first he claims current models assume that CO2 is not reabsorbed, when in fact, one of the “lies” from science is that the oceans absorb Co2 from the atmospehre….
but hey, just ignore that and bring the usual talking points from WUWT……
and i get my science from scinetific sources, not WUWT….
do you get your medical advice for your heatdesease from online homeopathy forums?
REPLY ~ Why howdy, ADC, old son. Fancy meeting you, here. Tell you what: we’ll drop the talking points if you-all stop with the sobbing points. ~ Evan

Is D. Kuhn saying that oceans do not absorb CO2? His comments are often confusing, and this one doesn’t make clear what he is saying.
One thing is clear, though:
i get my science from scinetific sources, not WUWT
Kuhn’s ‘science’ is as accurate as his spelling. In fact, WUWT has won the internet’s “BEST SCIENCE” award for the past 3 years. Thousands of professionals with advanced degrees in the hard sciences read and comment here. This is the best climate site on the internet.
But Kuhn denigrates it. Why? Because so many highly educated readers regularly point out that he’s wrong. So why would he comment here, if this isn’t a scientific source as he claims?
Daniel Kuhn is not only wrong about the supposed seriousness of man-made global warming, He is also a misfit who is trying to convince readers, without any success at all, that his MMGW conjecture has any credible, verifiable evidence supporting it.
It doesn’t. MMGW may exist as a minuscule and unimportant effect, but it can be completely disregarded for all practical and policy purposes. It is a tempest in a teapot, and the only reason it is still discussed is because of the immense financial resources keeping the scare on life support.
But the public is gradually realizing that the whole thing is a giant hoax. That will only happen more and more, because once people decide that they’re being lied to, the alarmist clique will never be able to frighten them again.
Nice try, alarmists, but you lost the debate.

Daniel Kuhn

” WUWT has won the internet’s “BEST SCIENCE” award for the past 3 years.”
yeah im sure the scientific isntitutions around the planet were all very impressed…..
what a joke
“This is the best climate site on the internet.”
LOL
“It is a tempest in a teapot, and the only reason it is still discussed is because of the immense financial resources keeping the scare on life support.”
yeah alex jones style conspiracy theory now?
“But the public is gradually realizing that the whole thing is a giant hoax.”
LOL
in what fantasy world are you living?

Daniel Kuhn is a very unhappy guy. His last comment denigrates and insults me, which is expected since I destroy him in every argument — and he insults the other readers of this excellent science site.
Readers come here to learn, and to contribute their knowledge. But a few misfits like Kuhn come here to sow discord. The only ‘knowledge’ they seem to have is what they cut and paste misinformation from their low-traffic alarmist blogs.
We see in Kuhn’s last comment that he has nothing to contribute except his hatred. It is a mystery why he comments here. He has apparently not convinced a single reader that he is right about anything — primarily because he’s wrong about everything. Don’t take my word for it. The planet is responding as scientific skeptics expected. It is certainly not doing what the alarmist crowd has predicted for years:
• The Arctic is not ice-free, and in fact it is gaining ice cover rapidly.
• Tuvalu is not sinkling beneath the waves.
* There are no credible measurements showing ocean “acidification”.
• Extreme weather events have been declining for decades.
• The IPCC head admitted that global warming has stopped, and they have ratcheted down their sensitivity estimates with every new assessment report.
• Sea level rise is not accelerating.
• Carbon dioxide is completely harmless at current concentrations, and there is zero indication or evidence that more will cause any harm.
• Agricultural productivity is rising in lock-step with rising CO2.
• Tens of thousands of scientists and engineers have co-signed a statement saying that CO2 is beneficial and harmless.
• And the original bugaboo, the man-made runaway global warming predictions, have been so thoroughly discredited that “global warming” is rarely mentioned; now it is the Orwellian term “climate change”, which means nothing.
In summary, Kuhn and his kind have been proven wrong about everything they’ve been saying.
When a skeptical scientist is wrong, he acknowledges it and tries to find out why. But as we saw in the Climategate emails, modern climate peer review has been thoroughly corrupted. It is a back-scratching system that rewards those who promote the MMGW Narrative, and it punishes those who try to conduct honest science.
So there you have it. Readers can take sides: either they are interested in finding the truth of the climate matter, or they are Kuhn’s type, which we can see in his last comment above. The overwhelming majority of WUWT readers, probably 97% of them, come here to learn from the many geologists, chemists, climatologists, mathematicians, engineers, and other knowledgeable contributors. The other 3% come here to cause disruption. Daniel Kuhn’s last comment shows he is part of that 3%. He’s angry, and the reason is obvious: he’s lost the debate, and his side is losing public support. I expect that trend will continue.

The Arctic sea ice is about 6% under the long-term average.
The Antarctic sea ice has been OVER 2x std deviations ABOVE average for most of the past three years. 25% to 35% ABOVE average for most of the past years.

Arctic ice rapidly increasing:comment imagecomment image

Catherine Ronconi

J. Peter,
Arctic sea ice is recovering because CO2 has little to nothing to do with its fluctuations, because air temperature is not the most important factor. Ocean temperature is.
When the satellite record began, the Arctic was near its high for the century, after three decades of cooling ocean temperatures, due to natural oscillations. During the 1920s to late ’40s, Arctic sea ice extent contracted, as during the interval from the late ’70s to ’00s. The cyclones of 2007 and 2012 also reduced coverage as measured by satellites.
But the PDO and AMO have flipped sign, so that Arctic sea ice extent should once again gain, as has indeed been observed since 2012.
The fact that Antarctic sea ice, which has a much greater effect on planetary albedo, has grown to record highs for the observational period despite supposedly warmer air temperature and higher CO2 levels, shows how little CO2 matters.

MarkW

Fact: CO2 is reabsorbed into the oceans.
Fact: The models ignore this.
Why do you assume that the two statements are mutually exclusive?
OR are you just pulling a Kuhn?

Daniel Kuhn

“Fact: The models ignore this.”
“Compared with observation from Valsala and Maksyutov [Valsala and Maksyutov, 2010], the 13 earth system models of the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), which make their carbon cycle experiments outputs available, well capture the pattern characteristics and seasonal cycle of the air-sea CO2 exchange flux.”
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2015/EGU2015-6542.pdf
you know nothing about the models, yet make claims about “THE MODELS”

Walt,
The models not only assume that part of the extra CO2 (in mass, not in original “human” molecules) is re-absorbed, they take the estimates into account for the calculations of the carbon cycle:
Of the ~9 GtC/year human emissions, the sink rate is:
~1 GtC/year in the biosphere, proven by the oxygen balance
~0.5 GtC/year in the ocean surface, proven in a few longer series as an increase of total carbon (DIC) with decreasing pH.
~3 GtC/year in the deep oceans as net mass balance, partly proven by following tracers like the 14C bomb spike, the 13C/12C ratio, CFC’s,… at several depths of the oceans.

Evan Jones

Give him a break, Deebs; being Swiss, he’s quite unamerican. I wish I could misspell German half as well as he misspells English.

gaelansclark

This is perverse. I have never been given a sound reason as to why the actual temperature record is changing……always reducing past temperature while raising current temps and thusly increasing the slope of the rise. I am sick and tired of the moniker of “denier” and quite frankly wish someone would use it to my face as they would quickly learn not to do it again. I cannot acxept the “science” behind the failed hypothesis of CAGW as the hypothesis keeps getting reshuffled to fit the facts of the world today AND because of the Climategate embroglio AND because of gavin schmidt running a blog while being paid by me. I cannot watch a single natl geo show with my daughter because she is being abused and brainwashed by the meme.
I used to live in the High Rockies…..NOT ONCE did I ever get an accurate temperature forecast for any day or time of any day. Sometimes in the winter the temp forecast was off by 15 degrees. I now live in the Tampa area and rarely see accuracy of within 2 degrees. And every time I listen to, read, or watch anything that has to do with life in general…..I am told that we need to stop global warming now or in one hundred years our children will suffer from a couple degrees rise in temps….which is measured to the thousandths of a degree. Indeed, 2014 was supposed to be the hottest year ever…..by 0.004 degrees.
Who can believe that crap? Who wants to believe that crap? I don’t want to know you.

John Gorter

+1
Ciao
John

Why was there no mention of the benefits of CO2 with regards to plant growth or current levels helping to keep about 1 billion people from starving compared to pre-industrial levels ?

Paul

“Why was there no mention of the benefits of CO2…”
Because it would most likely negate the reason for a carbon tax.

MarkW

When I’m feeling particularly contrarian, I tell people that CO2 should be subsidized, since it’s net effect is positive for man.

Paul

“I tell people that CO2 should be subsidized”
I don’t know if I’d go that far. My only fear of making CO2 “acceptable” would be; what next would the eco-loons demonize to save the planet.? children?

MarkW

I don’t usually say it because I don’t believe the govt should be involved in such things. However, from time to time I get really irritated at those who are demanding CO2 be taxed. I point out all the good things that more CO2 is doing for us, and then tell them that by their logic, CO2 should be subsidized, not taxed.

Mike Maguire

Excellent article. It’s always amazed me that some of us get called deniers because we believe the warming rate will be 50% of the warming rate that they “project” even when we present solid science to support our position.

Denier is a political term used to denote belief. It is not a scientific term, and thus cannot be refuted by science.

Hugh

The article is not excellent, but I agree with your amazement. Part of the problem might lie in the fact that the most stubborn people spread stories that are utterly wrong, then these are used agaist lukewarmers from both sides.
Guardian might be stubborn, but climate blogs are mostly worse.

So what is the bad name? Ken? Cecil? Montmorency?

blogagog

If he’s going to insult one side by calling them deniers, shouldn’t he also insult the other side by calling them alarmists, armageddonists or chicken littles?

Charlie

I’m a horrible denier and proud of it! Might as well go reverse psychology on these hustlers. The skeptic don’t need any propaganda tactics like provocative semantics. The science is free of human coercion and it speaks for itself. It just a matter of getting the scam to crumble more quickly because it’s a huge waste of time and energy. it is also a massive embarrassment for the scientific community.
I am also a palm reading denier

Evan Jones

I am also a palm reading denier
You got something against proxies, sonny? #B^)
Seriously, When I was out on a date once, for kicks we dropped in for one of those 5$ readings (the only time I ever indulged in such nonsense). She held my palm in her hand and observed my dress, manner, and demeanor and came up with a concatenation of stereotypes accurate enough for a solid B-.
One of my closest friends scratched out a living for years as a tarot reader tele-psychic. He got the job by telling them that his grandmother they gypsy taught him how to read cards as a child. The reality was that she considered cards (especially tarot) to be instruments of the devil and would have burned them all if she could have. He was by far the best of his immediate colleagues.
He reported the following:
1.) All of his colleagues believed in psychic phenomena.
2.) None of them believed that they, themselves, actually possessed the gift.
3.) They all firmly believed that he was the only genuine psychic in the room.
He milked this for all it was worth, which was not nothing.

theBuckWheat

There is another aspect to climate science: the corrupt influences of the funding of research and the pandering to the ideological framework of the people who approve and deny academic appointment, tenure and peer review mechanisms
A sign of the corruption can be found in how easily people who insist they are “scientists” lapse into hyperbole when announcing this month’s new research findings. The signal for me is where the solutions that are demanded in the most urgent voice, all converge on a socialist worldview: statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, even fewer people. That bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”.
For my part,I am waiting peer-reviewed research that shows the optimum climate for our biosphere. The first question that would naturally flow would be where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.
Strangely, nobody seems interested in this vital comparison.

Charlie

I don’t think any optimal climate exists Buck. I have never heard of a detailed study or peer reviewed literature on what an optimal climate would be. The only thing I’ve heard is that most of our current vegetation has an optimal nourishment at about 800-1300 ppm co2. We are currently at roughly 400 ppm. i believe optimal climate is a figure of the human ego and imagination.

Duster

theBuckWheat
April 16, 2015 at 4:22 am

Get a text on basic paleontology, get a chart of the Geocarb III model of CO2 over the Paherozoic, plot extinctions, major and major paleontological events. You will find that first CO2 has never been stable ove planetary history. Nor has the climate, nor do they move in any sort synchronization. No such thing as an optimal climate except conditionally for some specific species or biota.

Bubba Cow

That “one minute flat” Feynman video is 1:02.
The :02 anomaly might be catastrophic.

Paul Westhaver

Feynman tells a story about counting to 60 seconds in his mind while he does other things and admits that when doing so, his internal clock is off by a few seconds. Maybe he was counting secretly this time and meant to make it exactly 60 seconds. My counted 60 seconds is about 63 in reality. I think my heart rate perturbs my timing.

Paul Westhaver

Here is the link to Feynman talking about his internal counting…time stamp 2:20. I stumbled on this a few years ago.
Feynman talks about counting

Bubba Cow

Thanks, Paul.

Walt D.

You use the religious term “deniers”. There is another category you have missed – “liars” people who deliberately produce research that they know is not based in sound science in order to promote an agenda.

Evan Jones

Let ’em. Those studies go down in flame, nowadays. Those guys hurt their own side far worse than they hurt us.

“Another subgroup says that natural annual additions to atmospheric CO2 are many times greater than any human source; they ignore the natural sinks that have kept CO2 reasonably constant before humans started burning fossil fuels.” – Error: fossil fuels burned naturally very long before man learned to use them for his needs: “Oil, asphalt, and gas meantime had been known to be oozing out of the ground in the Baku region on the western side of the Caspian Sea for thousands of years. In lands like that, there and south 700 miles into Persia (approximately Iran’s domain today) and in part of the area of the Persian Gulf, the Biblical flaming bush was no miracle or apparition – some did just that. In some places there were columns of fire roaring and dancing 24 hours a day and the Zoroastrian religion made the phenomenon central to beliefs and rituals. Says Yergin, “…those pillars were, more prosaically, the result of flammable gas associated with petroleum deposits, escaping from the fishers in porous limestone.” In the 13th century says Yergin, “Marco Polo reported hearing of a spring around Baku that produced oil which ‘though not good to use with food,’ was ‘good to burn’ and useful for cleaning the mange of camels.” (http://ecocitiesemerging.org/2015/03/baku-azerbaijan-a-good-place-for-a-new-paradigm-conference/). Folk stories and myths tells that there were “seas of eternal fire”…

Error: fossil fuels burned naturally very long before man learned to use them for his needs:
=============
naturally released fossil fuels are also eaten (oxidized) by microbes for energy which produces CO2 in the process. no one really knows how much CO2 results.

Ignas,
While there are a lot of uncontrolled natural emitters like volcanoes, wildfires, coal seems burning,… These seems to be rather controlled by natural processes that did bring the equilibrium back to what temperature dictated over the past 800,000 years. The more sure the later in the record.
It would be en enormous coincidence that natural CO2 levels start to increase in exact timing and ratio to human emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. As human emissions are already twice the increase in the atmosphere, the whole natural carbon cycle is a net sink for CO2, already over the past 55 years…

Sounds like Theists, Atheists and Agnostics, ya know?

Alan Robertson

Yes.

David Riser

Generally a good article, however….. CO2 is not as simple as proposed in this article. There are really two halves to the CO2 debate and where it goes and how much man is responsible. One is physics where CO2 is just moved about from one source to a sink. The other is biological. We don’t actually know by observation which larger. Dr. Salby makes a fair argument that its “surface properties” with a 1/3 to 2/3 split man vs nature.. Even then, temperature is probably a secondary effect. But we don’t know. There are biological processes which rely on CO2 to consume more CO2 and these processes disassemble CO2 into C and O2. These processes require sunlight, more sun more heat = less CO2. These processes are also related to the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere more CO2 = more C and O2. Much of the disassembly does not necessarily make it back to a CO2 molecule. This is an active area of research with a lot of innovative experiments going on by all sides of the debate.

David,
The net consumption of CO2 by the biosphere (plants, bacteria, molds, insects, animals) is known with reasonable accuracy thanks to the oxygen balance: slightly more oxygen is produced than used since ~1990. That gives that the biosphere is a net absorber of about 1 GtC/year:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.short
and free:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

David Riser

Ferdinand,
6 stations? Two research papers? Please that is hardly global, and does not apply to the entire biosphere as O2 concentrations in the ocean are highly variable. I think this area qualifies as an active area of research and in order to make broad claims you need to sample every different type of biosphere that exists, which they haven’t. Not that the paper wasn’t interesting or a good read, they are just reaching like a lot of scientists seem to do today.
v/r,
David Riser

David,
Oxygen is a well mixed gas, distributed with some delay from the sinks and sources towards height and between the hemispheres. Even if the data were from one station, its trend would be sufficient to do the calculations, as is the case for CO2. Using more stations mainly reduces the error bars, which are quite huge in the case of oxygen measurements.
There is no need to sample every biosphere, as all what one need is the overall oxygen change, as good as the overall emissions and overall CO2 increase in the atmosphere to know what the total CO2 sink capacity of the biosphere for each year is.
The biological processes in the oceans are quite different from these in the atmosphere, as CO2 is not a limiting factor, nutrients and trace elements like iron are far more important. But even so, what is produced or used as oxygen will exchange with the atmosphere and will be counted with the land biosphere, with a small correction for the solubility of oxygen at different temperatures. In general the ocean surface is saturated for oxygen…

nc

Fernando you overlooked methane.

nc,
Not really, methane increased (in ice cores) somewhat earlier than CO2 (rice cultivation for an increasing population?), but boomed together with the start of the industrial revolution. Must be a hell of a coincidence for (a)biotic methane to start increasing at the same timing and size as human emissions…

Evan Jones

Over the medium haul, methane has been increasing, but the the rate increase has been decreasing. A convex curve.
Methane is a minor player. Persistence of only ~20 years, and it abrades chemically rather than doing the CO2 sink dance, so when it’s gone, it’s gone.

o2bnaz2

[snip – you are welcome to resumbit leaving out the racial slur -mod]

Paul Westhaver

Fred,
I have yet to read the article to it’s entirety, (i haven’t read the last few due to work) But the first few paragraphs struck me. I will come back to the rest later today.
I think I get your point, but the term denier is not a term of my making, and though I am a skeptic about most things, human caused global warming as an example, I am placed in the denier column only due to the efforts of those climate nazi’s who created the term denier in the first place. I believe that it is their intent to put all those who do not march to their beat in the denier column.
I willfully accept participation in the pejorative category since it is not of my definition nor control. Sticks and stones…
I will not judge myself by the term however, your mild adoption of the term is a bit troubling, particularly since you choose to parse it and assign nuance. I’d rather you, as a skeptic of man-made global warming, stick to terms of science rather than adopt the vernacular of those who wish we science-loving types ill-will. You may be attempting to establish ownership of the word and if so, forgive me, but then again, the word is corrupt beyond repair. IMO.
I’ll come back a bit later.

Alan Robertson

Agreed.
I won’t be adopting the “D” word(s) and it’s regrettable that SFS has gone down that road.

Steve Case

The atmospheric temperature record between 1978 and 2000 (both from satellites and, independently, from radiosondes) doesn’t show a warming.
????????????????
RSS and UAH both show warming between 1998 and 2000

Steve Case

1978

harrytwinotter

Steve Case.
That is what I found as well. Even if you take out the 1998 El Nino spike, RSS and UAH show warming.

harrytwinotter:
Wrong.

j.peter,
Go argue with arch-Warmist Dr. Phil Jones, of Climategate infamy. He was the one who designated 1997 as the start year for determining whether global warming has stopped.
In an interview in 1999, Jones was asked whether global warming had stopped, since it had not risen for two years. Jones replied, “Yes, but only just.” Jones explained that fifteen years were necessary to determine statistically whether warming had indeed stopped.
That brings us to 2012 (1997 + 15 years), at which time skeptics began reminding Dr. Jones and others of what he had said (the internet never forgets, to Jones’ chagrin).
So by 2012 it was clear that global warming had stopped, according to über-Warmist Dr. Phil Jones. It didn’t resume after 2012, either. Global warming remains stopped: 18+ years and counting.
Therefore, according to Dr. Jones — one of the central authorities in the AGW crowd — global warming stopped in 1997.
Naturally, anyone can cherry-pick a particular year like 1999 that shows something else. But that devious game playing ignores the experts.
If j.peter was sincere, he would write to Dr. Jones, and ask his opinion. Instead, he diddled with the Wood For Trees site until he found what suited his belief system. That is a common trait among the climate alarmist crowd, because the truth is not in them.

j.peter says:
Your first chart uses 2002 as a starting point
Yes, as an example to show people like you that the WFT site can be used to show anything. It’s not my fault you don’t pay attention.
Your second chart does not remove the El Nino spike.
Again, you deflect. What you either don’t understand or are deliberately misrepresenting is that Dr. Phil Jones designated 1997 as the start year, which includes the spike — not scientific skeptics. So you keep squirming around, trying to avoid Dr. Jones’ start year. Jones is available. Go argue with him if you don’t like it.
And it’s true that harrytwinotter didn’t mention Jones. Why would he? That would be taking in all the available information, and your side never does that. You argue by confirmation bias, which forces you to pre-select only those factoids that support your eco-religion.
Skeptics look at all facts and all the evidence. If they warrented concern over the rise in CO2, skeptics would be first in line demanding action.
But all available facts and evidence show that CO2 is completely harmless, and it is beneficial to the biosphere. Therefore, the MMGW scare is debunked nonsense. QED

Wellllll, I usually use the 20 years between 1976 – 1996 as the only time in the earth’s history when both CO2 and global average temperature rise at the same time, but if y9ou want to use 1978 and 1998, it seems a bit prejudiced towards the “El Nino” Supreme year of 1998 as that end ppoint. Nevertheless, lettuce assume 1998 is useable. We would then see a 20 year rise, followed by an 18 static period – while CO2 rose and the earth’s temperature remained steady.
Preceded of course, by the 23 year period between 1945 and 1978 when CO2 rose and global average temperatures declined.
And the long period before that between 1908 and 1945 when CO2 was essentially steady, but global average temperatures rose measurably.
Seems you don’t like to remember those other years, do you?

j.peter

“lettuce assume 1998 is useable”

..
You have something against cabbage?

Yeah. Eating dead green stuff the consistency and flavor of shredded green paper is a waist of time, money and effort.
Food = Maximum number of needed calories in the shortest time possible at the lowest possible price at the place and time I happen to be inconvenienced by hunger.
Provided with the lowest amount of time and effort possible.
Hell = I ate enough yesterday.
Why should I need to waste time and money eating something again today?

You did not read carefully, did you? 8<)
Speed, efficiency, time of consumption, total time of support and supply and logistics, availability and cost are all relevant.

Brandon Gates

Word salad.

j.peter called the WFT chart I posted “bogus”. Yet he posts WFT charts just like I do. A hypocrite, no? And criticizing me for mentioning Dr. Phil Jones, while making his off-topic comments? Really, j.peter makes it too easy for me. It’s like arguing with a child.
j.peter also whines about the chart date. So here is a chart with both dates; 1997 and 1998. Notice that they corroborate my other links.
j.peter is twisting himself into a pretzel trying to avoid the fact that even the head of the IPCC has admited that global warming has stopped, and that one of the true stars of the alarmist universe — Dr. Phil Jones — has designated 1997 as the start year for deterining whether global warming has stopped.
Misdirection, deflection, misinformation, moving the goal posts, and ad hominem attacks are the tools of the alarmist clique. That’s because they have lost the basic argument: their incessant predictions of runaway global warming and climate catastrophe have been so thoroughly debunked that whenever they’re mentioned, people laugh at them. They’ve even given up on their original scare: global warming. Now it’s the Orwellian term “climate change” — which means nothing.
Finally, RACook is correct, and j.peter has no answer. So he changes the subject. Typical misdirection. Alarmists have lost the debate, and I think they know it. We certainly do.

Catherine Ronconi

Christy and Spencer acknowledge that UAH data need adjustment and are working on the problem.
Meanwhile, RSS, though run by alarmists, shows global cooling, although not statistically significant back to the 1990s.
So, yeah, what’s not for skeptics to like in their observations? But for the sake of humanity, let’s hope that the Modern Warm Period continues at least until fusion works commercially.

Since j.peter cherry-picks the WFT charts he likes, while saying others cherry pick WFT charts he doesn’t like, I think we can just ignore him. Hypocrites are not worth listening to.
I prefer to listen to the head of the IPCC, who has stated that global warming has stopped, over an anonymous site pest.

Catherine Ronconi

J. Peter,
You apparently don’t know what confirmation bias is, despite practicing it with such reckless abandon.
I didn’t pick either. I pointed out that RSS is presently preferable to UAH because the latter needs some justified adjustment, as recognized by its operators.

Catherine Ronconi

DB,
Right. And in neither data series is there statistically significant warming for going on twenty years, despite steadily rising CO2.

j.peter@blueyonder.co.uk

[snip -fake poster using multiple IP addresses that are physically impossible in time and space – all your posts and replies to it will now be deleted, punk – Anthony]

Catherine Ronconi

No one complains about open, justified adjustments, with good reason.
A one time adjustment to surface station data to account for the switch to digital thermometers, for instance, would be acceptable. As would adjustments for time of observation, etc. But the climate criminals continually make the past cooler and present hotter. They use UHI adjustments to make the record hotter rather than colder. They adjust the oceans higher to bring them in line with the falsely heated land “record”, for instance.
GISS, HadCRU and their fellow unindicted co-conspirators for long have committed unjustified, continual adjustments, mainly in secret until forced to make public their ludicrous algorithms. Dragged kicking and screaming, more like.

Catherine Ronconi

I suspected that Peter pulled a boner. Probably Denial in drag.

“peter” is someone who co-opted another user’s identity. He’s been deleted and banned.

Catherine Ronconi

As you have been repeatedly shown, the cooling is from the late 1990s, not since the 1980s.

Catherine Ronconi

Anthony Watts
April 17, 2015 at 1:09 pm
Thanks for your vigilance. I won’t ask how that outrage is committed but can think of some possible means.
I feel slightly culpable even when using the ID on my phone instead of my name on this computer. I let people know who I am when I do.

harrytwinotter

I am not sure why dbstealey shows a temp dataset chart with different years. He has to post something I guess, even when it is wrong.

harrytwinotter

I can’t believe dbstealey has trotted out the Phil Jones says global warming has stopped hoax again. Phil Jones was misquoted, he did not say global warming had stopped (read the whole article for context).
“BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
Phil Jones: I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.”

@harrytwinotter,
What I wrote to another numpty applies to you, too:
warrenlb is incapable of identifying any global harm from the rise in (harmless, beneficial) CO2. Therefore, CO2 is “harmless”. QED
There is ZERO empirical, testable scientific evidence showing that what we have observed globally over the past twenty years is outside of past parameters.
Therefore, what is observed is nothing more or less than natural variability. You see a “human fingerprint”, but that is entirely in your imagination. People constantly see patterns that aren’t there. That’s why we use the Scientific Method.
Go back to you eco-church and tell them about the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. They probably have some canned response for their lemmings, which should keep you in line.
For thinking folks, though, all you are doing is searching for cherry-picked factoids to support your MMGW confirmation bias. That may impress unthinking acolytes. But real scientific skeptics know better.
As for your eco-religious belief, Phil Jones shows conclusively that there is nothing happening now that is any different from what has happened before:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
I laugh at you religious numpties, seeing an imaginary “fingerprint of MMGW” where none exists. Fools will beleive anything told to them by climate charlatans, and credulous folks like you are what keeps those Elmer Gantrys in business.
Go peddle your nonsense where unthinking folks hang out. Here, we know better than anonymous numpties who are afraid to identify themselves.

harrytwinotter

dbstealey charging around the field with the goalposts, shouting insults all the way.

Evan Jones

RSS and UAH both show warming between 1998 and 2000
That, being a huge whipsaw, is a meaningless interval for general purposes. Be very wary about any start or end point that occurs in that interval. Two-way street for cherrypicking (skeptics like 1998 for start-point, while alarmists favor 1999-2000).
Anthony and I use start and endponts of our subseries in both 1998 and 1999, but we do not claim either is representative of overall trend: we are deliberately selecting that breakpoint so as the examine the effects of warming vs. cooling on stations/microsite. But 8 times out of 10, 1998-2000 is an inappropriate start/endpoint.

Steve Case

1978

David Ball

~1650

97%

Bill Illis

What do we call the warmistas who are adjusting the basic climate data in order to keep their warming belief system on the table. If not for these adjustments, the warmistas would have had to admit already that the theory is off. The same goes for the aerosols forcing estimates which are slowly being re-estimated downward.
There is a big ethical question here that the three simple categories does not fully address.

Walt D.

Its the “liars” vs “deniers”

James J Strom

“What do we call the warmistas who are adjusting the basic climate data in order to keep their warming belief system on the table.”
Doesn’t the term “anti-science” float around in these discussions?

Paul

“What do we call the warmistas anyone who are adjusting the basic climate data in order to keep their warming belief system on the table.”
My preference is liar. But fraud, fake, and charlatan also apply.

Catherine Ronconi

The real climate criminals, guilty not only of fraud, theft, waste and abuse, but arguably mass murder.

Gamecock

I don’t care what you call me. The problem is Dr. Singer is playing their game.
We know for a fact, by real world observation, that any (or none) impact of changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to date are overwhelmed by natural forces. There is no requirement to know what those natural forces are. Man made global warming, to the extent that it is dangerous, is false on its face.

emsnews

Yes, the ethics of tampering with temperature data, removing thermometer stations cutting these by more than 50% in Canada, the US and elsewhere, the use of computer models that never change when incoming data proves these to be rigged to show only warming, etc.
The collapse of ‘science’ here is entirely one sided. The warmists have their fingers on the temperature scales and are making the past colder and the present warmer via computers. This flies in the face of reality where it is getting rapidly colder on the real planet we live on.
There is no ‘pause’ we are now entering a true cooling cycle and we have no idea where the bottom of this cooling lies or how long it will be.

Paul

” This flies in the face of reality where it is getting rapidly colder on the real planet we live on.”
IMHO, once huge reductions in fossil fuel usage is forced upon us, that same cooling will be attributed to those reduction mandates. Once the hook is set, there is no going back.

Thank you, prof. em. Singer. Whether nature abhors a vacuum or not, I don’t know, but I do know I abhor extremists at whatever side.
Your arguments are the kind I as a skeptic need to reasonaby argue with what you call “warmistas”. That in itself is difficult enough. But then come along what I will call (after dr. Spencer) the “Dragonslayers” (I wish to avoid the D word), and that of course gives the “warmistas” all the opportunities they need to invoke the straw man argument.

Geologist Down The Pub Sez

I keep running across the word “believe” in this thread. Believe is a religious term, and has no place in science. So I have to conclude you guys are having a religious debate, which leaves me out. Environmentalism, BTW, is a fundamentalist religion, not a field of scientific inquiry.

jhborn

Excellent post.
It always helps to be reminded of the lay of the land by a serious person. Trading gotcha’s has become tedious.
Not to take away from anything else Dr. Singer said, but I felt it was particularly good to be reminded of the following:

That’s how we’re trained; we question experiments, we question theories. We try to repeat or derive independently what we read in publications — just to make sure that no mistakes have been made.

Everyone makes mistakes, but the difference between true scientists and charlatans lies in how they react when they’ve made them. True scientists admit their mistakes. Charlatans bluster, evade, ignore, misdirect, or attack the messenger: anything but face the issue head on.
I personally think it’s the warmist camp that is more densely populated by charlatans, but charlatans should be called out no matter what side of the debate they’re on.

There is no “greenhouse”
==================
correct. greenhouses work because they block vertical circulation of air. they are not the result of down-welling radiation. thus to say the greenhouse effect warms the earth is wrong scientifically.

PiperPaul

But ‘greenhouse effect’ can mean whatever the CO2-obsessed want it to mean. Just like ‘climate change’.

Hugh

Well then we should stop talking about GHG’s.

mellyrn

+!
Wouldn’t a real (i.e., not laboratory) atmosphere just “fluff up” more when it warmed?

Mike M.

ferdberple wrote: “greenhouses work because they block vertical circulation of air. they are not the result of down-welling radiation. thus to say the greenhouse effect warms the earth is wrong scientifically.”
At worst, that means that “greenhouse” is a bad analogy. Both a physical greenhouse and the atmospheric “greenhouse” work by influencing heat transfer: convective heat transfer in the case of the former, radiative in the case of the latter.
ferdberple’s argument is like arguing that Conservation of Energy is scientifically wrong since we all know that when we burn gasoline we use up the “energy” in the gas.
Words mean different things in different contexts. Sometimes unfortunate, but unavoidable.

Duster

mellyrn
April 16, 2015 at 6:23 am
+!
Wouldn’t a real (i.e., not laboratory) atmosphere just “fluff up” more when it warmed?

In fact, it does. One of the less discussed aspects of the current stable or even slightly cooling period is a reduced necessity to adjust the orbits of satellites in low orbit (e.g. GPS satellites which have very low orbits).

Steve Reddish

Duster April 16, 2015 at 11:00 am
mellyrn
April 16, 2015 at 6:23 am
+!
Wouldn’t a real (i.e., not laboratory) atmosphere just “fluff up” more when it warmed?
In fact, it does. One of the less discussed aspects of the current stable or even slightly cooling period is a reduced necessity to adjust the orbits of satellites in low orbit (e.g. GPS satellites which have very low orbits).
==========================================================
Check out: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/
This is NASA acknowledging that CO2 cools the upper atmosphere, and that instead the Sun is in control of the upper atmosphere’s temp and volume.
“But the numbers don’t quite add up,” says Emmert. “Even when we take CO2 into account using our best understanding of how it operates as a coolant, we cannot fully explain the thermosphere’s collapse.”
According to Emmert and colleagues, low solar EUV accounts for about 30% of the collapse. Extra CO2 accounts for at least another 10%. That leaves as much as 60% unaccounted for.”
I submit the reduced solar wind during solar minimum was a major part of the unaccounted 60%, and thus was a major part of the warming effect when solar activity was high. Solar wind is one factor not included in TSI.
SR

‘red-kneck dogmatists’ is what Singer seems to be talking about, but really there aren’t many of them, perhaps a few thousand mostly in the US. And that is the context he should have set.
– Yes alarmists generally seem to seek to caricature ALL Climate SKEPTICS as a particular type of ‘red-kneck dogmatists’ who have certainty in the mirror image of the extreme alarmists ie perhaps believing in such things that GHG effect is certaintly zero and an ice age is starting in a few years. However their mirror image whose certainty includes things like 6C rise by 2100 is certain and/or that solar/wind are credible replacements for real power within 30 years, are certainly MANY MORE in number. Add that to the fact that the rest of the entire warmist side has dogmatic certainty. Whereas the rest of the skeptic side just don’t go beyond the evidence and only have certainty about things that have actually been proven, which leaves a wide range of possible scenarios with probabilities that you can argue about.
Perhaps we could put the context as..
: 3% of skeptics give skepticsm a bad name.
: 80% of warmists give warmism a bad name
: the remaining 20% give warmism a criminally/insane name.

Charlie

regardless if the ignorant uneducated right wing or blind denier types are mainly in the US or not(I hardly think that) the only people we have to worry about are the well informed on the subjects science or lack there of. Of these people we have the skeptics or “saners” who mostly don’t have any monetary or political skin in the game. That would be most people on this blog. We also have the well informed “warmists” who by simple logic have to know this is a scientific scam and continue to push it do their political and monetary interests. They may think that the science is secondary to their other interests due to to feelings of ideological grandiosity. This is another type of ignorance on the other side of the spectrum. The red necks and yuppie know it alls or not really important. Tribal uninformed ideologs should not be part of the issue.

tabnumlock

I go beyond being a denier and think nicer weather and more abundant crops would be great. I pray that the extreme warmists are right but think we’ll get zero detectable warming. I am, however, a climate alarmist on the subject of the imminent end of the current brief interglacial. What should we call such people? Sane? Non-idiots? People who aren’t morons?

EternalOptimist

Seems to me that Singers meaning of a climate ‘denier’ is someone who is not a warmista but does not have an open mind.
why invent a new word when the words already exist and they are much more accessible and explanatory ?

There are those of us who are convinced for various reasons that CO2 does not warm the planet and that the 33 degrees warming due to “back radiation” is just not true. Since there is a banned group who happens to also believe as I do, not for exactly the same reasons, I can not mention my reasons as it is not allowed on this blog.
I can mention, without violating the site policy, that I think Dr. Singer is wrong on how this planet’s weather system works. I offer no defense of my beliefs other than my beliefs were pretty commonplace before James Hansen spread his fear mongering. So, I’ll now go away for this thread.

The purpose of this little exercise is to illustrate the power of water vapor in controlling the climate’s heat load.
For this example 350 W/m2 is the approximate heat flux at ToA.
A watt is a power unit, energy over time, and equals 3.4 Btu/h.
In 24 hours the entire atmospheric volume will rotate through this heat flux and accumulate x.xxE? Btus.
For dry air, no moisture, 0% RH, to absorb this heat would result in a temperature rise of 1.34 F.
The evaporation of water into vapor at 950 Btu/lb without any increase in temperature, i.e. isothermal, would increase the atmospheric water content by about 14%, i.e more clouds, more albedo, less heat.
It’s the H2O thermostat that controls the greenhouse, not CO2. It’s the H2O thermostat that controls the simplistic blanket analogy as well.
Power Input, W/m2 350
Btu/h per W, Btu/h 3.4
Heat Input, (Btu/h)/m2 1,190.0
Earth Cross Sectional Area, m2 1.28E+14
Time, h 24.0
Heat/Energy Input over 24 Hours, Btu 3.64E+18
Atmospheric Dry Air, lb 1.13E+19
Dry Air Heat Capacity, Btu/lb-F 0.24
Dry Air Temp. Rise over 24 Hours, F 1.34
Water Vapor Heat Capacity, Btu/lb 950
Water Vapor Increment, lb 3.83E+15
Water Vapor in Atmosphere, lb 2.80E+16
Incremental Water Vapor, % 13.70%
Miatello explains water vapor using calculus.
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop

sunsettommy

Personally it is the lack of scientific rigor that is lacking these days. Where is The Scientific Method being applied for climate research inside the IPCC and out side of the organization?
I see models as a research TOOL,not something that can fully answer questions,since the underlying information is often incomplete, not adequately understood enough,to make a credible case for a position.
There are simply too many loose ends in climate research to be making all kinds of far into the future scenarios,and call it good science.

Hi Fred: I have put up a response to your post on my blog:
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2015/04/fred-singer-about-nay-sayers-like-me.html
I would appreciate a comment by you on my blog.

Nice reply to Mr. Singer. I do hope he drops by over there and makes a reply. Time will tell.

edX is now hosting a climate science denial course and of course the normal idiots like John Cook, Scott Mandia and Dana Nuccitelli are running the show. I think we need people to signup to show that these “deniers of science” are the problem not the solution.
Making Sense of Climate Science Denial
Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial.
University of Queensland
Starts April 28th, 2015
Enroll Now
Level: Introductory
Length: 7 weeks
Effort: 1-2 hours per week
Subject: Communication
Institution: UQx
Languages: English
Video Transcripts: English
Price: Free
Basic high school science recommended.
About this course
In public discussions, climate change is a highly controversial topic. However, in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.
Why the gap between the public and scientists?

Charlie

it is because many people in the public understand the science. That would be both scientists and other intelligent people who took the time to do the research. it is quite clear for anybody who does proper research of just the science that the propaganda is way off, It is also clear that the 97% consensus is completely contrived. i would suggest researching the science and staying away from the journalism and polls. From my own experience the scientific community as a whole does not in an way support this movement from a scientific point of view. i hope soon that at least this phony consensus propaganda will be cleared up.

David Thomson

All this talk of warming, why is there no mention of thawing? The great North American ice sheets used to extend well into the United States. The ice has been steadily thawing for thousands of years. One would think that if thawing is at work, then night time temperatures would account for most of the global temperature rise over time.

gbaikie

As Feynman explained in a minute, the “warmistas” were and will remain forever, wrong.
And the “deniers” were correct- and that also for forever, and really does not matter what reasons a denier choose to give.
And people on fence were not correct.
The so called Deniers may be annoying. But if someone trying to lead everyone in a gas chamber, whether person who object to the idea is ill mannered or whatever reason is oppose to it, the important point is they are correct.
And forever correct.

higley7

“One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.”
Downwelling IR, fine, but it is reflected, not absorbed. That’s a huge difference. The energy levels equivalent to the IR emitted by the cold upper troposphere are already full in Earth’s surface and thus will simply be reflected back upward. Thermodynamics is still valid here.

mkelly

Concur.

+1

But this would still slow down outbound heat transport, wouldn’t it? The IR photon is bounced back to lower levels of the atmosphere and has to begin its upward travel once again. Whether it’s absorbed by the earth surface or by another CO2 molecule doesn’t make that much of a difference.

Brett Keane

@Michael: The theoretical energy value of that ‘DWLR’, if it could be kineticised, would only ‘heat’ us into a frozen block. That is, not at all. Brett

What?

Brandon Gates

You’re on it Michael, he’s talking gibberish.

No it’s mostly absorbed at the surface either land or water.