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.
Meh. I read a couple of paragraphs and moved on. Not a serious article by a serious person. The primary point seems to be to make the author feel good about himself because he’s not extreme. Or something.
Name calling annoys me and this “Denier” tag irritates me beyond belief as I have seen very few who actually deny there has been warming over the past 200 plus years. It is pretty hard to deny what are proven facts. The question is why and why would we put such a huge price on uncertainty? I would put a Roy Spencer as a representative example. I find generally that the other side is pigheaded and will not accept one iota the possibility they have gone way too early and in fact little has been proven and certainly not with Scientific Method. Gavin Schmidt seem a good representation of this side. The biggest fear I have is that this fear and name calling mongering will carry on in Paris and reason will not succeed. I mean Obama still wants to save the climate! Good luck with that!
The basic argument is being lost in the terms.
AGW and CAGW are very, very different.
There are very few, if any, who dispute AGW. However CAGW is another fantasy, altogether…
This distinction is always lost early on in any argument and should not be forgotten.
So, like European royalty, warmism is not going to be quickly ended. The “revolution” will, as usually happens, be hijacked, this time by Determinists led by the likes of Fred Singer with, ultimately, Stochastists being hunted down, tortured and killed in ways undreamed of by warmists . . . By “stochasticists” I mean the followers of articles such as these : geomorphology.geo.arizona.edu/PAPERS/pelletier_97b.pdf
http://blackjay.net/?page_id=93
The Denier term is a term of denigration invented by the Warmistas in their struggle to strangle off inquiry, science, debate, and the public spotlight on their lies. Denier is on a par with “anti-science”. Dr. Singer is doing the cause of Truth no good by repeating and legitimizing these rogue terms.
There is no real point to his post, it would be more useful to investigate the gross distortions being made to the temperature record by Warmista Institutions to bolster their funding supply.
Yes, consistent with Singer being less interested in “doing the cause of Truth [any] good” than in feathering his own nest, hoping that he will one day be bigger than Gore and thus able to act against a new class of “deniers”, non-Determinists and so on.
JimS April 16, 2015 at 12:03 pm
Mike M. April 16, 2015 at 12:40 pm
Brandon Gates April 16, 2015 at 5:23 pm
Thank you for your considered thoughts – many good ideas and suggestions to mull over.
Brandon – please look at figure 1 of this paper [free download].
Are Changes in the Earth’s Rotation Rate Externally Driven and Do They Affect Climate?
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3811
Figure 1 shows the the link that I found between the rate of change of LOD and the NAO index [which is related to the AMO index] back in 2008.
Also, please look at the following blog post:
The Connection Between Extreme Perigiean Spring Tides and Long-term Changes in the Earth’s [Core] Rotation Rate as Measured by the Rate-of-Change of its Length-of-Day (LOD)
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/connecting-planetary-periodicities-to.html
with particular reference to the first two figures.
Ian Wilson,
Thank you for the references. From the paper:
Unfortunately, the climate data does not allow us to decide whether it is the fluctuations in the Earth’s rotation rate that determine the phases changes in the NAO and PDO or the other way around. Nor does climate data tell us whether the observed changes in the Earth’s rotation rate are being driven by external forces. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the climate data is that long term changes in these two major climate systems has an effect upon, or is affected by, changes in the Earth’s rotation rate.
Which has been one thing I have been asking myself since becoming familiar with Pratt’s work. You go on to make a compelling argument for external timing via gravitational interactions with other planets, which is intriguing. Having a sub-century scale timing signal which was reasonably and reliably predictable 50-100 years in advance is something I think would be quite useful indeed — I note that these various modes of internal variability are often good for +/-0.25 K or so deviations about a climatologically-relevant running mean. 1/8th of the 2 K do not cross this line policy target is a residual which wants some attention.
Best regards.
Singer wrote “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.”
I’m in this camp. Sort of. The oceans are warming and if left long enough, atmospheric CO2 levels would indeed rise. This is what history shows through the ice cores. The difference is that at this point in history, we’re speeding up that process by getting the CO2 level into equilibrium much faster than it would have done naturally. Actually beyond equilibrium probably and so the biosphere and oceans are actually sinking some of it rather than releasing it.
But does that mean it “causes” most of the observed warming? No, that doesn’t follow. It might, but not necessarily and certainly not with the certainty the warmists give it.
I think that Curry makes a very good point: we don’t know enough. Certainly we don’t know enough about the oceans, because too little effort has been put into measuring them.
One graph we really need to see often is the gap between predicted best model, predicted worst model and actual raw temperatures, temperatures adjusted by climate scientist ideas and temperatures adjusted by ratio of the gap between the USCRN and used US figures. These five plots will tell pretty objectively how much trust to place in climate science.
Wish I had seen this earlier….
This piece isn’t a science piece… its a piece of propaganda designed sololy to reframe the debate in a way that benefits the author.
The main purpose of this propaganda piece is the attempt to re-class lukewarmers into skeptics and de-class skeptic from deniers. The secondary purpose is to promote censorship.
Right now according to the main stream propaganda you have 2 groups of ppl… the hardcore cultist of doom and the evil denier of said doom.
For the non-main stream view you have 3 groups the cultist, the lukewarmer and the skeptic. Singer is attempting to change lukewarmer into skeptic and skeptic into denier…
“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.”
This has to be some of the most retarded and ignorant statement ever of this debate.
“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 ”
This is nothing more then lewandowsky moon landing paper all over again… a tiny handful of non-warmist believe some crazy shat and thus he swing around a simply massive brush to everyone.
” and quite willing to think the worst of their opponents.”
yes god forbid anyone call a spade and spade…
The vastly majority of people in the denier but not lukewarmer grouping don’t have some crazy ideas other then we demand proof and that said proof comply with the scientific method. We are also not so closed minded as to simply dismiss those evil sky dragons just because they maybe on the crazy side…. WE ARE WILLING TO LISTEN TO THE CRAZY AND JUDGE FOR OURSELVES. Something that singer would deny us the chance to just like the cultist would deny us the chance as well.
Singer frankly goes well into his own definition of what a denier is because he is very intolerant and unwilling to talk about such evil sky dragon views…
The other issue is, if the evil sky dragons are wrong…. so what? Are they are demanding billions of dollars or control of most of the planet… no, so let them flop around with whatever view they think is right and STFU about it. Singer is in classic “I want rule this paradigm mode and don’t you dare challenge me”. He piece does everything that a scientist should oppose… most of all his piece heavily pushes for mass censorship.
Yes. Very good analysis.
Temp writes “For the non-main stream view you have 3 groups the cultist, the lukewarmer and the skeptic.”
No. Apparently you’ve misunderstood scepticism all along. Lukewarmers are sceptics. They’re sceptical the IPCC has a correct value for sensitivity. Some warmists are sceptics too. Almost everyone is sceptical of some aspect or another of “AGW” even the die-hard warmists may be sceptical about some papers.
Its just that “sceptics” like me tend to find on balance the AGW argument doesn’t have enough fact to make it as certain as the warmists would have the world believe.
TimTheToolMan
April 17, 2015 at 3:48 am
“No. Apparently you’ve misunderstood scepticism all along. Lukewarmers are sceptics. They’re sceptical the IPCC has a correct value for sensitivity. Some warmists are sceptics too. Almost everyone is sceptical of some aspect or another of “AGW” even the die-hard warmists may be sceptical about some papers.
Its just that “sceptics” like me tend to find on balance the AGW argument doesn’t have enough fact to make it as certain as the warmists would have the world believe.”
I’m sorry but you must be very new to this debate. Lukewarmers ARE NOT skeptic. The vast majority of lukewarmers including the owner of this sight follow into to the lukewarmer group as follows.
1. Were almost all foaming at the mouth cultists
2. Ran into a skeptic who said “hey let debate and I will show you your religion is wrong”
3. After debating a skeptic found out “yeah the vast majority of the “science” isn’t science”
4. Even though skeptics showed that AGW was never even close to being scientifically proven, they still believe in the core beliefs aka that humans are causing a noticeable amount of the current warming.
5. All lukewarmer believe AGW is real.
6. They further can be broken down into 2 groups of this noticeable amount of human caused warming A. The warming is no threat to humans or B. The warming is a threat to humans but not in the insane cultist propaganda kind of way and we don’t need world government to fix it.
Skeptics ARE NOT LUKEWARMERS. Skeptics do not believe their is any basis for any action because the whole of the science has not yet met even the most basic of standards to be called science. Skeptics do not believe that a simple hypothesis is justification to take action. We have converted many rabid cultists to both skeptic and lukewarmers… the problem is you have many lukewarmers attempting to claim they were always lukewarmers from the start and they don’t want to be lumped in with the more mainstream extremism that is standard AGW “science”. At the same time they don’t want to credit skeptics with showing them the error of their ways because by doing so they must admit they were wrong, irrational and anti-science. Unlike Mr. Watts who is open about his past failures, the vast majority of lukewarmers can’t take the ego hit that a bunch of people took them to the wood shed using nothing more then middle school level scientific knowledge….aka the demand that one must follow the scientific method.
In the simplest terms a skeptic is someone that doesn’t believe in AGW. They have many reasons for not believing but for the vast majority it is because of the scientific method. That in simplest term for the AGW debate is a skeptic. A lukewarmer can never be a skeptic because they believe AGW is proven in science.
No point in getting hung up on the nomenclature, if that’s all you are picking up on then you are missing the important bits
I have written up my thoughts.
The latest ones in
http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/vacuum.pdf
In that paper you will find the references to earlier ones.
There are not 3 camps – warmists, skeptics, deniers. By allowing them to claim this, you are feeding into their propaganda. They warmists have referred to skeptics as deniers since day one, and now that the Pause has them scrambling, they want you to forget about all those slurs and insults. Hence their need to break out skeptics into 2 camps. Its an old political tactic and you are giving up hard won ground if you fall for it.
When science is advancing thanks to people like Curry and Nic Lewis convincingly showing a low climate sensitivity to CO2, Singer’s strawman about CO2 sounds stale.
Bottom line, pressure comes from everywhere to ignore science and force green totalitarism onto populations. Visibly pressure bears some fruits…
Of the many dozens (hundreds?) of variables that affect the climate, POLITICS is by far the most important variable.
.
POLITICS decides which temperature measurements are used (surface) and which are ignored (satellites).
.
POLITICS decides that climate proxy studies are usually ignored, while computer models are”worshipped”.
.
POLITICS decides that character attacks (“denier – denier”) are a fair substitute for debate.
.
POLITICS decides that phony surveys (the 97%) will be parroted by our President in speeches.
.
The only logical explanation of why climate models would be taken seriously, when models are not data, and real science requires data … is politics.
.
Leftists have always exaggerated things to morph them into “crises” … intended to scare people into demanding their central government take charge, and “solve” the “crisis”.
.
DDT, acid rain, hole in the ozone layer, global cooling, global warming, CEO salaries, men earning more than women, policemen looking to shoot black men, etc = all phony “crises” designed to convince the sheeple that the central government must make new laws, and seize more power over the citizens.
.
The global warming “crisis”, like all other now forgotten environmental crises going back to DDT in the 1960s, is scaremongering that has nothing to do with real science … but billions of dollars spent by governments on global warming propaganda each year, including scientists bribed with grants to predict a coming climate catastrophe, have brainwashed a lot of ordinary people.
.
Instead of celebrating the slight warming in the past 135 years, assuming that’s not all measurement error, and celebrating the greening of the Earth from more CO2 in the air, too many people are worried about the future climate for no logical reason.
.
And they are worried simply because leftists are not happy unless they have a “crisis” to scare people with — global warming is their most popular “crisis” today … and of course BIGGER and STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENTS are the “solution” for every leftist “crisis”.
.
The reason this post is mainly about politics, rather than science, is because predictions of a coming climate catastrophe are 99% politics, and only 1% science (and that 1% is ONLY because some of the people involved have science degrees — not because their computer games are real science — their climate models are nothing more than climate astrology wasting the taxpayer’s money).
.
The global warmists are science deniers, climate astrologers, climate scaremongers, and deserve those names — if Mr. Singer, whose SEPP website first got me interested in climate back in 1997, wants to use the “D-word” (denier), then he ought to use the words “climate astrologers” too.
.
In my opinion, no one involved in predicting the future climate deserves to be taken seriously — how many wrong predictions are required over how many decades before the predictors are finally seen to be people desperate for attention and power … and government grants?
.
The climate is better than it was 135 years ago for both humans and green plants.
.
The future climate is unknown and unknowable — debating the unknown future is for people with too much spare time on their hands.
.
People REALLY interested in the environment ought to focus on pollution in China, not beneficial airborne plant food CO2 … but then global warming scaremongering is not about the environment, or about science — it’s all left-wing politics to further empower central governments!
.
Logical climate facts for non-scientists,
at the only climate website in the world
with a centerfold:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com
Very much correct its why I have argued for years that winning the science debate is meaningless. Being right or scientifically correct doesn’t keep one out of an oven or a mass grave. If anything you will be the first one in.
Arguing over what is or isn’t a greenhouse effect is not that helpful. Nor is arguing over who is a denier.
What skeptics need to be pushing is the fact that skeptics do in fact believe the earth has warmed in this century and since the Little Ice age. Nor do skeptics think climate change is not happening. Climate change has always occurred and it is certainly a fact that man has an impact on climate change.
We need to point out that the main difference between skeptics and alarmists is that alarmists say that the overwhelming conclusion of “science” is that anthropogenic greenhouse gas will cause calamitous warming and calamitous climate change. A skeptic is anyone that does not believe that the conclusion of science is that greenhouse gases will cause calamitous warming or climate change.
The tactic of alarmists is to paint skeptics as “deniers” of science. In order to do this, they say that skeptics deny climate change and deny the earth has warmed. The reason that they do this is that these positions seem extreme and unscientific to average person who knows little about the specifics of the debate.
Skeptics need to always say that the characterization is incorrect:
Skeptics and alarmists agree on the points that the climate is changing and man has an impact on climate change and we agree that the earth has in fact warmed. Rather, it is the alarmists who believe something not supported by the data. That is that anthropogenic sourced CO2 will cause calamitous warming and climate change.
I think skeptics need to preface many arguments and blogs by making the above points in the prior paragraph over and over again as simply and concisely as possible.
Skeptics also disagree with alarmists over the extent of warming and its primary causes.
Clearly, earth has warmed since the depths of the Maunder Minimum and since the end of the LIA. It is warmer now than 320 and 160 years ago. But is it warmer than 80 years ago? We don’t know because the “surface” station record has been so corrupted, and satellite and balloon data don’t go back far enough.
Not only do skeptics doubt that there will be catastrophic consequences from more CO2, but that it is the control knob on climate. Whatever warming has actually occurred is not primarily because of human activity, whether since AD 1700, 1850 or 1950.
Brandon,
You might have missed an important point because of a mistake I made in the 2008 paper:
“A comparison between the upper and lower graph in figure 8 shows that, again, there is a
remarkable agreement between the years of the peak (absolute) deviations of the LOD from the
long-term trend and the years where the phase of the PDO reconstruction is most positive. While
the correlation is not perfect, it is convincing enough to conclude the PDO index is another good
example of a climate system that is directly associated with changes in the Earth’s rotation rate.” on page 15.
If look closely at the deviation of LOD from the long term trend and the PDO index in figure 8, you will notice that the peaks in deviation of LOD from its long term trend take place ten years earlier (on average) than the peaks in the PDO index. So, unlike the NAO index, where the rate of change of LOD takes place at the same time as changes in the NAO index [i.e. there is no phase lag between these two parameter), the peaks in the deviations of the LOD from its long term trend precede the peaks in the PDO index, suggesting causality.
The paper also shows that the times for the peaks in the deviation of LOD from its long term trend here on the Earth match the times for the peaks in asymmetry of the Sun’s motion about the centre-of-mass of the solar system.
Dr. Singer’s approach here is, from a debating point of view, tactically disastrous. When the catastrophists call people “deniers” they mean precisely people like him (and people like me). They are not one bit confused about that.
Now Dr. Singer starts pointing at a handful of very obscure people (whom the catastrophists have never heard of) and saying, “No, we’re not the deniers, these people over there are the deniers.”
Just what does this accomplish? Well, it shows that Dr. Singer totally agrees that it’s fine to call people “deniers” because you disagree with their opinions. Secondly, it gives a kind of validation to the untruths of the catastrophists, who talk as though climate skeptics dispute standard physics. Third, it encourages the false view (which you will see more and more in the media as catastrophism crumbles) that the skeptics have retreated from a position they used to hold, of disputing the possibility of a greenhouse effect.
Just disastrous.
This is a cute little essay but in my experience alarmists call everybody a denier that strays even a little bit from “all in ” on catastrophic climate change. I never expereincedf them tolerating for any leeway there.
This article is in very poor form.
Anthony, please pull down my ClimateGate video from your site. I no longer wish to be associated with you.
“Give me four adjustable parameters and I can fit an elephant. Give me one more, and I can make his trunk wiggle.”
When you can also homogenise the data you can get the elephant into the finals of So You Think You Can Dance.
The ‘derivative’ of the temperature anomalies is the monthly change in temperature divided by the change in time (in years). If the error in monthly anomalies is Δ then the error in the derivative is √2 Δ/month (square root of the sum of the squares). The error in the difference in derivatives is 2Δ/month or 24Δ/year. The actual standard deviation for the differences from the measurements (δ) should be half of this, 12Δ/year (the convention is to use 2xSD for the error).
The δ for the differences in the derivatives of GISS LOTI and RSS from 1979 is 0.14°C/year. This gives an estimate of the uncertainty of each monthly anomaly of about ±0.01°C. Remember, this estimate is for repeats of the same experiments making the same measurements where the error for each month, Δ, is 2 times the SD of repeat measurements. The two experiments aren’t that.
There is a slow drift apart in the actual anomalies so that the GISS data appear to support warming has continued but the closeness of the derivatives is unrealistic. Someone copied the others homework and added some noise with a bit of drift. They probably forgot to convert from per year to per month.
If the data is tainted, there is no science and there are no categories of scientists, just zealots.
I understand Dr. Singer’s concern. I cringe whenever I read a Skydragon’s incoherent rant, and truly wish they would go away.
The fact of temperature increase by radiative impedance is well established. So well established that this type of insulation is used routinely. The equations are textbook, and they work for simple systems requiring thermal regulation.
The argument over anthropogenic attribution for observed increases in atmospheric CO2 is, however, not so well established. Or, more accurately, at all. Dr. Singer claims that, “Isotopic and other evidence destroys their case.” However this fails on two counts:
1) It presumes that we understand the carbon cycle to a degree which has not been established. It is begging the question.
2) It ignores the pollution effect, and the slow diffusion of low C13 into the atmosphere, and thence to the sinks. A small source of pollution can infiltrate an entire watershed, and take a long time to dissipate, even as it has virtually nil effect on the overall quantity.
It is a fact that the rate of change of CO2 matches temperature to a high degree of fidelity. It is a fact that this temperature relationship accounts for both the short term and long term change in atmospheric CO2. It is a fact that human emissions cannot be added to this relationship in significant quantity without producing too large a trend in the rate of change of CO2 than can be reconciled with the observations. It is, therefore, proven that human inputs cannot have a significant effect on atmospheric CO2.
There is no way around it. There is no doubt about it. Human activity is not contributing substantially to atmospheric CO2 content.
Nice ‘bait and switch’, of course the Arctic has also been more than 2 sd below average, as much as ~3 sd below at maximum. If you were to be honest you would present the data in the same units but that would be too much to expect.
So, the IPCC uses the increase between 1978 and 2000 as evidence for human (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW).
And that is an egregious cherrypick, right at the heat of CMIP.
I can (morally) justify use of a 1978 start point until the PDO was described by science: you don’t know what you don’t know. But use of the 1978 start-point anytime after 1996 — when the PDO cycles were known — is an inexcusable lapse, to be neither ignored nor tolerated.
The CO2 era began in 1950. Look at any CO2 graph. That is the valid start-point for all this, even if begging the question of the 1900-1950 period.
Points against 1950 as start point:
— 1950 is a low start point, coming after a sharp drop 2 to 3 years prior.
This creates a moderate spurious increase in warming trend.
— 1950 -2014 contains 35 Negative PDO years vs. 30 positive, and the last few years of positive PDO (ending abruptly at the outset of 2007), were on the neutral side.
This creates a slight spurious decrease in trend. This is partially dissipated by the fact that the strongest warming occurs toward the middle of the series, where it will have maximum effect on trend.
Points for:
— It is the beginning of the modern CO2 era. Look at the 20th-century mainstream CO2 graphs. It’s obvious. It is a cherrypick to cut the 1950 – 1977 period out of consideration, and if it had showed heavy warming, it would certainly have been included. But it is flat, and was brushed aside, incorrectly and carelessly attributed to aerosol masking.
— There are a roughly equal number of positive and negative PDO years and covers at least 60 years, even though the skew is slightly negative. But this is made up for by the too-low 1950 startpoint.
Therefore, 1950 is the best start point of the CO2 era. Luckily, the bad points balance. Just a matter of luck. Like one of our regions with only two stations — that turns out NOT to be an outlier either way! (Phew!)
If one insists, the start and endpoints could be ramped back three years (to 1947) so as to solve both of the “points against” (low start point, unequal PDO balance). That would create (not spuriously) a distinct reduction in warming trend.
But 1947 was a lean year all ’round, if you’ve read about it. Food was short. Everything else (including FF and electricity) was worse. War does that. 1950 was a bigger CO2-year, the true start of significant anthropogenic CO2.
So what are we left with?
— Well, the surface stations say that it has warmed ~0.7C (adjusted). We dispute the “(adjusted)” part and, taking ocean are into account, knock it down to ~.55, bringing surface readings into line with “upper bound” factor of LT warming as measured by the satellites. Surface warming (lower bound effect) warming should be at least 20% less than Lower Troposphere (upper bound effect). Our study brings that into line, as did our pre-release in 2012.
— Methane has accompanied CO2 release. But it is a minor player because
a.) It’s overall forcing effect is only 10% of CO2. A much stronger GHG, but present at much lower levels than CO2.
b.) Methane is increasing at a decreasing rate, a convex curve (as the arctic circumference of effect has diminished). It’s GH effect is subject to diminishing returns, same as CO2.
c.) Methane has only 20 years of persistence, and chemically abrades, so when it’s gone, it’s gone.
— It is asserted that perhaps 25% of warming since 1950 is due to aerosol unmasking. And a significant amount of Arctic warming appears to be caused by soot and resulting albedo loss, not CO2, which can be easily controlled without cutting CO2 emissions.
Bottom line: Whatever warming caused by other factors come directly out of the “CO-warming budget”.
— I ignore solar in this argument because I am convinced neither by arguments for and against. Quien sabe? Wait a Schwab cycle and find out the hard way works for me. But you can drop that in if that’s your bag. Don’t get me wrong, I’m just ignoring solar — not snubbing it. Yet. They do seem to hold you to higher standards, so I will look at the graphs closer when i have time.
— Talking Point Challenge, “The Pause”: The “pause” is at least largely spurious. We are in a negative PDO (cooling) phase now. We should be cooling, but we are not. trends are flat. CO2 pushes steadily up, but is countered by negative PDO pushing down.
— Talking Point Challenge, “Tipping Points”: But skeptics, take heart: That there 1978 start-point period is equally spurious. Sure, if there is continual CO2 forcing, you get a flatline during a negative PDO. But the positive PDO trend is spuriously doubled as well. You have an equal measure of extra natural PDO warming piled onto CO2 forcing. So what is actually a plodding, steady forcing all of a sudden looks like a Tipping Point (but it is not). That’s the flip side.
Bottom line:
— ~0.55 empirical warming 1950 – 1914 (plus-or-minus god-knows-what).
— ~30% increase of CO2 since 1950. CO2 increase was ~10%, 1880 – 1950. The rest since then.
— Rate of raw CO2 warming: ~.11C/decade (Arrhenius, 1906)
— Some of this potentially attributable to Aerosol unmasking, soot, etc.
— Little-to-no positive feedback showing up in the global data. (i.e., Arrhenius-style TCS/ECS, not IPCC TCS/ECS).
This seems reasonably in line with Arrhenius (1906) raw CO2 forcing, but with little net feedback showing up in the data. It is an optimistic-sounding scenario, but I think it is realistic.