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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBFZEYkzKXc
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).
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dr. Singer is off base in accusing “deniers” of refusing to acknowledge evidence of downwelling IR radiation, as he is in stating that such evidence disproves the argument that greenhouse warming violates the second law of thermodynamics. If downwelling (scattered) IR radiation were in fact absorbed by Earth’s surface, then it would indeed disprove that argument (and the second law!), but to my knowledge, there is no evidence that it is absorbed, and therefore the argument stands, as does the second law, thank goodness!. Solar irradiance measurements at Payerne, Switzerland indicate that the total downwelling (positive) IR flux at 10m in September is ~ +300W/m^2, and that the total upwelling (negative) flux is ~ -400W/m^2, giving a net negative (upwelling) flux to space of ~ -100W/m^2. From this, it seems clear that the -100W/m^2 is entirely Earth’s primary IR radiation and that all of the +300W/m^2 of downwelling IR is reflected at the surface, as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics.
Anything that can emit a frequency, can also absorb that same frequency.
True, but absorbing at the same frequency doesn’t result in warming. Warming can only occur if higher frequencies are absorbed (color temperature principle/Wien’s law). Earth can’t warm itself with its own radiation.
“Earth can’t warm itself with its own radiation.”
Darn and double darn. I guess my perpetual motion project is not going to turn out so well after all. 🙁
The notion that atmospheric pressure is what warms the surface is the perpetual motion.
An absorbed photon imparts an energy gain, always. Do not confuse transfer of energy with net movement of heat, and you will not violate the 2nd law either.
Good one. I think of it this way: photons do not have temperature, they just have energy. Were it not so, we would catch fire going outside on a sunny day … and starlight would put pinhole burns in our clothing …. 🙂
SkepticGoneWild,
I believe he’s quite clear on the difference. What I read him saying is that the photons coming out of that LED impart the same energy to whatever they impinge on no matter what the temperature of the emitter. The atmosphere works the same way. A photon from 10 km up emitted by a 220 K CO2 molecule at 15 μm carries the same energy as a photon kicked out by 290 K CO2 molecule near ground level at the same frequency. Only difference is that the warmer molecule will be emitting more of them. Result: net energy flux is toward the cooler body, hence heat transfer is toward the cooler body — however:
Both bodies are perfectly capable of absorbing energy from each other regardless of their relative temperature difference.
This is BASIC first year thermodynamics. No object in the universe cares about the temperature of the emitter (how would it keep track????), only that it has been impinged by a photon at an angle of incidence and wavelength its molecular structure and surface features are disposed to absorb rather than reflect.
Were it a strict requirement of the laws of physics that a cooler body cannot “warm” a hotter one, we would have no use for clothing on a very cold day. In point of fact, we would DIE in anything less than an ambient temperature very near that of our bodies’ core — for darn sure “room temperature” is far less than 310 K. The proper way to think of this is in terms of net energy flux.
This discussion (MarkW, Brandon Gates, j.peter, SkepticGoneWild) illustrates how poorly understood EMR is. Some points: 1. Photons don’t travel through space. EMR is transmitted only as frequency (invariant) and amplitude (diminished as square of distance). Waves can only exist in a physical medium, which is absent in space. Photons are created when EMR is absorbed by matter, at which point Maxwell’s wave-based equations take effect. 2. When matter receives EMR of the same frequency as that which it is emitting, any energy gain due to absorption will be balanced by energy loss at the same frequency. Only EMR of higher frequency can add energy. 3. Energy perceived by rods and cones is not energy absorbed unless the source is at a higher color temperature than the receiving eye. 4. Starlight doesn’t riddle our clothing because the amplitude of the higher-frequency energy we absorb from it is greatly attenuated by distance. 5. Heat transfer to a cooler body by EMR depends only on frequency, not on amplitude. It doesn’t matter how much EMR of a given frequency is present; heat transfer will only occur if the ambient EMR is of a higher frequency than that being emitted by the receiving matter. 6. Clothing doesn’t warm us. We warm ourselves with our own energy-generating metabolism. Clothing only retards the loss of the metabolic heat that our bodies generate.
Brandon,
Need I remind you of the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time”
That is BASIC first year physics. There is no “net energy flux” term in the Second Law. Heat transfer is one way, hot to cold. By the time one takes a thermodynamics course, this should be already ingrained in your head.
A block of ice next to you will not warm you up even though it is emitting thermal EMR.
You are also confused about insulation. Insulation reduces the flow of heat transfer by limiting conduction, convection, or both. A radiant barrier also limits heat loss by radiation. This is High School physics. Hot coffee at 90 degrees C poured into a thermos will not warm up. Insulation is purely passive.
You stated:
“Both bodies are perfectly capable of absorbing energy from each other regardless of their relative temperature difference.”
If a cooler body warmed up a warmer body, the warmer body would in turn warm up the cooler body. That would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics as well, leading to what’s known as perpetual motion of the second kind.
David Bennett Laing
2. When matter receives EMR of the same frequency as that which it is emitting, any energy gain due to absorption will be balanced by energy loss at the same frequency. Only EMR of higher frequency can add energy.
Take a steel plate at ambient temperature. Its emissions “color” will be broadly in the far IR, including the 15 μm band. Take a CO2 laser, emitting a lot of EMR in the 15 μm band only. Direct the beam towards the steel plate: it will melt and at the same time emit light in the visible range. It seems to me that something is wrong in your description…
3. Energy perceived by rods and cones is not energy absorbed unless the source is at a higher color temperature than the receiving eye.
As far as I know, TV and computer screens, LED lights emit light at exactly the three frequencies (RGB, red, green, blue) where the eye has its maximum sensitivity. Not one of these frequencies is from the high part of higher color temperature…
@ur momisugly SkepticGoneWild
Agreed, and nice simple explanation.
SkepticGoneWild,
For the love of all that is logical, why do you feel colder standing in a walk-in freezer than you do in “room temperature” air — which is decidedly less than your body’s core temperature?
David Bennett Laing,
!!!
How is it that you can see stars at night? Are you imagining them? Did those photons get here via teleportation?
Luminiferous aether theory is dead, killed and gone. The only waves which don’t travel in a vacuum are sound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
Learn something.
David Bennett Laing,
PS:
Yes. You’re on to something good there. A “room temperature” environment is still cooler than your core. But after an hour outside in sub-freezing weather, do we not still say, “I’m going to go inside for a bit to warm up”?
Brandon,
Will your next “proof” state, “the sun revolves around the earth!”, because we say the sun “sets” and “rises”?? After all, we sense with our eyes that the sun rises in the morning, and sets in the evening.
You are not looking at the physics of insulation. It’s passive. No energy is added per the First Law of Thermodynamics. Insulation provides for a reduction in one, or a combination thereof, of the three methods of heat transfer: conduction, convection and radiation.
Human skin makes a poor thermometer. Walk barefoot on a tile floor at “room” temperature. If there is a piece of carpet on that tile floor, step on that as well. They are both the same temperature. Which feels colder? The tile floor. Why? Tile is a good conductor of heat compared to the piece of carpet. More heat is conducted from your skin when in contact with the tile, so your skin feels colder with the increased loss of heat.
What happens when you wear a jacket on a cool day? Your skin warms up the cold layer of air trapped between your body and the inside of jacket.so your skin feels warmer. The insulative properties of the jacket reduce conductive and convective heat losses so that warm layer of air can be maintained. Your skin will also warm up the cooler points of contact with the inside of the jacket, and the jacket insulation reduces the rate of heat loss, so your skin is losing significantly less heat when compared to contact with the cold air.
You stated:
“For the love of all that is logical, why do you feel colder standing in a walk-in freezer than you do in “room temperature” air — which is decidedly less than your body’s core temperature?”
Are you serious? Based on my comments, I don’t even know why you are asking this question? This puts the common statement, “there is no such thing as a dumb question” to test. Answer the question yourself based on the physics of heat transfer.
The argument about bodies at different Temperatures emitting radiation that may travel to either a cooler body or a warmer body, is exemplified by the sun and the moon, both of which subtend an angle of about 30 arc minutes as seen from earth.
So when the moon is on its way to an eclipse rendezvous in angular space with the sun, The TOTAL amount of earth emitted radiation (of whatever species) that is impinging on the moons cold surface, is almost exactly the same as the total earth emitted radiation that will eventually arrive at the sun albeit maybe 8 minutes later.
The point is that if the sun or the moon can see earth’s radiation from their position, then it is a requirement of geometrical optics, that the earth can simultaneously see both the moon and the sun from where earth is (eclipse hasn’t happened yet).
Therefore the earth can and does receive simultaneously from both the sun and the moon, a beam of EM radiation that may be the thermal emission spectrum of those two bodies, at their vastly different Temperatures.
Both sun and moon are receiving identical amounts of radiant energy from the earth, but the earth is receiving vastly more radiant energy from the hotter sun, than it is receiving from the relatively cold moon.
Therefore, the earth will have a net energy gain from the sun’s energy compared to what it sent sunwards, while the moon will likely have a net energy gain from the earth compared to what the moon sends to us.
So the Second law sanity is retained, and nobody is doing anything illegal.
The NET transport of “HEAT” energy is always from hotter to colder, but the movement of some energy in the opposite direction is not forbidden, and it is always less in net.
Rudolph Clausius, was one of the first to derive the “Optical Sine Theorem” , the Rosetta stone of geometrical optics from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
It says in effect that NO optical system can make an image that is brighter (higher radiance) than the source is. Because of reversibility, it also can’t make an image that is less bright than the source.
Ergo, Radiance ( more strictly “etendue” ) is an invariant under all optical transformations.
In fact, the most important is to understand that climate can only have impacts through weather. And climate change can only have impacts through changes in weather. So the warmists have to prove, in their wording, that weather is climate. They have to prove that changes in weather are highly correlated with the increase in global temperature or the increase in CO2.
IPCC AR5 & WMO define climate as weather averaged over thirty years.
And that is a wink of an eye in the interglacial cycle.
Perhaps the definition is base upon average PHD career cycles…
And here I thought it was the PDO cycle!
Sad but true.
“But laboratory data show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly.”
Dr. Singer, would you please supply a reference for this assertion? Tx.
Many years after graduating from the mother-ship of propaganda, the Wharton School, I was chatting with one of the alpha marketing professors, and I asked what he thought was the most fundamental point to emerge from the school’s long and preeminent history of marketing research.
People see what the expect to see,
not what is really there.
Sorry … what they expect …
In fact, that’s what makes proof-reading one’s own work so challenging.
Good one.
“People see what they expect to see,
not what is really there.”
Singer Paul Simon sang it better, “Man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.”
Calling skeptics Deniers is an insult. For Singer to us this word to describe skeptics is arrogant and simple minded. Singer has shown himself to be a bully just like the Alarmists. As far as I am concerned his credibility has been severely tarnished with this schoolboy article. I don’t need to be lectured by a bully, whether they are Alarmist or a skeptic. If that’s the best you can do Singer, then keep it to yourself.
I see the three camps of believers, skeptics, and deniers, as it applies to climate variability, as one whale-sized red herring.
Isn’t the real issue whether people are believers, skeptics, or deniers of the forecasting power of mathematical models?
We are not arguing about climate; we are arguing about mathematics.
* * * * *
Incidentally, are there any fellow drummers out there who are familiar with the rudimental drum solo Three Camps?
Yes, sir. I always thought the ending to it sounded a bit like, “One, two, three strikes! You’re out!” My forte, though was Connecticut Halftime. Boy, that was a long, long time ago. There were only 26 recognized rudiments back then. They must number in the forties, now.
” 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”
——————-
Let me correct the above to a way that will turn Such “deniers” to be right and probably put the author of this blog post at the spot of accepting it or no, and there for deciding his own position.
Now let me turn to the “skeptics”. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not at all exist as a climate changer or a cause of warming–because that it violates the Second Low of Thermodynamics.
Unless proof or evidence of a possible such a violation shown than there is no chance of AGW or ACC, either benign or catastrophic to really be considered as probable…..
cheers
[That argument (that “claim”, actually) is made some readers here. It is disputed by other writers.
It is absolutely NOT true for “all deniers” nor even “most deniers” nor even “many deniers”. “Some deniers”? Yes. A few. .mod]
Anthony,,,, are you going to allow my comment waiting moderation to be shown here?…..please do understand once you do allow it, I will label the author of this blog post by the same arrogance and manner he has employed…according to my understanding……
Thanks Anthony………..
As I promised, I will now label the author of this blog post or the originator of the blog post, or whoever the below selection belongs to.
For lack of a better wording and in accordance to this blog post and the arrogance and and the manner employed, the labeling of the one targeted consist of a range been somewhere in between a naysayer and a denier….
Explanation:
According to this said:
——-
“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.”
————-
Anyone that does not work with or even work around the accepted physical laws, but instead goes for a bitching around and hand waving, either that been in a supposed academic manner or not, is one that supports and instigates anarchy in science and learning.
Any one, that stands in front of an immortal like Newton and contest his laws better be better than Newton himself and offer better laws to replace the long established standing ones, otherwise the contesting one is only a stupid bubble confronting an immortal, regardless of his tittles and Phd or Nobel prize.
Also by another saying in the same blog post prior to the above one:
——–
“That’s how we’re trained; we question experiments, we question theories.”
—————-
You are not trained to question the physical well established laws, unless you are better than whoever contributed and offered such laws, and also you must offer better replacement…….otherwise you will be only a fool.
You can question an experiment or a thesis or a theory, but you can not replace a well established physical low with a thesis or a theory or a experimental conclusion no matter how appealing that may seem to you or your supporters,
Therefor I have no problem as considering whoever the above selections belong to as at the very least a naysayer and at the most a denier…..regardless of his tittles and invested authority in physical science…
The ones called deniers have a point (a very valid one) standing in established physical law not theories, regardless how improper or shallow the point made.
That is one of the most stronger points against AGW, either that AGW being benign or a catastrophic one….
Anthony, I am really sorry if I have being harsh……and thank you in advance.
cheers
From the article:
“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.”
Doesn’t this reply contain more questions than answers? If we allow that a large volcanic burp of CO2 doesn’t even cause a transient spike of atmospheric CO2 levels, how does this fit with the idea that continuous, steady human emissions are exceeding the capacity of natural sinks?
What about the geothermal heat flux and volcanic activity on the ocean floor that 1) heats the ocean & 2) adds CO2, SO2, CH4. IPCC is uncertain about the ocean below 2,000 meters which is half of it.
Most of that is absorbed by the deep oceans, which show high C levels, but no observed increase over time…
Michael,
The largest eruption of last century after 1960 was the Pinatubo, the CO2 emission of that eruption was not noticed in the CO2 levels, to the contrary: there was a drop in the rate of increase, as the temperature drop and/or extra uptake by vegetation (from light scattering) had more effect…
@ferdberple — It was once believed that greenhouses worked by allowing visible light to enter while preventing the IR light from leaving. My father taught me that as a child and like many things we thought we knew, it was wrong.
Understanding that context helps to see how the mis-named atmospheric greenhouse effect got it’s name. But the name has stuck. CO2 still is widely believed to be a “greenhouse gas,” regardless and it’s pointless to argue over how it retains heat.
“But laboratory data show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly.” Alas, I expect BETTER than this from Dr. Singer. This is an open ended statement, which leads one to think “superficially” that CO2 is a predominate influence. A more precise statement needs to be made. A look at the various atmospheric absorption curve representations illustrate that CO2, is an element, a PART of the absorption, and not a major part. See:
%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.randombio.com%252Fco2.html%3B490%3B401 ) Secondarily there is evidence that in terms of its net effect at the current levels, it has reached somewhat of a saturation. Third, a BLANKET STATEMENT implying that CO2 is an IR absorber neglects over 80 years of data and measurements that show CO2 shifts from a “downflux” agent in the troposphere, to an “upflux” agent in the upper reaches, or stratosphere, and to calculate the net exchange in the atmosphere correctly, this shift must be accounted for. Sorry, the old “engineer” in me demands “precise speak” (instead of New-Speak) even at the risk of serious “MEGO”. (My Eyes Glaze Over).
the John Houghton quote is wrong
(although, it paraphrases something similar, by Houghton)
Climate scientists who continue to exhibit climate alarmist views, are giving climate science a bad name, if not a bad name to science in general.
That seems like a firm statement about something we know very little. We aren’t sure of the CO2 levels before the 20th century.
We only have proxies, and ice cores that may well smooth the readings.
We do know the Carboniferous had high CO2 levels so it’s not impossible they can be different to now naturally.
In my judgement we don’t know what Singer asserts is certain.
Just out of interest, I would like to address one of the comments of Prof. Singer and combine it with the second graph displayed by Brandon Gates April 16, 2015 at 5:25 am. Together, they find warming/cooling periods starting and ending on roughly the following dates [estimated by my eye from Brandon’s graph]:
1880 – 1911 cooling – 31 years
1912 – 1943 warming – 32 years
1944 – 1975 cooling – 31 years
1976 – 2006 warming – 30 years
I would like to point out that these transition dates [between warming and cooling] seem to occur roughly eleven years after the transition dates for 31/62 year Perigee-Syzygy cycle between 1865 and 2015.
[For a description of the Perigee-Syzygy seasonal lunar cycle see this blog post:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/evidence-that-strong-el-nino-events-are_11.html%5D
These dates are:
Epoch 1 – 15th April 1870 to 18th April 1901
Epoch 2 – 8th April 1901 to 20th April 1932
Epoch 3 – 20th April 1932 to 23rd April 1963
Epoch 4 – 23rd April 1963 to 25th April 1994
Epoch 5 – 25th April 1994 to 27th April 2025
Adding eleven years to these lunar transition date [possible caused by the thermal lag of the oceans, although some might invoke Hale sunspot cycle] then you get:
1881 – 1912 – 31 years
1912 – 1943 – 31 years
1943 – 1974 – 31 years
1974 – 2005 – 31 years
The match is not perfect but it does point towards a ~ 31 year modulation of the world mean temperatures by the ratio of frequency/intensity of El Nino event compared to La Nina events. Indirectly, it also suggests that this ratio is determined by the 31 year Perigee/Syzygy seasonal lunar tidal cycle.
Wilson, I.R.G., 2013, Are Global Mean Temperatures
Significantly Affected by Long-Term Lunar Atmospheric
Tides? Energy & Environment, Vol 24,
No. 3 & 4, pp. 497 – 508
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/03n7mtr482x0r288/?p=e4bc1fd3b6e14fd8ab83a6df24c8a72d&pi=11
I found your analysis quite interesting Ian Wilson. Thanks.
Ian Wilson,
Very interesting. It looks like the Perigee-Syzygy cycle dates are pretty close to the transition dates between AMO warm and cool phases. Many of us believe that the latter is connected to global T as part of the “stadium wave”. So is that somehow lnked to the moon? Strikes me as unlikely, but it would be fascinating if true. Such a short data set is insufficient to establish a connection, but proxy data on the AMO, and some other stadium wave components, go back much further. It would be interesting to see if the relation holds going further back in time, but I am not going to undertake that.
Reference on the stadium wave: Marcia Glaze Wyatt and Judith A. Curry, “Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century”. Alas, I only have a preprint that says it was submitted to Climate Dynamics in September 2013.
Ian Wilson,
You may be interested in the work being done by Vaughan Pratt at Stanford:
http://boole.stanford.edu/pratt.html
See esp. the first link, “An Ekman Transport Mechanism for the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (poster)” which is a .pdf file of a poster he presented at last year’s AGU meeting in San Francisco. I’ve fiddled with the length-of-day data from here …
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/ut1lod/lod-1623.html
… myself and can confirm the correlations he’s seeing. I won’t pretend to be able to explain the proposed physical mechanism. Whether it will have any predictive value remains to be seen. I gather from asking around that developing a reliable analytical prediction for ENSO/AMO etc. might be feasible, but getting it to play nice with an AOGCM … not so “easy”.
Of course, if my hypothesis is right we should expect ENSO driven warming of the world mean temperatures to start again some time around 2036. Unfortunately, I will probably not be around to see if my hypothesis is correct or not. Although the transition in the El Nino frequency/strength compared to La Nina frequency/strength should start taking place in the mid 2020’s (possibly around 2027 or so), so there is hope yet!
Tony,
Highly summarized from your post, there are two types of “denier”:
1. Greenhouse effect does not exist at all;
2. Greenhouse effect exists, but either (a) CO2 levels were much higher in the 19th c. or (b) increasing CO2 comes from the oceans or (c) CO2 is insufficient to change global temperatures or (d) natural additions supersede anthropogenic sources.
How do you define skepticism relative to denial? And how different is the skeptic viewpoint of AGW from 2(c)? From what I gather, you just painted yourself into a corner of supporting AGW. Am I wrong?
In my opinion homeopathy is as unethical (first-line treatment for life threatening diseases) as placebo. I have similar issues with anthropogenic CO2-scare. Does that make me a denier?
How does this slurring of various groups as “deniers” square with the recent post by Monckton showing the numerous levels of evidence that would be required to convert climate skeptics?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/09/how-to-convince-a-climate-skeptic-hes-wrong/
Are there 10 different flavors of Deniers, or are those people all skeptics because they are swayed by a legitimate concern about the specific details of the climate scare?
On a fundamental level I think it’s very foolish to go down this rabbit hole and allow the slur-hurling people on the other side and in the media to frame how this issue gets discussed. Reject and rebuke those who call people Deniers, then perhaps we can talk about the value of certain arguments on either side with some semblance of civility and legitimacy.
It would help a lot of people on this site to take a class in radiative heat transfer. They would learn, for example, that photons have no temperature…but they do have energy. And that surface emission characteristics have nothing to do with material conductivity. And that the laws of thermodynamics apply to radiative transfer only with circumspection. And that quibbling over the meaning of “greenhouse effect” is puerile, when the term is meant to signify a radiative phenomenon. And that, radiatively speaking, the atmosphere is best considered as a beam splitter of no thickness at all. But what the hey! I’m only speaking from the standpoint of someone who used to figure out for a living how to throw megawatts of laser power through the atmosphere for interesting terminal effects. What would I know? (And if you want a REAL “greenhouse effect,” consider the planet Venus. Though there is interesting room for controversy even among those who know what they are talking about.)
Comparing the atmospheric temperature of Venus to Earth at the same pressure level, and similarly Mars to Earth suggests that if surface pressures on Earth were the same as either, life on Earth would likely not be possible no matter what percent was CO2.
Science is not the problem. Most people are ignorant of things scientific. “Scientific” people are usually dedicated to their subject and proud to be so, whatever their subject; there is nothing wrong in that of course. You can tell that the people who write here are mostly concerned about what is the best thing to concentrate on in order to genuinely resolve a problem but if you look beyond the “science” (forget science for one moment) you will see that there is actually NO problem at all. (Bear with me please).
Imagine that Albert had never produced his “hockey stick graph” and no-one ever considered such a thing.
The problem is MONEY and who has spent, is spending and will continue to spend “Other People’s Money” (OPM): it always is !
The main culprits are the United Nations, the UN IPCC and all the governments who have signed up for to their Great Global Warming CON.
There are only two hundred and forty “comments” here in respect of S. Fred Singer’s excellent article and of those, the total number of “commentors” is (obviously) really just a handful and it is mainly because we “commentors” are all interested enough to care about the article, however, most ordinary folk just do not care, or, they are simply oblivious to it all.
What is needed is truth: real, political truth and then … a “truth” explosion of such magnitude that it will affect the value of the money in your bank account and in pockets overnight ! The actual “truth” concerning Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change will be exploded soon by way of a public shock so “viral” (worldwide), that it will cause governments to collapse. (Oh, please don’t just take my word for it: all you have to do is find out who is doing what and for the benefit of whom: it is NOT a riddle I assure you).
The Tennessee politician in the U. S. A. and a “qualified railway engineer” and other highly paid puppets have caused your / our money to be used irresponsibly in a way that beggars belief. The amount of money wasted is far in excess of the total monetary cost of fighting the Nazis: we should know; we British folks have only just fairly recently finished paying for the generous “USA lend-lease” agreement (and that seems to have faded from people’s memories quite soon).
Luckily for me, when the time comes that none of us can afford to switch on the electricity at home because of the cost, I can at least use candles, lamps and also burn the wood and the coal here to keep warm with a bit of light. The computer will be redundant of course (no electricity) but if the postal service is still operating I shall use pen and paper to re-write this missive to my grand-children – just so they know who fought for them before their mobile phones ceased to operate.
Like it or not, the “d-word” is a deal-breaker for many people; its use implies a mix of pretension and self-guilt. The “greenhousers” seem to have problems with clarity and definition. No matter how much you shuttle energy between the surface and the atmosphere the same energy can’t be in both places at the same time – beware of “double accounting”. And oh that complex interface! Furthermore, you have to look at the entire absorption spectrum – at average “Earth temperature” CO2 and water vapor are very poor absorbers (hence the term “atmospheric window”). Don’t forget how the “J-curve” turns into an “S-curve” as concentration increases. Plus there’s a lot more involved than radiation when we’re considering atmospheric heating – consider convection and latent heat of evaporation. There’s just too much convenient avoidance in the climate discussion.
A solid basis for denial:
Fundamental math using existing temperature and CO2 data can prove that CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
The CO2 level (or some math function thereof) has been suspected of being a forcing. The fundamental math is that temperature changes with the time-integral of a forcing (not the forcing itself).
Existing data includes temperature and CO2 determined from Vostok, Antarctica (or any other) ice cores for several glacial and inter-glacial periods. The temperature should change as a transient following CO2 level change instead of the two going up and down in ‘lock step’ as reported.
Existing temperature and CO2 (Berner, 2001) assessments for the entire Phanerozoic eon (about 542 million years) are graphed at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Additional proof showing that CO2 has no significant effect on climate and identification of the two main factors that do (95% correlation since before 1900) are disclosed at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
Excellent article. Definitely the best I have read here so far. We really should focus on the data, even though we’re dealing with a highly complex system where many factors can introduce noise. Denying any influence of human CO2 emissions really means you have a lot of evidence stacked against you. The same thing holds for blindly sticking to the models.
S. Fred Singer has initiated a worthwhile dialog here on two important topics:
1) what is the nature in general of the whole scientific enterprise
2) what is the fundamental disagreement on the rational demarcation of: a) the very small magnitude of the ‘greenhouse gas effect’ unambiguously observed in situ in the Earth Atmospheric System versus b) the unrealized non-observationally based claims of significant ‘greenhouse gas effect’ that is only myth mimicking science (pseudo-science).
I thank our Anthony for allowing Singer’s article to be posted at WUWT.
However, although Singer stimulated this great dialog, I am extremely disappointed that he put the discussion in the misleading context using three questionable and low level intellectual categories (warmistas, skeptics, d*niers).
John
Development in Earth Science Volume 2, 2014 http://www.seipub.org/des 31
The Greenhouse Effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere
Ferenc Mark Miskolczi
Geodetic and Geophysical Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Csatkai Endre u. 6-8, 9400 Sopron, Hungary
fmiskolczi@cox.net
“The stability and natural fluctuations of the global average surface temperature of the heterogeneous system are ultimately determined by the phase changes of water. Many authors have proposed a greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The present analysis shows that such an effect is impossible.”
“One of the most elusive problems of climate science is the correct handling of the radiative effects of the global average cloud cover. After decades of struggle with the cloud forcing parameter and other mixed physical quantities, the role of clouds in the climate system remains hidden.”
“In our view the greenhouse phenomenon, as it was postulated by J. Fourier (1824), estimated by S. Arrhenius (1906), first quantified by S. Manabe and R. Wetherald (1967), explained by R. Lindzen (2007), and endorsed by the National Academy of Science and the Royal Society (2014), simple does not exist.”