By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
» Several members of the American Physical Society have contacted me to ask how they should respond to a tokenistic “consultation” by the Society’s “Panel on Public Affairs” about its proposed amendment to its existing daft “Statement on Climate Change”. They invited me to submit this to WattsUpWithThat for publication as a message to our American cousins. APS members, please send comments on the draft statement to APS before the May 6 deadline. Please copy them to Judith Curry’s website, Climate Etc., which has a thread devoted to the draft statement: http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/20/aps-discussion-thread/.
Climate change is now a political issue. It is not the business of the American Physical Society to take sides and make what amount to partisan political statements, particularly when the activists promoting the APS’ revised “statement on climate change” have taken care to restrict members to one comment each on the draft. That restriction, for which your rules do not provide, prevents the development of a proper debate between the nest of activists behind the statement and the membership as a whole.
Onlookers have begun to notice how willing climate skeptics are to debate, and how unwilling the profiteers of doom. Shutting off debate by limiting comments confirms the growing impression among impartial observers that those who profit from the climate story are now nakedly fearful and intellectually incapable of defending a scientific position that becomes less tenable month by month:
Your note to APS members (which, incidentally, has not been sent to every member, as your rules require) does not even indicate that members who comment will get a reply. Again, the intention seems to be to stifle debate and keep control in the hands of a politically-correct gaggle of militants.
Worst of all, there will be no ballot of the membership on whether the statement in its final form should be promulgated as an APS statement. Your rules do not require a ballot but they do not forbid one either. It would be sensible if you were to give all members a free vote on the statement so that, for once, it will be reflect the scientific opinion not of a clique miscalling itself a consensus but of many.
Otherwise, the draft will not be a statement of or by or on behalf of the Society as a whole, and must not be presented as though it were. Instead, the document, if there is one, must state explicitly that your “APS statement” is the view of a single group of activists at the Society, and not a statement by the APS as a whole.
So to science. There is now a statable case that undue concern about our effect on the climate is misplaced. The original wild predictions on which that concern was built have proven much exaggerated. Even the IPCC has implicitly accepted this fact by substituting what it ambitiously describes as its “expert judgment” for the meaningless output of the computer models on which the excessive predictions of doom that originally fueled the climate scare were based. It has slashed its near-term projections of global warming by getting on for half, though your statement somehow fails to take note of this significant retreat:
Furthermore, the economic literature is near-unanimous in concluding that the cost of attempted mitigation today outweighs that of focused adaptation the day after tomorrow, though, again, your statement is culpably silent on this fact:
Accordingly, the American Physical Society runs the real risk of jeopardizing not only its own reputation but also the standing of science itself in the public mind if your activists’ superfluous, “me-too” climate statement eventually turns out to have been predicated far more on politics and peculation than on sound science and effective economics.
It would be preferable if the American Physical Society were either quietly to withdraw its current embarrassing statement without replacing it at all, or to scrap the present unacceptable redraft and replace it with the more sensible, more scientific and less politically prejudiced draft that now follows.
The new version corrects the many scientific errors in your draft, and takes a balanced position on the climate question, based not on politics nor on prejudice nor on profit but on evidence.
Climate change: risks and rewards, benefits and costs
Either: The following statement has not been voted on by the members of the American Physical Society. Accordingly, it may not represent their opinions.
Or: The following statement was approved by a two-thirds majority in a ballot of the members of the American Physical Society on [date of ballot].
Climate change is not new. The climate has been changing for millenia:
Above: Global temperature relative to peak Holocene temperature, based on ocean cores Source: Hansen, NASA GISS
Disruption has often resulted. It can be expected to continue to occur in future. Therefore, as even the IPCC concedes, it is not appropriate to attribute each individual extreme-weather event to manmade global warming. We call upon the scientific community and the news media to take a more balanced and responsible and less exploitative attitude to the aetiology of extreme-weather events in future.
It is not clear whether natural or anthropogenic forcings currently dominate. Of the abstracts of 11,944 climate-related papers published in the reviewed journals over the 21 years 1991-2011, only 41 (0.3%) were found to have stated explicitly that most warming since 1950 was manmade (Legates et al., 2013). This is not a “97% consensus” and we express our dismay at the attempts in some scientific journals and in much of the news media to suggest near-unanimity on a scientific question that very much remains open.
No survey of scientists in climate and related fields has ever asked more than a statistically-inadequate handful of climatologists whether they consider our influence on the weather potentially dangerous. What is clear is that, though the concentration of CO2 is growing at a rate consistent with the IPCC’s 1990 “business-as-usual” scenario A (Le Quéré et al., 2014), the IPCC’s then-predicted consequential short-run central rate of global warming in the quarter-century since 1990 has proven to be double the observed trend on the mean of the monthly anomalies in the three longest-standing terrestrial datasets with the two satellite lower-troposphere datasets. The models have failed.
Near-term projections of global warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century, made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), for the 303 months January 1990 to March 2015 (orange region and red trend line), are all well above the observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at less than 1.4 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.
One satellite dataset (RSS, 2015) shows no global warming for 18 years 4 months:
The influence of each additional CO2 molecule is less than that of each of its predecessors (Myhre et al., 1998). Affordably-recoverable fossil-fuel reserves are finite and may be largely exhausted by the end of the century in any event.
Until then, no significant reductions in CO2 emissions are foreseeable because China, which now burns half the world’s coal and is its largest CO2 emitter, has been effectively exempted from any requirement to curb emissions:
Furthermore, the mean atmospheric residence time of an individual CO2 molecule is 5-10 years. After allowing for biosphere exchanges, the mean persistence time of our added CO2 is 30-50 years, not the “thousands of years” your draft ludicrously suggests. The influence of our emissions will be short-lived once they cease, whether through regulation or through exhaustion.
Intergovernmental climate science has injected politics into the climate question in a manner often incompatible with independent scientific enquiry. The IPCC’s documents are not peer-reviewed: instead, the authors have – and use – the power to override the reviewers.
Worse, the IPCC has not always been honest. For instance, its persistence in insisting that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 20 years hence in the face of objections from its own reviewers is a case in point.
Also, the IPCC’s statistical manipulation of the global temperature data by a technique that enabled it falsely to maintain that the rate of global warming is accelerating (a technique that would just as falsely show a sine-wave as having a rising trend when the trend on a sine-wave is by definition zero) and its refusal to correct the resulting error in its Fourth Assessment Report upon a request from an expert reviewer that it should remove that now-discredited artifice demonstrate its self-serving and partisan intent and its panicky and now-flagrant disregard of the scientific method:
We call upon the IPCC and all others who profit from magnifying global warming to cease and desist from the corruption of science.
The IPCC’s predictions have not been skillful. The underlying warming rate is small: the models did not predict the current near-stasis in global temperatures, and the oceans – ignoring the very poor resolution of the measurements – appear to be warming at a rate equivalent to only 0.2 Cº/century.
The ARGO network of bathythermograph buoys does not provide much comfort for those who have tried to maintain that the “missing heat” predicted by the failed models has gone into hiding in the oceans:
An increasing body of reviewed research indicates that climate sensitivity is one-half to one-fifth of the IPCC’s estimates. On the evidence, there should be less climate research: other research fields in the physical sciences are suffering from the undue concentration of public funds on what now seems a non-problem:
At present, therefore, there is no scientific and still less economic case for any policy that would in any way regulate or control emissions of greenhouse gases. Indeed, there are benefits as well as risks in rising CO2 concentration: CO2 fertilization, for instance. The climate is currently undergoing no change that would – whether or not the change is anthropogenic – take the world beyond natural variability:
It is, in any event, not the role of scientific societies to make political recommendations. It is the APS’ role to be honest about science, not partisan about politics. To be honest, on the evidence now before us the certainty about the rightness of the IPCC’s profitably alarmist stance that the APS’ activists expressed in their previous statement on climate change was inappropriate.
“Gather your weapons, your men, your armor. It is time for war.”
Go to it.
One of the apocrypha circulating among my e-mail correspondents is the notion that “political correctness” is predicated on the notion that it’s possible to pick up a lump of dung by the clean end.
You should add at the end of that “without being soiled”.
I have it on good authority that, polish as much as you like, a turd will not shine.
However, it IS possible to roll it in glitter….
Actually you *can* polish a turd. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiJ9fy1qSFI
I commented on one sentence from the APS: “In particular, the connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is more certain than ever.” I was surprised by this statement since global temperatures have been flat for the last 18 years, which is diverging more and more over time from the standard global warming predictions. How is it possible for the APS to say “more certain than ever”?
I assume they ignore the satellite and balloon records
.
Or “massage” the raw data till it looks like they have the outcome they want. There have been people systematically change old data set’s. I’m not surprised. It’s like the Pathagoreans when they suppressed the idea that the square root of 2 was irrational. Their whole world view would collapse if the average person learned of it. It lasted for 20 centuries through Plato & Aristotle’s philosophies. Not till Kepler threw off the mysticism did scientific research start up again. Those are Dr. Carl Sagans views from episode 7 of Cosmos’s Backbone of the Night” I see the same thing’s happening today. That’s why the alarmist are almost like a religion. Highly recommend that episode, if you can find it. Funny it doesn’t stay up very long on a site. That’s why I bought my own set.
cosmos episode 7
I have spent a good bit of time over the last 5 months watching the daily temps around the globe, plus past observations {avg high/low} using Intellicast. There has been no outstanding record high temps being set anywhere around the globe, but what I have noticed is that minimum temps in many places have been above average. This appears to be the reason why January through March has been the hottest ever on GISS and associated productions. Almost everywhere I look the upper temps are around the average trend, some slightly less and some slightly higher.
Goldminer:
I have done the same thing for a number of Canadian locations from the 49th parallel to Eureka,Nunavut. Always similar results. It is getting less cold. I suspect increasing GHG s may do that. Or more likely, clouds. A number of sites show convergence. The highs are decreasing; the lows are less cold. Wouldn’t more cloudiness explain that?
UHI is the reason
Say you have no money at all and you can’t buy a chewing gum. 15 minutes later you have double the sum in your pocket and you are more certain than ever to be unable to buy that chewing gum. That’s how.
But what if you triple the sum in your pocket? Did you ever think of that, Hah.
Goldminor,
If you triple it, you will still be unable to afford the gum, but now will also be unable to afford a set of brand new invisible clothes.
@ Menicholas…that’s bad news. I could have used the new clothes.
Repetition, as proven by religion, works well on the preachers – not just the flock.
The comment just shows the APS leadership do not know how to think as scientists.
There is no physically valid demonstration that the rising CO2 levels have caused the 20th century increase in air temperature.
Using “warming of the global climate system” allows the the ocean ate it dodge.
“How is it possible for the APS to say ” more certain than ever”?”
Given the evidence, there can be no such increased certainty. Therefore this is a statement of opinion. In their opinion, it is more certain than ever.
And this is to generously grant that they actually believe what they say, rather than purposefully overstating the case.
Isn’t that sort of like saying something is “more unique”?
“Isn’t that sort of like saying something is “more unique”?”
Good point Skorrent.
Considering that they were cased-closed, settled science certain before, it is an odd statement at that.
But the warmistas have a knack for such things.
If I had a nickel for every time I read that “it” (whatever the it of the day happened to be) is going to be even worse than we thought… even though they had said before that “it” was going to be an absolutely unmitigated and unsurvivable disaster… well, I would have a big pile of nickels.
In South Florida this winter a daily record low was set. Then several weeks later a daily record high was set.
To me this just demonstrates how short “The Record” actually is.
I’m a bit confused by this statement and the chart that accompanies it:
“Furthermore, the economic literature is near-unanimous in concluding that the cost of attempted mitigation today outweighs that of focused adaptation the day after tomorrow,…” What does “focused adaption the day after tomorrow” mean?
Also, the chart seems to indicate that global renewables don’t make as much money on the stock market as global oil and gas does. Does this mean that renewables are a bad way to go because they don’t make somebody as much money as gas and oil does?
I think I’m just misreading things though.
It means the private sector recognizes that renewables are not sustainable without the massive redistribution of public monies.
By definition then, needing a massive redistribution means is it an unsustainable option. Sustainability has a meaning. Can a windmill ever put out enough power to create and erect and maintain another windmill? If so, then they are sustainable. Until then, they obviously are not.
we lose money on every windmill but make it up on the volume.
By and large, “renewable” technologies amount to false claims of having invented a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind.
Smart.
Smart windmills are sustainable. Most people learn that in school.
=============
kim
No, they are not. And people are “taught” many false things in “school” – and the closer to the CAGW religion the person believes and the higher the education level, the less of what they are taught is actually correct.
You need to build 6 wind turbines to generate the rated power of one, but those 6 wind turbines require 6x times the time, concrete, aluminum, copper, water and land area that one does. Over a wide region, such as the southeast US, the entire region can be “wind quiet” for many days at a time, thus you need 100% backup anyway for your 6 wind turbines from fossil fueled units. Worse, the regions where wind is stronger, it is very turbulent, and the power from the wind turbines goes up and down minute-by-minute. Which destroys grid reliability and the units “chasing” the ups and down.
A small, singular windmill delivering irregular power to remote single-family houses with no other power at all? Yes, a windmill is better than nothing. But not much better. Windmills are stopped as soon as reliable power power is available. Every time, everywhere.
Wind and solar will never replace, or even make a dent in, fossil fuel/nuclear without the unmentioned revolution in cheap very high volume storage, which is still a long way off. To see how far, just build a simple model of an all-solar/wind grid.
As I recall, far less than 1% of grid power is storable today. The largest systems, pumped storage like the massive dam and reservoir in LA could only provide total power for a few hours at best. Now think about storage to cover nights and many days in a row without sun or wind.
Storage is the Achilles heel of solar/wind. I wish someone more knowledgable would lay this out and quantify the very small possible contribution possible for solar/wind and the magnitude of the storage problem.
Existing storage systems are also very inefficient. Pumped storage is lucky to get back half the energy put in.
“Focused adaption the day after tomorrow” means that when the sea level hits your door, it’s cheaper to move to another house (or build another house) that’s on higher ground than it is to stop all energy production that’s not solar or wind right now.
A perfect retort to the “insurance” proposition. +1
It could also mean calling the fire department when ones house is actually on fire, instead of calling them every morning just in case there is a fire later that day.
Since it will take 100 years for the water to reach that house, and the life expectancy of most houses is less than 100 years. Merely stop building in those areas that are going to flood. Then abandon and tear down houses as they wear out.
I’m responding from a fairly narrow, (focused), perspective, so anyone out there, feel free to correct, embellish, etc.. pun intended, OK I’m sorry …
Focused adaptation is a pretty simple. It’s based on the notion that it’s often more cost effective to cut your losses after the fact than to buy insurance against all your losses before the fact. The transaction costs of advanced action to eliminate all potential risks will accumulate to the point that it’s a less than zero sum game, and the non-zero sum will go to the insurance companies. In this case the insurance companies are the people who stand to make a profit if we take the politically suggested approach to climate change.
Concerning green energy; it is not a matter of how much money they make, but how much they lose. You can lose for ever if the government keeps the cash supply available.
28 dollar equity on 100 dollar investment is not my cup of tea.
.
Renewables are a bad way to go because the major ones, solar and wind, are simply not reliable nor cost effective…not ready for prime time as they say. If your power source is highly variable you have to keep something close to equivalent capacity in fossil fueled or nuclear power plants in order to maintain satisfaction of demand. Renewable is simply not the most effective use of the financial and intellectual capital we have. Thorium-based nuclear and fracked natural gas make more sense for the foreseeable future. My background, in case it matters, is chemical and geothermal engineering, though I’m retired.
I’m a retired nuclear engineer. Thorium advocates are about as honest as climate warmists. There are minor differences between the uranium/Pu239 and thorium/U233 fuel cycles, but no fundamental game changers. U233 is created in the thorium fuel cycle just as Pu239 is created in the uranium fuel cycle. Both make excellent fuel, and excellent weapons. They make the same amount of un-recycle-able waste. On the other hand, there are reactor designs that recycle more fuel (hence less waste) and are more benign in severe accidents – on paper. We’ll see some of those in the decades to come, but they will probably be built in countries with a more predictable regulatory, legal, and political climate than the U.S.
Mr. Piet,
With respect sir, the thorium proponents would say you are biased due to your past association with the prevailing nuclear power paradigm.
People like me cannot tell who to believe at this point, we still need more information.
“The Day after Tomorrow” was a totally stupid sci fi flick dreamed up by Art Bell and some cohorts that had the whole of the Atlantic freezing solid in two days, or some such silly scenario.
It was almost a stupid as this current “interstellar or some such that has a planet with 500 ft high waves rolling around on it all the time but nothing living on it as a result.
I’ve been to the Monterey Aquarium, and stuff grows on rocks that even a thousand foot wave wouldn’t bother.
Gone are the days of some intelligence in sci fi stories.
The only thing in movie Interstellar regarding that planet was that human’s landing party was destroyed by said waves.
Nothing was said regarding “nothing living on it as a result.” In fact, in the movie nobody found any life (or was looking for one) whatsoever, the only questions were whether it is possible to establish colony for people to live there.
It is my understanding that Interstellar is one of few movies that really got its physics right.
I liked the movie. But I have devoured just about every thing written in the realm of sci-fi since…a long time ago.
Do it for Hal Lewis. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/09/obituary-hal-lewis/
Lord Monckton has again thrown down the gauntlet. One wonders if his challenge will be accepted.
He is usually spot-on and this was very well written. got to go and look at the J. Curry link.
The APS is afraid, their members have been cowed by the cAGW political fear narrative (and they like the corrupt money the fear of others brings to their pseudo-research).
Hence that useful word ‘peculation‘
✔✔✔
Mencken said it best:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
The only group that is politicizing this issue is WUWT. Let the physicists examine the data and come to their own conclusion!
No man is so blind as he who will not see.
It’s amazing how blind people can be, when their self-interest gets involved.
The physicists who have challenged the position of the small, self-selected group who perpetrated the statement would disagree with you.
I guess we’ll find out when we see the response. So far I haven’t seen large groups of physicists protesting “corruption”, just folks like Monckton and WUWT.
Have you looked?
Lots of physicists object to the statement, including many among the most distinguished. Some have resigned in protest.
Don’t expect the corrupt society administration to change until grants start being awarded to skeptics instead of consensus running dogs.
Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever and former UCSB department chairman Hal Lewis are among those who have resigned from the APS over its anti-scientific global warming statement. Sadly, Lewis has died.
Lewis’ 2010 resignation letter to the APS (after 67 years’ membership) cited “corruption” from “the money flood” of government grants. It characterized the APS as having changed from an organization which sought to further scientific knowledge, to one that suppresses science in its attempt to obtain further funding from government agencies. The majority of his letter details his criticism of the group’s support for the “global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave”, and further expresses his belief that the loss of that funding would be devastating to those organizations. Lewis declared the “global warming scam” as “the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist”.
You there! yes you. Turn out the lights, I was looking for something important.
SHF – I know several physicists. Not one of them believes in CAGW. Also no geologists that I have ever met. Ditto virtually every engineer. I am wondering, who exactly supports this nonsense? Is it only the guys on payola or have they hoodwinked some actual scientists?
As a 61 yr old practising engineer I have to echo Crispin ‘ comment above. I only know of 2 engineers who think AGW is likely to be catastrophic. All my other engineering colleagues dismiss the catastrophic bit out of hand, primarily for 2 reasons – warming is very slow and the practical way forward is to mitigate when required.
Luke
No politics? Well, maybe if you ignore those propagating the original proposed APS statement.
Additionally, as Moncton points out, ‘…[the] note to APS members (which, incidentally, has not been sent to every member, as your rules require)…” would seem to indicate somebody is not really interested in a full membership review.
So you don’t want to call this “politics”, but we gotta call it something: lets agree to call it “bananas”. (Apologies to Alfred Kahn, Jimmy Carter’s Chief Economist).
Right, because it’s the WUWT readers that are organizing the waste of tax payer money known as Paris 2015. It’s not the politicians like President Obama or the green lobbyists that politicize this at all.
/sarc
If giving people the ability to learn the truth is ‘politicizing’ than WUWT should not stop – All sites should point to the obvious trueness and the lies being hosted on the public in the quest of money and power. This nation’s greatest failure has been public funding of science and public unions, those combined allow evil people to mask their goals and get away with murdering millions.
Well Luke I see you have a typo there.
The word is spelled … publicizing …
That is what WUWT does; pretty much. Provide a forum, where people can bring up interesting issues for open discussion.
I wouldn’t call it ‘debate’. That has connotations of an antagonistic confrontation.
In a peer reviewed environment, it is simple for participants to exchange favors (if they want to), rather than deal with writings on their merit.
Here at WUWT, each person can choose his(er) own mode of expression either openly or by pseudonym.
Even confrontation is possible within reasonable guide lines spelled out by our host.
No person is required to come to WUWT for information or guidance.
Outside this forum, most of us are forced to accept the dictates of political processes over which we exert almost no control, and which demonstrably are often quite misinformed.
I’m guessing that Luke didn’t actually read the article.
The physicists aren’t being allowed to come to their own conclusions. The physicists have been locked out of the process by the politicians.
Well Luke, I am a physicist, with over half a century of gainful employment using those skills.
And as it turns out, I HAVE examined the data (that is available) and I have considered my own conclusions about what the data shows me, as well as considered the expressed positions of others whose credentials (in the subject) are considerable.
And my own conclusions are that this is just about the biggest waste of money and resources, that I have ever seen in my lifetime.
About the only silver lining that I can see, is that the climate boondoggle is very likely to get supplanted by the free clean green thermonuclear fusion energy boondoggle.
But at least, that is less likely to deprive the poorer communities of this planet, of the energy needed to improve their living conditions.
g
PS No, for the record, climatology is NOT the centerpiece of my physicist credentials; but the laws of physics, operate the same everywhere.
Let the physicists examine the data and come to their own conclusion!
You mean like Freeman Dyson ?
Or another Princeton physicist:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/15/interview-with-physicist-will-happer-on-climate-change/
Now Will Happer; there’s a physicists physicist, and a really fine gentleman as well.
g
Who has been shamelessly abused for the unpardonable sin of skepticism, as on CNBC.
I’m posting with my other alias because my name, Catherine Ronconi, has apparently been blocked. If the moderators don’t want me to comment under either email address, then I’ll stop. I’m not trying to evade being kicked off the blog.
[Hmmmn. Noted, we will look for it. .mod]
Thanks!
That is exactly what Monkton is suggesting. The warmists, and, from your comment, you are trying to prevent.
The only group that is politicizing this issue is WUWT
============
so you are saying that Gore and Obama have joined WUWT. makes sense. if you can’t lick ’em, join ’em.
Luke, they did speak for themselves, and the skeptical viewpoint was clearly triumphant.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/12/notes-on-the-aps-workshop-on-climate-change/
Did you ever read the AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
CLIMATE CHANGE STATEMENT REVIEW WORKSHOP transcript? (Held on January 8, 2014)
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf
You should. Because that is the genesis of the complaint Dr. Curry wrote about yesterday (and she was one of the scientists participating on January 8, 2014).
http://judithcurry.com/2015/04/20/aps-members-comment-on-climate-change-statement/
And what she wrote two weeks ago.
Until you read the workshop transcript, accusations about WUWT “politicizing this issue” are tantamount to writing a book review without reading the book.
“…about its proposed amendment to its existing daft “Statement on Climate Change””
It reads correct either way, should that be draft?
“peculation” -> speculation directly below economics chart: 3rd figure
[fixed thanks -mod]
In ‘Letters to a Young Gentleman Commencing His Education’ (New Haven, 1823), Noah Webster wrote: ” …And it is to the neglect of this rule of conduct in our citizens, that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breeches of trust, peculations and embezzlements of public property “…
“The sheer number of petty peculations people thought they could slip by always amazed her.” – Siuan Sanche. From The Shadow Rising, by Robert Jordan
If you look up the definition of “peculation” I believe it to be an appropriate usage with regard to research funding.
Lord Monkton has given us two double entendres today.
Daft or Draft, either one fits.
Peculation and Speculation, either one fits.
Well done Sir Monckton. An excellent assessment.
One wonders how much longer the empirical data blind world of the hopelessly overwhelmed, ignorant and biased main stream media can continue to ignore the huge reality gaps between flawed climate model projections versus real world outcomes.
But then this entire climate alarmist scheme was always driven by screwball political ideology not science.
Lord Monckton published a paper in the APS bulletin in 2008. I see nothing to change those conclusions.
Splendid post. However this assertion…”undue concern about our effect on the climate is misplaced” …is true by definition. Undue=misplaced.
Sorry to pick nits.
to nit-pick a picker of nits… Undue can be defined in an entirely different way to misplaced. Therefore, your proposition that undue=misplaced is negated.
Speaking of divestment.
APS members have cause now to evaluate whether it is the most rational action to choose to divest themselves of APS membership; and to divest from APS membership in a publically emphasized way.
John
good one.
Indeed. As some notables have already (publicly) done. However, the money flow is the limiter on the mass action you promote.
The only things APS members are qualified to appraise are the physical attributes of the earth’s climate system. The Society should be issuing a statement on how to conduct effective research, not proclaiming what’s settled or unsettled. They may understand the laws of physics, but most likely are way out of their depth concerning geology, chemistry, and biology. Venturing into economics and sociology is laughable.
The climate debate has opened my eyes to many things, including how spectacular dumb supposedly intelligent people can be. The mere possession of lots of IQ points or advanced degrees, is no way a guarantee of wisdom or common sense.
Educated beyond their intelligence, it has been called.
Exactly. The simple fact that this group issued a statement of this nature tells any sufficiently aware observer all he needs to know.
The Temperature of the earth surface, or of the lower troposphere, is entirely a property of Thermodynamics, which is a purely physics discipline.
While Temperature is a practical factor in geology, chemistry and also biology, as simply a tool, it has no application to economics or sociology.
So physicists are pre-eminently qualified to opine on the subject of Temperature of the lower troposphere or earth surface; more so than anyone else.
“So physicists are pre-eminently qualified to opine on the subject of Temperature of the lower troposphere or earth surface; more so than anyone else.”
In the same way that grammarians are best qualified to critique literature?
The company we keep:
To quote the prominent theology professor Neil Ormerod: “Free speech for racist bigots, free speech for climate denialists. Where will it end? Free speech for the tobacco industry to deny smoking causes cancer? There is a value in free speech to promote reasoned discussion and deliberation. And then there is obdurate and at times wilful ignorance. Smoking does cause cancer, there are no superior races and human-induced climate change is as certain as it is scientifically possible to demonstrate.”
Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/04/left-wing-writer-wants-to-limit-freedom-of-speech.html#ixzz3XsDvl8rD
How does one exhibit willfulness about that of which one is ignorant ??
Oh I see the chap is a theology professor. Yes for him free speech is vigorously protected.
Smoking does cause cancer
==================
lung cancer rates for smokers in the country are identical to non-smokers in the city. however, smokers that live in the city have 9 time higher lung cancer rates.
So, one could argue that it is really the combination of smoking and city life that causes lung cancer. it was only after people moved in large numbers into cities that smoking became recognized as a health problem.
And, if one was to follow the consensus solution in climate science, as popularized by Gore and now Obama, the solution to lung cancer is to ban cities.
ferd,
Americans of African or Hispanic ancestry as a group, smoke less than we “white guys” do.
Yet their lung cancer rates are way higher than for the white population.
The reason: They are targeted by cigarette ads (in their popular magazines) for …. Menthol Cigarettes …
The menthol in those cigs evidently cool the smoke and encourage deep inhalation of the smoke into the lungs, where it does its damage.
First time I read that, I started asking Americans of African ancestry whom I might see smoking cigarettes (yes bloody cheeky I know) what brand they were smoking.
To this day, I have not asked anyone who turned out to NOT be smoking a menthol brand of cigarette.
And yes I told them why I was so rudely asking them about none of my business.
Menthols are heavily advertised in Black magazines and neighborhoods.
And yes I have noticed, they really aren’t smoking in large numbers.
Now the Europeans; specially the French; they can’t wait to get a cig lit up in their mouth as soon as they step of the bus or train.
“lung cancer rates for smokers in the country are identical to non-smokers in the city. however, smokers that live in the city have 9 time higher lung cancer rates.”
I remember some study in Europe that discovered people living in urban areas were at a greater risk of either lung cancer or cancer in general than people living in rural areas, the implication that that the diesel vehicles in town were responsible.
It turned out the rural folks were people like farmers – young and very active, whereas the urban folks were older and generally in poorer health.
Citation please. I have looked but cannot find it.
Japanese men smoke waaay more than American men and yet their incidence of lung cancer is much, much lower.
The traditional Japanese diet is noticeably lower in refined sugar, too, compared to ours, and much higher in fermented salts (like the excellent Takuko Tamari, a fermented soy sauce). Sugar is acidic. I spoke to a Canadian cancer researcher who told me death occurs when there is positive acidity in the blood. He claimed that so many of the cancers we get would not arise if the ‘soil’ of our bodies, our cells, were not continously assaulted with refined sugars and high fructose syrup, the latter of which he considered the same as rat poison.
Or ban humans.
I believe it is incorrect to say that smoking causes lung cancer.
the two are correlated, but since it is obvious that some people smoke their whole life and never get cancer I don’t think you can say that it causes it.
There is no specific number of cigarettes one can point to and say that that is the number that will give a person cancer. Some people will be relatively light smokers and get cancer, and other people are heavy smokers and live a long life and never get cancer. So obviously there are other factors which can outweigh the smoking.
For the record I do not smoke, have never smoked, hate cigarettes, believe it to be a disgusting habit and a waste of money, and do not invest in tobacco companies.
Of course smoking is bad for you. See this blog by an old Irish Git.
http://headrambles.com/smoking-out-the-truth/worlds-oldest-smokers/
Now the Irish wouldn’t lie would they?
The APS must be much like the BBC: constantly trying to remind us in so many of its programmes that AGW/CC is happening – and it’s tragic!. I get the impression that it’s much the same as when certain kinds of jobs-worths went about their lives in WW II, constantly reminding everyone: “Don’t you know there’s a war on?”
Well, my considered response these days to the disciples of AGW, who like to tell me that the world is warming is, ‘So what!’ Then it’s up to them to tell me why that’s such a bad thing. Let’s face it, if someone (like Gore?) was to tell them that world was cooling, what would be their reaction? It’s a great game.
I’m not a den**r, I’m a SWOT!
Lord Moncton…..There you go again!….telling the facts……:-)
“Affordably-recoverable fossil-fuel reserves are finite and may be largely exhausted by the end of the century in any event.”
Currently, the proved recoverable coal reserves are about 870 million short tons with an annual consumption of about 8 million short tons (see: BP Statistical review of world energy 2012″. British Petroleum). Since proved recoverable resources are those that can be commercially recovered with current technology. Therefore, the above statement indicating that the fossil-fuel reserves may be exhausted by the end of the century assumes that the technology to recover additional resources does not improve sufficient to increase the size of the proved reserves, or that the increases in technology are only able to keep up with increasing demand. Both of these assumptions have not worked out well in recent years for oil and gas recovery with the US shale oil and gas reserves adds more than accounting for total US production. Similar trends are seen in other countries.
Therefore, it might be a bit of a stretch to state that the reserves may be largely exhausted by the end of the century. Stating that they would be largely depleted is self evident, but if the trend of adding resources continues as technology improves, this end date could be pushed out significantly. This is especially true for coal in the US, the holder of the worlds largest proven reserves, since additional commercial delineation of coal resources has not been needed to meet demand in recent history.
Milliard or billion?
===========
You meant billion, not million. Tons is a very deceptive coal energy metric, as the heat content varies by more than a factor of 4 from in place ‘damp’ lignite to bituminous/anthracite. There are serious studies (Patzek at U. Texas, Rutledge at Caltech) using various methods to suggest’ (without any CAGW considerations) the coal resource is more limited than the industry says. Dave Rutledge’ presentations and paper are available on his Caltech website. Worth a look.
US coal resources are well delineated. What has not been done completely is a TRR estimate. That depends on the specifics of seam thickness and mining technique: room and pillar, longwall with roof collapse, horizontal bore, strip, … And some of those resources are essentialy unproducable because of high sulfur and ash content except via gasification, which is uneconomic. Logansport Indiana is a good example of the gasification ‘solution’ fiasco. Essay Clean Coal in ebook Blowing Smoke.
That’s current technology AND current prices. Rising prices also makes more coal economically recoverable.
The simple solution is to resile your membership.
Stephen Richards,
Thanks. I learned a new word today.
John
As did I. (Now my vocabulary is up to twelve words!)
I too, would throw my APS membership back into the silo.
Yes, “peculation” is new to me too.
No you simply vote out the rascals next election of officers cycle (every year).
As a Simple Red Neck, I now have three (3!) obscure words to baffle other Red Necks with! Better not use it at a Biker Bar though. It could be painful!
Jon Jewett on April 20, 2015 at 8:12 pm
– – – – – – –
Jon Jewett,
Hey those kind of obscure words are good for witty repartee at chic cocktail parties.
John
Another excellent essay Christopher, without wishing to nit-pick something else that could have been mentioned was historical atmospheric CO2 concentration. You did mention the varying prehistorical temperature and provided graphs, but as I understand it the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past has been over 7000 ppm without the “tipping point” being reached.
Personally, I think this is the strategic nail in the coffin for the AGW brigade.
In response to Mr Harding, I had originallyintended to include a graph showing the startling absence of correlation between CO2 and temperature changes over the past 550 million years, but that one did not make the cut. I could also have pointed out that in the Neoproterozoic era the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 30%. Today, to the nearest tenth of one per cent, there isn’t any.
Prehistorical CO2 concentration is a great argument. Plus, the BBC shares the burden of proof http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/earth_timeline/first_life
That sounds more like the Archean Eon than the Neoproterozoic Era. Maybe at the end of Snowball Earth intervals, but 30% still looks high for that era. Would you be kind enough to post a source for this estimate? Thanks.
Chris can speak for himself, but IMO that figure comes from Raymond Pierrehumbert’s estimation of the amount of CO2 needed to melt a Snowball Earth under Cryogenian Period solar output, based upon assumptions about ECS, albedo & other variables put into a model.
The abstract uses 0.2 bar rather than Chris’ 0.3 bar, but in the body of the paper Ray mentions an upper limit of 0.29 bar.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6992/full/nature02640.html
So Chris’ beyond highest estimate in this model output is derived from a computer simulation “experiment”, not from actual scientific observation.
Other model runs have found that global glaciation then could have resulted from PAL (currently 400 ppmv) & been ended by as little as 12,000 ppmv rather than Chris’ 300,000. But it’s far more likely that very high CO2 levels from volcanism were not the main cause of deglaciation. Methane could have been more important (but probably also not responsible, see below), or the GHE was not even the primary “forcing” agent, which happens to be my opinion, FWIW, which isn’t much.
“Scientists” continue playing such computer games, with results all over the place, thanks to GIGO inputs. They range from only ten times higher than now to 1.0 bar (a million parts per million of PAL, obviously in an atmosphere more massive than currently).
As for methane rather than CO2 as the planet’s savior gas, please see this, also reported on WUWT back in 2011:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-05/ciot-ctd052511.php
If I’m mistaken, Chris, and your number is in fact derived from actual observations rather than a computer exercise, my apologies.
Sir the lead in stated this; “Climate change: risks and rewards, benefits and costs”.
Other then one simple sentence mentioning aerial fertilization, would not something like this be better?
The IPCC projected harms from anthropogenic CO2 are failing to manifest, while the benefits of CO2 are KNOWN and documented in tens of thousands of laboratory and real world experiments. The doubling of earth’s pre-industrialization atmospheric CO2 from 280 PPM to 560 PPM will, exclusive of any other improvements in crop growth, increase mankind’s global food supply 30% to 50 % without increasing the amount of land and water used.
Thank you for your reply, Christopher, what you said is interesting because if 300,000 ppm didn’t cause catastrophic irreversible global warming (presumably the physics is unchanged, then 400ppm) most certainly will not either, therefore the “tipping point” beloved of AGW mongers does not exist or needs more CO2 than 300,000ppm.
Andrew,
There is no physical evidence that CO2 levels were that high in the Neoproterozoic Era (one billion to 541 million years ago). However they probably were around 30% during the Archean Eon (4 to 2.5 billion years ago), at least in its first two or three of four eras. As noted above, the Neoproterozoic figure comes from beyond the high end of a computer model “experiment” to see how much CO2 might have been needed to melt a Snowball Earth, based upon unrealistic assumptions.
Of course the sun was a lot less luminous in the Archean (perhaps 70 to 75% of present power) and even in the Neoproterozoic (~94% of now at 660 Ma).
But runaway warming didn’t happen in the first four of the six periods of the Paleozoic Era (541 to 359 Ma), either, when CO2 levels were 2000 to 8000 ppmv. At 440 Ma (Early Silurian), the sun was about 96% as luminous as now. There was an ice age in the preceding Ordovician Period with CO2 at over 4000 ppmv.
Present thinking on the evolution of earth’s atmosphere:
http://l.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/k5ppGp_5uxmzQ8z_LNFfyQ–/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9MzA1O3E9OTU7dz0zNDU-/http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/timeline/atmosphere-composition.gif
The first atmosphere, in the Hadean, was hydrogen & helium, light gases soon lost to space because earth’s gravity wasn’t sufficient to hold them & due to lack of a magnetosphere, from the core not having differentiated yet, plus possibly ammonia & methane.
The second atmosphere, from the late Hadean into the Archean, was produced by volcanoes emerging from the newly formed crust. The water vapor rained out to form oceans as the planet cooled, leaving nitrogen, formed by the action of sunlight on ammonia, & CO2 as the dominant gases. At its height in the mid-Archean, CO2 might well have exceeded 30% of the air.
CO2 declined for the rest of the Archean & into the early Proterozoic, to be replaced by cyanobacteria-produced oxygen from then on as the number two gas in varying concentrations.
“the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past has been over 7000 ppm without the “tipping point” being reached.”
I believe that Christopher Monckton debunked the whole notion of tipping points in a recent essay here on WUWT, by simply pointing out that there has been no runaway feedbacks, on the cold or warm side, at any time in the recent geological history of the earth. And this despite asteroid strikes, volcanic catastrophes, and any and all other manner of shocks and insults to the atmosphere and hydrosphere of the earth.
A few hundredths of 1 percent more of the essential trace gas CO2 seems unlikely to do what massive asteroids strikes and super-volcanoes could not.
Consider this graph of CO2 vs. O2 during the Phanerozoic Eon:
http://l.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/ATW.tSjJHfYb.gOLXGj5Nw–/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9MzEzO3E9OTU7dz00MDA-/http://i58.tinypic.com/2qml009.gif
Right on Gloria.
And an overlay of temperatures onto that graph makes it plainly evident that CO2 does not drive temperature.
The more recent trends, seen in the ice core data, show a correlation, but with CO2 as an effect of higher temps, not a cause.
And, judging by the longer term view, this is likely to only be the case when CO2 (And temps) is (are) so low that outgassing from the oceans can cause large shifts in the atmospheric proportion of that gas.
OT, but possible game changer?
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/04/16/major-advance-in-artificial-photosynthesis/
I read a similar piece the other day and thought – why would we want to make “machines” to capture carbon? To appease the carbon fears? Leave it for the plants.
My proofreader’s eye immediately tripped on the phrase ‘daft “Statement on Climate Change”.’
My mother (who was a newspaper proofreader for over 20 years, and who passed a few things on to me) would have called this a ‘Freudian slip.’
Very amusing…stet.
Very nicely done Lord Monckton. One to bookmark!
[Typo fixed – mod]
the reality is your up against one of the most powerful human emotions you can come across , that is ‘indifference’
Most members of the APS may not agree with the Statement on Climate Change, however they do not disagree strongly enough to put effort in to getting it changed if that means sitting through endless meetings, reading largely worthless reports by the bucket load and dealing with people whose idea of a good time is thinking of ‘points of order ‘ to bring up in meetings while sorting paper clips out by size .
Most clubs end up heading by these types of people , because they enjoy this type of thing and its a bit of power trip, while most other members are ‘indifferent’ to the whole boring process involved with administration and organisation as long as they enjoy a reasonable status for being a member and the occasional nice meal with a few drinks.
No Chance.
Scientist of such ilk think they know the best.
Since September 2012 (first publication of hypothesis) I’ve been trying to tell people that Sunspot Cycles and the Earth rotation are synchronised
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01071375v2/document
(version 2, -v2/document)
Now, couple of years later, Chinese scientist Lihua Ma from no less than Chinese Academy of Sciences has come up with a ‘brilliant’ brand new hypothesis:
“Possible influence of the 11-year solar cycle on length-of-day change”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11200-014-1040-x
Both driven by the same underlying force, magnetic fields perhaps.
That is correct. Sunspot cycles are driven by toroidal magnetic field, and the LOD data are closely related to the outer core boundary field. Neither of two can affect the other, thus a common external cause could be postulated
I read the APS ‘position statement’ over at J. Curry’s blog.
It is pure political advocacy, authored by a select group of physics community activists.
Ugh…..
Thank You (!) Christopher Monckton, for yet another succinctly stated rebuttal of the alarmist mash!
May APS yet recover their wits and heed your words.
“May APS yet recover their wits and heed your words”
As has been pointed out, various groups and individuals have long been busily painting themselves deep into a corner from which it may already be impossible to extract themselves.
Many have staked every ounce of their credibility on their pro warming, settled science, skeptics-are-scoundrels stance.
Always a bad idea to leave ones self no recourse from an untenable position, it is truly astounding that so many have nonetheless done just that.
This is why we hear many of them doubling down (Antarctica melting within a decade) , becoming ever more shrill (No greater threat to our planet), and making increasingly stern admonitions ( Jail for deniers) towards those who would bring down their house of cards.
Being proved wrong will mean loss of jobs for some, possible charges of malfeasance and fraud for others, and being discredited and career-less for many more.
Thank you again Lord Monckton.
Do you think you could disguise yourself as a cardinal and slip into the papal summit on climate climate? Somebody has to give those guys hell. You could do it.
[Snipped. If you keep referring to non-science issues regarding C. Monckton you will be invited to leave. ~mod.]
Let me guess.
” He’s not really a Lord”
This ad hominem attack always shows up when MISTER Moncton writes a post.
Do-it-yourself climate science:
This can:
Prove Al Gore and the consensus are wrong.
Prove AGW is a mistake.
Prove the ‘war on coal’ is misguided.
Prove CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
Prove climate sensitivity (the increase in AGT due to doubling of CO2) is not significantly different from zero
Right here. Right now.
Only existing temperature and CO2 data are used. Fundamental understanding of math and its relation to the physical world are assumed.
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). For example, a bloc of metal over a burner heats up slowly, responding to the time-integral of the net forcing (heat from the burner minus the heat loss from convection and radiation). Add a blanket over the block (a ‘step change’ to the loss) and the block temperature increases to a new steady state temperature but the temperature increases slowly (in response to the time-integral).
Existing data includes temperature and CO2 determined from Vostok, Antarctica (or any other) ice cores for at least a full glacial or inter-glacial period. If CO2 is a forcing, the temperature should change as a transient following CO2 level change instead of temperature and CO2 level going up and down in ‘lock step’ as has been determined from measurements and is widely 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
Pick any two points separated in time that have the same average global temperature (AGT) anomaly. The cumulative forcing is the time-integral of the forcing (or a function thereof) times a scale factor. Because the AGT at the beginning and end of the time period are the same and the time-integral of the forcing is not zero, the scale factor must be zero. As a consequence, the effect of the forcing is zero.
Granted that if the math function consists of an anomaly with respect to a ‘break-even’ CO2 level, a ‘break-even level could be determined to make the beginning and ending temperatures equal, but pick another time period with equal beginning and ending temperatures but different from the first pick and a different ‘break-even’ level might be calculated. Since the possibility of many different ‘break-even’ levels is ludicrous, the conclusion that CO2 has no significant effect on AGT prevails and something else is causing the temperature change.
A somewhat different approach to the proof showing that CO2 has no significant effect on climate and also identification of the two main factors that do (95% correlation since before 1900) are disclosed at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
Identification of the two main factors that do cause climate change are also disclosed in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.
So Dan, Just what are the SI units of a “forcing” ??
For one thing, Temperature is a macro property of thermodynamic systems, and usually is related to energy in the form of “heat” (noun) which requires the presence of physical real matter (interacting particles).
On the other hand, the process in which CO2 (or other GHG) becomes involved, is a matter of electro-magnetic radiation energy, which is different from “heat” and which is not necessarily totally converted into “heat” energy in our environment, so presumably the two are not directly related when it comes to treating them as “forcings”.
So I wish climatologists would get things straight. Not ALL EM radiant energy gets immediately converted to heat energy to become part of the thermodynamic system. Much of it becomes a part of the biological systems (or some other) of earth instead.
Well ultimately the end product is waste “heat”, the lowest form of energy life; but the delay in getting there can have significant consequences.
Evidently, Dr Kevin Trenberth seems unaware that not ALL EM energy is immediately wasted as heat in earths thermodynamic processes; and he thinks that is a travesty.
I would say so too.
Forcing units are W/m^2 = J/sec/m^2
The time-integral of net forcing gets to energy change which has units J/sec/m^2
Dividing by the effective thermal capacitance gets to temperature change.
Plants only store about 2% of incident energy as chemical energy and much of this eventually shows up as heat. IMO less than 1% doesn’t show up as heat (until the fossil fuels are burned) and is an insignificant effect, especially in light of other uncertainties.
Well I can see measuring an incoming solar radiation field in Wm^-2 or a surface emitted LWIR Lambertian source of EMR.
But once the CO2 does its capture thing, that is promptly followed by an almost immediate (collision caused) re-radiation but now in an isotropic scattered radiation pattern that fills the sky with isotropic LWIR radiation, only about half of which can reach the surface to get absorbed by some non radiative process.
I don’t see much of any radiation to thermal energy conversion going on in the atmosphere.
GHG molecular absorptions are resonance processes that happen at specific molecular species based line frequencies (in bands).
And how many times a day are we told that gases do not absorb or radiate thermal IR spectra ??
Well it isn’t BB radiation (nothing is) but it certainly does happen as a result of radiating antennae that come into play during the molecular distortion during collisions between molecules of the atmosphere.
Since the molecular density is low in gases compared to the liquid and solid phases, ordinary gases are nearly transparent in earth available quantities so they are nothing like total absorbers that characterize the BB radiation.
Absolutely nothing in the universe absorbs 100.0 % of even a single EM wavelength, let alone all wavelengths from zero to infinity; so BB radiation does not actually exist. But there is a theory of what it would do if it did exist.
To get zero reflectance from any physical body, the material would have to have the same permeability and permittivity (munought and epsilonnought) as free space, and then such a material would be perfectly transmissive, instead of perfectly absorptive.
The required physical properties of a black body absorber are as absurd and mythical as were the required physical properties of “the ether” required to transmit waves at the speed of light.
Yes I know that some thermally heated bodies do emit a thermal spectrum that over a very limited frequency range does track quite closely to the prediction of Planck’s BB theory. One of the miracles of modern physics.
george e – You appear to be ignoring that non-ghg molecules in the atmosphere outnumber ghg molecules by about 500 to 1 so most collisions would be with non-ghg molecules. If the collision happens before the ghg molecule that absorbed a photon emits a photon, some or all of the energy is transferred to the non-ghg molecule in a process called thermalization, the ghg molecule is no longer able to emit a photon, and all of the energy in the absorbed photon appears as thermal energy, i.e. the atmosphere is warmed. A common demonstration of this is humid nights cool off slower than dry nights.
Energy gets transferred back to ghg molecules via reverse-thermalization. The back and forth goes on continuously until the energy from all gas molecules gets radiated to space by ghg molecules at high altitude.
I have been unable to find anything on the amount of time that passes between a molecule absorbing and emitting a photon but suspect it to average less than a microsecond. Any suggestions?
Dan says, “IMO less than 1% doesn’t show up as heat (until the fossil fuels are burned) and is an insignificant effect, especially in light of other uncertainties.”
Hum? How mush heat energy is required to accelerate earth’s hydrological cycle, thus heat is then used as work instead of remaining heat?
Also, In determining the capacity of any given input to warm, one must know the residence time that energy will exist in earths atmosphere, land and oceans. If said energy enters the oceans, it can be lost to the atmosphere for centuries. if said energy accelerates the earth’s hydrological cycle, including winds convecting both vertically and horizontally, then disparate aspects of TSI residence time is shortened, thus cooling, not warming, or at the least a negative feedback to increased insolation.
Dan Pangburn April 21, 2015 at 12:07 am
I have been unable to find anything on the amount of time that passes between a molecule absorbing and emitting a photon but suspect it to average less than a microsecond. Any suggestions?
For CO2 absorbing at 15 microns it’s much more than a millisec, whereas collisions are taking place at ~0.1 nanosec.
Dan,
Why do you assume I ignore things, simply because I don’t mention them.
So tell me more about this “thermalization and “reverse thermalization” process.
As I understand how you just explained “reverse thermalization” process, since “heat” (noun) cannot leave earth without any material to conduct or convect it, then you are suggesting to us that 100% of the thermal energy in the atmosphere, most of which is non GHG and non IR active gases, must transfer their “thermal energy” to the GHG molecules, and they will then magically radiate all of that energy as 15 micron (in the case of CO2) radiation (or other higher photon energy bands).
So in that case, I would expect that the extra-terrestrial spectrum of earth thermal radiation, would consist of ONLY GHG spectral lines, which are largely Temperature independent as to wavelength.
But the published graphs I see of earth radiation from outer space, all appear to be earth surface Temperature BB like spectra, with big GHG (notably ozone and CO2 ) dips.
I don’t see any big 15 micron peak spectra, from CO2 channeling everybody elses thermal energy through their line spectra emissions.
My standard Infra-red handbook, doesn’t say word one about earth cooling solely by GHG resonance spectra EM radiation.
And remember according to Kevin Trenberth, only 10% of the earth surface emitted thermal spectrum radiant energy (40 Wm^-2 out of 390 Wm^-2) escapes directly to outer space, so 90% of it has to be emitted as CO2 or other GHG lines, if your thermalization scenario is correct.
Now I certainly appreciate that GHG molecules and non GHG molecules pass KE back and forth among themselves in collisions; and that is the thermal energy that is manifested in the gas Temperature. Exactly how a CO2 molecule in free flight, busily doing it’s elbow bend oscillations after having captured a 15 micron photon, which is a 20 THz photon, can exit from that entirely internal (to the molecule) excited state, without emitting a 20 THz photon is beyond me.
But I am not a quantum mechanic, so I don’t know. Phil says below the state may be collision terminated in maybe a nsec.
That is all day, if you are a captive 20THz photon.
I’m totally puzzled that such a fundamental basic process, as the LWIR removal of energy from the earth, does not have its own chapter in every physics text book.
I have yet to encounter ANY description of exactly how this “thermalization” and reverse thermalization works. It sounds like hand waving to me.
But I’m always anxious to learn
And it begs the question. Why is it that on the sun’s surface ALL of the emitted solar radiant energy is not emitted at ONLY the specific wavelengths that are those well known wavelengths of the hydrogen spectrum. Why is not all the solar atmosphere thermal energy converted to hydrogen spectral lines in order to escape from the sun ??
And I see I misread Phil’s post. I think he says a CO2 molecule hits something else in about 100 ps but it remains in its excited state for more than a millisecond. So it can endure 10^7 collisions and not miss a beat in its elbow bending.
Now I am thoroughly confused.
g
[“100 ps”? .mod]
Phil – Can you point me to a source or basis?
George e – I’m looking at a TOA radiation graph at David Appell’s Jan 8, 2015 3:58 PM post on http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/08/miskolczi-discussion-thread (You can also find it with a search for “top of atmosphere” radiation spectrum). This is fairly high resolution so it shows the ‘hash’ of the hundreds of spectral lines from water vapor and also the spikes at the centers of the CO2 and O3 dips (which result from reverse-thermalization at high altitude). Except for cloud radiation and the terrestrial radiation through the window, its all spectral ‘lines’ from ghg molecules which includes water vapor. The broad ‘dips’ result mostly from low altitude pressure broadening of absorption.
Most of the ghg radiation is from the hundreds of spectral lines from water vapor molecules. Only a small part is radiated from CO2 molecules (15 micron line).
A lot of full spectrum (close enough) radiation comes from clouds which consist of solid or liquid particles of water, each containing millions of atoms. Clouds cover about half the planet, have an average emissivity of about 0.5 and an average temperature of about 258 K.
My guess (and its only a guess) about the sun is that there are lots of different elements involved and each gas molecule has lots of emission lines at the extremely high temperature and, what with broadening, it looks a lot like BB radiation to us.
If the time from absorption to emission was as long as 1 ms, nearly all absorbed radiation would be immediately thermalized and would be very resistant to reverse-thermalization. My calcs don’t point in that direction
Realize that non of this is needed for the proof that CO2 has no.significant effect on climate change.
If the American Physicalists can have a society, why not the unBought ?
I propose the MUSS
The Monkton Unbought Society of Scientists
producing papers, reviews and rebuttals. Condition of membership – all interests must be declared
all work and comment in favour of a declared interest will be foregone.
this all seems a bit like when the militant tendency tried to take over the Unions and hence the Labour party in the UK
It would be better if the letter did not contain such an obviously altered graph as the one claiming to be ‘based on Petit(1999)’.
Phil. Should stop whining. There is nothing wrong with the reproduction of Petit’s graph.
Someone should tell the American Geophyscal Union this as well. It disgusts me that professional bodies which we sometimes have to be a member of, put out these statements, geneally supporting catastrophic climate change, and the members have not had a chance to vote on it. I completely agree that for any society, professional body etc in the realm of science should put such a statement to vote of the entire membership and include that it was endorsed by X% of the membership. To not do so just plays into the hands of alarmists who then take the entire number of people who are a member of that ‘body’ and assume they all agree. When in reality, many don’t.
travelblips,
The AGU knows exactly what it is doing. The small clique running the organization deliberatelly censors views they don’t want their membership to see, or to vote on. They refuse to allow anyone but themselves to have access to the membership contact list.
The AGU (and many similar organizations) don’t just “play into the hands of the alarmists”, they are the alarmists. I would be willing to bet that if the OISM Petition language was presented to their membership verbatim, it would be adopted by a very large percentage.
The AGU is engaging in climate alarmist propaganda, nothing less. They control the message, and they refuse to relinquish control in the slightest. Their members are expected to send in their dues, and shut up.
Prof. Richard Lindzen wrote about how only one or two activists on a Board can radically alter the oeganization’s message. Lindzen isn’t speculating; he names names (see Sec. 2).
There has been a concerted, deliberate effort to co-opt professional organizations and turn them into climate alarmist mouthpieces. They know there will be lots of ignorant people who will turn into head-nodders when they issue opinions, no matter how baseless those opinions are. We often see some of the mouth-breathers right here, constantly pushing their Appeal to Authority logical fallacies. So the tactic works.
The basic facts are that almost all of the very slight warming from CO2 has already happened; and that the tiny 0.7º of global warming is an unmitigated benefit; and that the rise in CO2 is likewise entirely beneficial, with no downside whatever; and that every alarming climate prediction made over the past thirty years has failed miserably.
The incessant commentary and scare stories by the same small handful of climate alarmists posting here every day completely ignores those facts. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening to the global climate. They try to hijack the conversation by always appealing to corrupted ‘authorities’ like the AGU.
Fortunately, they never change anyone’s mind here, because WUWT attracts intelligent, educated readers who know better. It is the general public that is being scammed by their man-made global warming hoax. The few commenters here who promote that hoax probably know better. But they never give up. They’re genuine cranks, and the climate scam appears to be their mission in life.
For what it’s worth: I call on the AGU to present the language of the OISM Petition Project to its membership, asking for an up/down vote of approval or disapproval. With Kyoto II coming up, that would be a very timely survey.
Of course, they won’t do it. Propagandists always censor different views.
Intelligent people know better than to use the word “hoax”
[Note: This poster has been banned for repeated unethical behavior, such as stealing the identity of legitimate commenters. ~mod.]
Sam Varian,
It fits the definition. But if you have a better word, by all means, post it here.
Sam Varian,
A “hoax” is a deception. Why would intelligent people never use the word “deception”?
[Reply: “Sam Varian” is a hoax and a deception. He is a banned commenter who has stolen the identity of other legitimate commenters. Say goodbye to ‘Sam’, he won’t be commenting for long here. ~mod.]
Sam,
So on your planet Hal Lewis, who called man-made global warming a “scam”, was unintelligent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lewis
On another forum, we have several commenters who when challenged on their AGW claims fall back on the statement that since the AGU, APS and others agree with them, they must be right.
“Onlookers have begun to notice…..” That’s a good quote. Think I’ll save it for future use. Attributed, of course.
vukcevic,
If you look closely, you can see that temperature changed first, followed by CO2. Not vice-versa. Thus, their “evidence” deconstructs their narrative.
Thanks. Yes I am aware of the fact, some put that difference to as much as 800 years. I am not sure about the accuracy the ice cores data, even the most recent ones going back just few hundreds of years have notable problems.
A big deal is made out of the CO2 high levels during interglacial periods
This graph from NCDC, NOAA is suppose to provide the evidence
I would suggest following:
Rise of CO2 is due to release from the Earth’s interior. Gravitational anomaly map of the ocean floor clearly show bands of large magma releases possibly triggered by the Milankovic cycles.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/IG.jpg
If so the current interglacial is marked by the black line
What are we looking at, Vuk, where interglacial = black line?
Yes, if I am correct, the black line is there to‘mark’ the current (Holocene)
I am coming to the view that the TSI changes alone, either from solar or Milankovic (I am supporter of his orbital hypothesis) cycles is not large enough to account for the climate variability either during the Holocene or the glacial periods. Slow glaciation is likely (alarming even terrifying) process of returning the Earth’s climate to its long term natural climate balance.
However, we had about 20 (?)or so interglacial periods, when temperatures rose extremely rapidly. Northern hemisphere’s multi-millennial temperature oscillations are most likely, in the manner of multi-decadal oscillations, determined by the North Atlantics currents efficiency to move equatorial heat towards Arctic. There are two or three areas of the currents flow constraint subjected to strong geological activity, which in turn may be modulated by Milankovic cycles.
They’re too far gone to back down now. Just having alphabet soup after your last name doesn’t mean you are able to separate your politics from your work, and academia is overwhelmingly leftist. It’s even worse for political academics, like the ones who get put in charge of institutions and committees. So APS says what it says because that’s what the people in charge of issuing the opinion believe with religious fervor, the same as they believe in the aggregation of power in the hands of an enlightened technocracy.
Also, there’s an enormous pile of money being given to CAGW research. If APS denies CAGW is real, and the funding dries up, they’re eschewing a lot of money and putting many of their members on the street. It is, frankly, in the economic and political self-interest of the APS’ membership and leadership to further the global warming scare.
Exactly, they can’t focus on the physics as they would lose in any reasonable professional debate. So they practice school yard bullying instead so they can keep stealing our tax money. Because of the major loss in monetary outcome, there can be no serious mutual discussion but only verbal warfare, that warfare being the evidence against deception and denigration. Anytime a “professional” practices these tactics he has reduced himself to the level of a thug and it should be obvious that he has logically lost all credibility because he is no longer capable of professionally defending his position. Unfortunately the MSM has lost so much scientific intellect that it is unable to discern the difference.
Could some-one please clarify for me the 2nd graph in this article( IPCC Medium term warming predictions) which shows a steady observed rate of temp increase at 0.14degree Centigrade/decade versus the oft made statement that the earth has not warmed at all in the last 18+ years. I got caught out on this whilst trying to explain the issue to my daughter.
Dark blue arrow should have stopped at early 2015. It represent ( I assume) linear up-trend since 1990, clearly there are no observed temperatures beyond the early 2015.
p.s. my daughter homework is responsible for my ‘solar science’ deliberations.
Harrowsceptic,
Perhaps this graph might help:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend
It shows satellite temperature data, with an overlay of rising CO2 (the sawtooth).
There are lots of graphs available, some from different sources; some accurate within error bands, and some fabricated for propaganda purposes. However, your daughter might be interested in the comment from Dr. Pachauri, recent head of the IPCC, acknowledging that global warming has stopped.
One thing is certain: if global warming was rising along with CO2 as predicted all through the 1990’s, there would be no debate. We would have to take action. But since those predictions have been falsified, the only thing keeping the man-made global warming scare alive is money, and lots of it.
[Snip. This commenter has been repeatedly banned. ~mod.]
[snip – latest sockpuppet of Wong and H. Grouse et al. permanently delegated to the bit bucket – Anthony]
Harrowsmith, there are 4 major temperature data sets, plus a couple more that are not major.
2 of them are surface-based and calculated by warmists. GISS & HadCRUT. The IPCC uses HadCrut. That’s where the data from the 2nd graph is likely plotted from.
The other two majors, UAH & RSS, are satellite-based and calculated by skeptics.
One of the skeptics temp set and one of the warmers sets show no warming since 1998, in fact the RSS show a tiny bit of cooling.
The same goes that one of the skeptics and one of the warmers set show a bit of warming since 1998. A very little bit, about the same amount of temp rise as occurs while my morning coffee brews.
It can be tough to argue this stuff with people, because they don’t understand that there are a handful of different data sets, placing a number on something which is essentially impossible to measure except in a rough sort of way. And we know the surface base temp is regularly adjusted to make the past cooler and the warming trend look greater than it is. We know this, because they openly admit it.
“All of This” is simple poppycock. It impossible for the common man to believe that there could be such an amount of corruption, and ignorance too!, at the highest levels of science. But a deep study of this issue reveals no other conclusion.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/mean:6/plot/rss/from:1998/mean:6/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/mean:6/plot/gistemp/from:1998/mean:6/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend
glenncz,
Here is a chart showing several different temperature datasets. Note that they have all turned down. Global warming has turned into global cooling.
I hate to say this, but the only active set going down since 2002 at the present time is RSS. All of the others are either obsolete or have not been updated by WFT unfortunately. To verify this, try to find the January 2015 anomaly for anything except RSS using WFT.
Many thanks for the feedback and clarification
In answer to harrow skeptic, the blue line is the linear trend on the data since 1990.
Engineers and scientists should be voting with their feet. I have quit the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning, Engineers (ASHRAE) over their support of bogus climate science and energy awards for buildings that are actually energy hogs but have “energy saving” features. I have quit the National Society of Professional Engineers over their lack of ethics. Don’t forget to send them a letter telling them why you quit!
Dear Mr. Monckton, though I generally enjoy reading your work, I have some sincere issues with this text.
1. “Of the abstracts of 11,944 climate-related papers published in the reviewed journals over the 21 years 1991-2011, only 41 (0.3%) were found to have stated explicitly that most warming since 1950 was manmade (Legates et al., 2013).”
Phrasing it like this leaves me with more questions than answers. Firstly stating that only 0.3% explicitly state something in an abstract doesn’t mean the others disagree. I can imagine that e.g. of all recent papers on evolution only a very small amount state in their abstract that they agree with Darwin’s theory. Secondly “climate-related papers” is a broad term. I would not expect a paper researching prehistoric climate to have anything to say about warming since 1950, in the abstract or elsewhere.
2. You claim to want to stay away from political issues, but I see no reason why the American Physical Society would want to make statements based on economical or geopolitical issues (the China graph). I believe that any text by the APS should focus on the physical sciences, since that is their area of expertise. The other parts just distract from that.
3. Comparing heat in the ocean with heat in the atmosphere by comparing temperatures is scientifically incorrect since they have vastly different heat capacities.
4. Focusing only on a selected part of the data at hand (first graph and statement regarding RSS) runs the risk of being dismissed as cherry picking.
Note: I have not read the APS draft. I am sure there are issues with that. I am judging your text by its own merits.
+1
Aran should understand that if only 0.3 per cent of scientific papers related to climate say most of the warming since 1950 is manmade there is no scientific basis for claiming a 97 per cent consensus on that point.
He should also understand that before long China will emit half the world’s CO2. That is a relevant fact when considering whether we can do anything to reduce global CO2 concentration.
Also, if the ocean has a heat capacity 2-3 orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere, the warming rate of the ocean is likely to be the best guide to how atmospheric temorperature will change.
Aran then contradicts himself by saying I had cherry-picked a temperature dataset. No, I had used an ocean as well as an atmospheric dataset. It doesn’t much matter which dataset one uses. The rate of global warming is about half what the IPCC had predicted in 1990. Get over it.
“Aran should understand that if only 0.3 per cent of scientific papers related to climate say most of the warming since 1950 is manmade there is no scientific basis for claiming a 97 per cent consensus on that point.”
No, this is an incorrect statement. First of all, one cannot make that claim, just from the whether or not something is explicitly stated in the abstracts. Again, I am sure one could make similar statement about other theories such as the theory of gravity. The percentage of abstracts explicitly stating agreement with this theory will be very low, but this says nothing about whether or not there is consensus. The numbers you show don’t support the 97% claim, but they do not disprove it either.
“He should also understand that before long China will emit half the world’s CO2. That is a relevant fact when considering whether we can do anything to reduce global CO2 concentration.”
I understand that and my point was that such an argument is completely irrelevant when determining the physical scientific basis for global warming.
“Also, if the ocean has a heat capacity 2-3 orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere, the warming rate of the ocean is likely to be the best guide to how atmospheric temperature will change.”
I would say this is a crude simplification of the complex interactions between ocean and atmosphere. But if accept it for arguments sake, does the warming of the ocean – which you clearly show – then indicates the atmosphere is going to warm as well?
“Aran then contradicts himself by saying I had cherry-picked a temperature dataset. No, I had used an ocean as well as an atmospheric dataset. It doesn’t much matter which dataset one uses. The rate of global warming is about half what the IPCC had predicted in 1990. Get over it.”
I am disappointed you did not seem to read my post carefully. I claimed that the explicit showing of RSS and not the other data sets can make you vulnerable to accusations of cherry-picking, which can distract any discussion from the actual science. I am fully aware that the predictions from 1990 were too high. No argument there. You don’t need RSS to prove that.
The ‘no global warming’ charts are laying the anthropogenic doomsday scare to rest slowly but surely and, thus, are likely to remain in history. I haven’t found another way to express my sincerest gratitude to you Christopher.
This article is also on the right track. Great entertainment too. If I may, the alarmists’ diencephalons seem stimulated. Less adjectives at this stage might enhance their cortical processing.
Goldminer:
I have done the same thing for a number of Canadian locations from the 49th parallel to Eureka,Nunavut. Always similar results. It is getting less cold. I suspect increasing GHG s may do that. Or more likely, clouds. A number of sites show convergence. The highs are decreasing; the lows are less cold. Wouldn’t more cloudiness explain that?
Wayne…I haven’t had any thoughts as to the why. Although now that you have got my thoughts in that direction, my first answer would be ocean release and increased clouds, the overly warm sst,s. I noticed an increase in clouds last year where I live, and that did lead to a slightly cooler summer last year, which was appreciated. The several years prior the summers were hot. Although the hottest summer I ever felt in these mountains was back in 1957, when my father first took me on a fishing trip for steelhead up north to Humboldt/Trinity counties in California. The entire trip was triple digits over 110 F. We left a bit early to head back to SF as my mother couldn’t take it.
Judith Curry pointed out that the APS’s most-expert scientists weren’t consulted. How about the American Geophysical Union’s CEO Christine McEntee, BSN N = Nursing; MHA, HA = Health Administration. A nurse should be able to stand in the streets carrying a sign. But should she be able to speak for geophysical scientists, and give the AGU her personal stamp? She used to lead the American Association of Retired Persons, and the American Institute of Architects. These positions, and brilliant experience as a nursing student and nurse make her an expert in world weather and climate, capable of making scientific statements for the AGU? If she is so authoritative, why didn’t the American Medical Association name her their CEO?
None of the bodies who have come out in favour of CAGW have consulted their members on this.
Instead we seen reports , claims and marketing come from a very small but influence groups of people who head up the boring but important side of these organisations.
Simply put the actual members have never even been asked about their views.
The one thing I agree with here is that I would love to see the results of a vote on including this post.
or not.
trafamadore,
Including this post? There has been a vote on all posts collectively, every year since 2008. WUWT has won every one of them. So truly, you are the misfit here.
Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton.
Yes, I agree that the APS would be better served by keeping to fostering scientific debate rather than stifling it.
The physical reality should come forth from that debate.
But that is precisely what they appear to fear, after years of playing a scaremongering part in this climate blunder-turned-scam. They should try to regain the public trust.
dbs, What are you talking about? Read the post above: “It would be sensible if you were to give all members a free vote on the statement so that, for once, it will be reflect the scientific opinion not of a clique miscalling itself a consensus but of many.”
I would like to see the results of that vote.
trafamadore,
My apologies if I didn’t understand what you meant. It wasn’t clear, and your “or not” confused matters further. What language do you propose voting on?
Read………post………above……. Understanding……will…….come……your…….way.
Your….. cryptic….. comment….. sounds….. like….. Mosher’s….
It’s very simple. Since we have started putting out co2 in significant quantities which is after ww2 the temperature has risen between 0.4 and 0.5C at most. We have put 130ppm or about a 50% increase in co2. The tcs is therefore clearly < 0.7C.
There is great uncertainty in the estimate because there is great unknown about the oceans sun and other factors. However the data speak for themselves. Unless the ipcc can suggest why the temperature has been held back the response of the climate has been seen for a 50% rise of co2 or about 70% of the expected temperature rise for a doubling of co2. Tcs <0.7. That's the scientific result. I don't see how anybody can argue with the data. We are using the data put out and adjusted by the climate extremists and it shows that a doubling can produce no more than 0.7C. It's simple. Climate models have to be wrong because tcs clearly is not 2.5 or 3 or 4 or 6. It's < 1. Way less than 1.
Don’t we have to see water vapor increases before the temperature increases to attribute even a portion of the 0.7C rise to CO2?
Not really. Water vapor is an independent greenhouse gas. Water vapor is 20 times more powerful greenhouse gas than co2. They predict that co2 triggers some temperature increase which increases the water vapor in the atmosphere from evaporation. The increased water vapor instantly doubles the 0.6C TCS of Co2 to 1.2 to 1.8 just by itself theoretically. Unfortunately for the theory this has never actually been proven to happen. It’s just theory. In fact measurements of water vapor as I showed in my article have shown surprisingly been in a decline for decades. Why? No idea and neither do they. This is why I say that the formulas in the models are all theory. If water vapor did go up we don’t know if temps would go up because we don’t know if other things would counteract. We don’t know really very much about all this. They just guess at the numbers and then see if it matches their historical record. When the curves line up they think they’ve discovered science. All they’ve really done is come up with a curve fit. Mathematicians can curve fit all day with all kinds of fancy stuff that works way better than their clumsy expensive models. However in neither the case does a fit to the existing data imply it will match future data. That requires data to prove the fit is sticking. Unfortunately after they did their fit the very next data points pretty much proved their fit was wrong. We now know how. Their fit increased sensitivity to albedo changes very high to account for the decline in temps from 1940-1970. However that causes other problems and now that we know a good part of the reason temps fell 1940-1970 was not albedo but El Niño declines it means they were wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Yet they continue to act like they were right like their models have a shred of factual basis when the data and our knowledge show they can’t possibly be correct. Pathetic really.
The above statement from the APS is meaningless. There is a connection between atmospheric greenhouse gases and increased warming, however what the connection is; how it it works and what the magnitude of the effect is not known. The implication that greenhouse gases is “the” discrete driver of warming is not appropriate or acceptable.
There are many factors that work in complex relationships that influence warming. What makes climate science so inept is the minimal effort in understanding cooling factors. It is only a concern when backs are against the wall and a reason is needed to explain inadequate models. To understand the global climate system requires investigating warming and cooling factors with equal intensity. Anything less than that is junk science.
The connection is that rising temperature causes an increase in CO2. A further increase in CO2 may or may not cause the temperature to rise, but above 200 ppmv or less, the heating effect is minimal at best. And humans also do things that cool the planet, so the net effect of our activities may be slight warming, slight cooling or effectively none.
But in any case more CO2 is a good thing, up to the 800 to 1300 ppmv levels optimal for trees and most other plants.
The CAGW hypothesis is now completely untenable under the rules of the Scientific Method.
Observed satellite global temps now exceed CAGW model projections by 2 standard deviations, and in 5~7 years, they’ll likely be off by 3+ standard deviations, at which time, the CAGW hypothesis will have to be abandoned under the rules of the Scientific method.
The empirical evidence and physics now overwhelming show CO2’s climate sensitivity will be somewhere between 0.5C~1.5C, and will very likely be at or below 1.0C.
CAGW is a political phenomenon rather than a physical one. It’s only a matter of time before spiking energy prices and rolling brownouts/blackouts caused by draconian Leftist political energy policies generate such strong voter opposition, that politicians will be forced to abandon their contrived support of the CAGW hypothesis.
Already, 83% of US conservatives don’t think CAGW is a problem. Amazingly, 56% of US Leftists still think CAGW is an existential threat, which is further proof CAGW is a political phenomenon rather than a scientific reality.
It’s only been through: raw-data manipulation, censorship, obfuscation, deceit and propaganda that the CAGW hypothesis has managed to survive as long as it has. CAGW advocates have now run out of viable options and, more importantly, time, to keep this farce alive.
The 2005 PDO 30-yr Cool cycle, the 2020 AMO 30-yr Cool cycle, the weakest solar cycle since 1906, the coming 2022 solar cycle expected to be the weakest since 1715, the recovering Arctic Ice Extents, the record Antarctic Ice Extents, the cooling ENSO, etc. will all conspire to destroy the CAGW hypothesis.
The CAGW hypothesis is dead.
SAMURAI,
Excellent comment. For the alarmist crowd’s response, see Daniel Kuhn’s faulty ‘reasoning’ below.
Thankfully, Mother Earth has decided not to warm.
Imagine where we’d be politically if our climate continued to warm as it recently has via natural variation. (Non-Anthropologically)
I am an Australian geoscientist who, like most of my colleagues, is dissmissive of atmospheric CO2 as a driver of climate change. Initially the GSA (Geological Society of Australia) was politically motivated to support the AGW hypothesis, as favoured by the IPCC, but later reversed this position due to strong protest from its membership.
“AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.
After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.
Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.””
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/earth-scientists-split-on-climate-change-statement/story-e6frg8y6-1226942126322
Sorry mistyped……… dismissive… 🙁
What’s a misty ped?
At 9:36 pm on 20 April, John of Cloverdale, WA. Australia. posted:
The sea level graphic at the end misrepresents sea level as the time period is short. It needs to be dropped or time period extended if this isn’t done then you commit the sin of the IPCC you criticise previously in your response.
Mr Hearle asks for a longer sea level record. The entire Envisat record shows sea level rising at a rate equivalent to 1.3 inches per century. The GRACE record showed sea level falling. The graph I used was primarily intended to show the very large adjustments which are the only way They can pretend sea level is rising fast.
The Chinese Infrastructure development bank is about to provide Pakistan with a $46 billion loan to develop its infrastructure, including a cross-country highway and railroad line, as well as developing a sizable coal deposit. The coal deposit allegedly yields the energy equivalent of Saudi Arabian oil reserves:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-to-unveil-billions-of-dollars-in-pakistan-investment-1429214705 (for a general summary)
http://www.samaa.tv/economy/19-Apr-2015/china-s-cooperation-to-expedite-thar-coal-project
(additional details on coal project)
In terms of mitigation of AGW, this looks appears to be a game changer and is likely to make US and European Union efforts at mitigating AGW moot. Future loans by China will only exacerbate the issue. Even one prominent UN climate official has declared coal should continue to play a part in generating energy. Coal is still king.
Numerous consequences exist to this game changer. First, as younger APSA members would put it, AGW campaigns are “so yesterday.’ In fact, it may be fair to say that the interpretations of James Hansen, Al Gore, the Kyoto treaty. The UN-IPCC, and much of what is taught in universities on AGW could be considered 20th century thinkinduring the 21st century. Second, what is needed is data driven climate science and much of what has come out recently indicates the AGW problem is less serious than the alarmists would have us think. Third, all scholarly/professional societies should revise any and all its science policy statements on this issue in lieu of these new realities.
That’s just for openers. The impact of this and future infrastructure loans will be large.
[Snipped in its entirety. Rants against Mr. Monckton have nothing to do with science and are off-topic. ~mod.]
you guys could become famous, provide a study where you quantify the climate forcings for the late 20th century the way you think it should be, and publish it in the scientific literature, and see if you can defend your quanrification against experts on this.
why not try science for once?
D. Kuhn says:
why not try science for once?
Kuhn has it backward as usual. The man-made global warming (MMGW) conjecture has never been quantified. Those proposing a conjecture have the burden of supporting their conjecture, and skeptics have the duty of debunking it, if possible.
In the case of MMGW, skeptics have done an outstanding job of destroying that conjecture. It is no longer credible, because it has never been quantified.
So the alarmist crowd, having failed, now dishonestly attempts to place skeptics into the position of, in effect, proving a negative by insisting that it is skeptics who must “quantify the climate forcings”.
But since alarmists are incapable of doing that, their own conjecture has been debunked. It is no longer defensible as science, so it has become a political football where measurements are not necessary.
In other words, MMGW is essentially a lie, promoted by liars who cannot admit that they have been repeatedly proven wrong.
“The man-made global warming (MMGW) conjecture has never been quantified.”
wrong.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg
for more details, see IPCC AR5.
“hose proposing a conjecture have the burden of supporting their conjecture”
yep, and that has and is happening since many years.
“and skeptics have the duty of debunking it, if possible.”
which you never did.
“In the case of MMGW, skeptics have done an outstanding job of destroying that conjecture. It is no longer credible, because it has never been quantified.”
no. a few blogs here and there, a few trolls and a few journalist in tabloids fall for your myths and lies.
the rest of the world is absolutely not impressed with your claims and alleged debunkings.
“So the alarmist crowd, having failed, now dishonestly attempts to place skeptics into the position of, in effect, proving a negative by insisting that it is skeptics who must “quantify the climate forcings”.”
no, experts have explained what caused the late 20th century warming. and supported that explenation with a huge amount of evidence.
nobody provided any alternative explenation that is backed by evidence.
“But since alarmists are incapable of doing that, their own conjecture has been debunked. It is no longer defensible as science, so it has become a political football where measurements are not necessary.”
cute how you try to tell the scientific community what is science and what is not.
not a single scientific institution on the planet supports your position.
no top 500 university on the planet supports your position.
and the vast majority of experts have provided evidence that shows you wrong.
“In other words, MMGW is essentially a lie, promoted by liars who cannot admit that they have been repeatedly proven wrong.”
yeah surely it must be a gigantic hoax, all scientific institutions, universities, scientific journals, experts around the world, space agencies aroudn the planet all conspired to lie about it…..
watched too much Alex Jones lately?
you are not even able to name what the scientific community provided as evidence, let alone “debunk” it.
Daniel Kuhn claims that realclimate has measured AGW. He is wrong as always.
His ‘proof’ is a chart showing ‘levels of confidence’. In other words, it is a chart of models. Models are not measurements of anything, and climate models are always wrong. No exceptions.
Kuhn never stops posting his anti-science nonsense. No matter how many times he is proven wrong, he keeps at it like a busy little beaver.
Daniel: Do you really believe that inventing data is how a scientist works?
A few blogs and trolls versus billions in government money and dozens of alarmist websites. Yet Kuhn, Gates and others spend so much effort filling these strings with persistent, long-winded defense of the indefesible.
All this on “a few blogs here and there” Insignificant to Kuhn yet obviously compelling. He’s probably one of the most prolific commenters on this little insignificant, unimpressive website.
In spite of a dearth of empirical evidence to support the CAGW theory.. You soldier on with your “cause”.
Ok, zero. No deviation from the historic range of natural variability. Where should I submit the shortest article ever?
” No deviation from the historic range of natural variability. ”
even if. so what? what does that show you think?
that nature can cause much larger cliamte changes is well known, that does not change the fact of the enhanced greenhosue effect do to increased CO2 , this does not change the fact of global warming do to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
It shows that there is no evidence that CO2 is the cause of the current warming.
“It shows that there is no evidence that CO2 is the cause of the current warming.”
nonsense.
D. Kuhn, there are more then 20 peer reviewed publications showing a Climate Sensitivity that is lower then the what is published by the IPCC.
Also Mr. Kuhn, many of the worlds graphics regarding climate, published by national and international data bases, show that the IPCC projections are simply wrong. Can you find any “expert” scientists that assert that when your observations contradict your theory, your theory is still correct?
“D. Kuhn, there are more then 20 peer reviewed publications showing a Climate Sensitivity that is lower then the what is published by the IPCC. ”
you got a list of those?
“Also Mr. Kuhn, many of the worlds graphics regarding climate, published by national and international data bases, show that the IPCC projections are simply wrong.”
oh really? for example?
” when your observations contradict your theory, your theory is still correct?”
yet the observation do not contradict theory at all. they actually confirm it.
but when you think overestimating atmospheric warming in projections show that the theory is wrong, you know very little about complex system science.
Oh, look. Kuhn has more questions. But he never answers questions, so why should anyone answer his?
BTW, what “theory” would that be? MMGW is not a ‘theory’. A theory must be capable of making repeated, accurate predictions. MMGW has never been capable of doing that.
Not one believer in MMGW was able to predict the fact that global warming stopped for many years. Thus, MMGW is at best a failed conjecture.
Denial,
Here are some of those studies finding low climate sensitivity, since you asked. It took me only seconds to find them. Why didn’t you bother to search?
http://www.cato.org/blog/more-evidence-low-climate-sensitivity
Gloria,
He asks for things that he knows very well where to find for himself. The obvious purpose is to obfuscate and waste other peoples time.
He is immune to evidence, so any presented is wasted effort anyway.
Gloria Swansong
most of the papers listed are within the IPCC AR5 range and not below it as was claimed….
Denial,
That is a completely false statement. Their midpoints, ie the point above and below which the margin of error is stated, are all below the 3 degree C to which IPCC has now lowered its best guess at ECS, with a range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C.
Menicholas
April 21, 2015 at 6:53 pm
I know you’re right, and can see why so many have given up on feeding the troll. I will join them.
“IPCC has now lowered its best guess at ECS”
AR5 did not give a best estimate, they gave a range.
AR4 had a best estimate of 3°C.
AR5 sais this “there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C.”
your list contains Otto for example.
and he said this.
“For all investigated periods apart from the last decade alone our derived confidence intervals fully include the 2 – 4.5 °C range. They do extend below it, but that is not an inconsistency – which is why we conclude that, given all the uncertainties, our results are consistent with previous estimates for ECS. ”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/alex-otto-article
on our link, only Lindzen and Choi 2011, Spencer and Braswell 2013, are really below the AR5 range.
maybe it was a typo? he meant 2 studies and not 20?
Get with it Dan.
WUWT is already famous.
and that is what really bugs him
All that we have to do is disprove your science. Which has been done. Many times.
It is unscientific to claim that a disproven idea has to be supported until such times as a better one emerges.
To put it another way, there is nothing unscientific about admitting we don’t know.
On the other hand, it is definitely unscientific to stick with a disproven answer because you are too embarrassed to admit that you don’t know.
“Which has been done”
no.
A superb article; I have just one bone to pick.
Asking these people to embrace reality is like asking the Wicked Witch of the West to take a shower.
True dat!
Lord Monckton,
As I have mentioned before, when CO2 was 270PPM the worlds population was 1.2 Billion now CO2 is 400PPM and the worlds population is 7 odd Billion. The worlds food production to support 7+ Billion populations is now dependent on the 400PPM CO2. You need to state that the risks of lowering CO2 or even freezing it increases the risk that food production will be outstripped by population growth leading to famine. I doubt that we could even safely return to 350 PPM (EG That 350.org wants) without starving half the planet.
There are many things that have improved agricultural production. From better seeds to better techniques of growing food. Yes, CO2 has played a role, but it is not accurate to pretend that CO2 is the only thing that has changed over the last 60 years.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, ’embraced reality’.
Below, his stunning comment about the “global warming scam” in his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society….
“Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life” http://wp.me/p3Bc8A-Sn
One down, millions to go.
Still, good on him.
Climate change does not qualify as a religion but only as a cult. The sermon the other week at a church in Sheffield was abut questioning faith and why it is not a bad thing to do. The gist of it was that if after questioning it you consider that any uncertainty is worth ignoring because of the benefits then you will be a better person in both yourself and in behaviour to others. Religion is based on faith a cult depends on obedience. A lesson that perhaps the climate alarmists would benefit from.
ACS did a better job with their Climate Science Toolkit.
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/predictedplanetarytemperatures.html
Can we start a list of APS members who are against the statement? I would publicly sign such a list. I am writing a comment but I’m not sure what is going to happen to these comments.
“have taken care to restrict members to one comment each on the draft.”
Well, one could have a long comment: In as much as there has been no global warming for almost two decades despite record keepers continual cooling of past readings and adding to present temperature readings to make the warming steeper, there has been failure of prognostications on the disappearance of polar ice and world glaciers and no acceleration of SLR as predicted, there has been no development of a tropospheric hot spot which is a central test of the theory, etc. etc………, we should accordingly abandon the alarm that we prematurely heeded and state that natural variability, which is now effecting a downturn in temperatures is much larger a factor than heretofore believed,…..
It’s impossible to imagine restriction to one comment on a tract that commenters had no hand in preparing being even requested in previous times when the US citizens were free.
If a member would set up a blog/webpage onto which all the APS members could copy their single, precious comment and then discuss; I believe a constructive dialog could spring forth unbound by the management.
Yes!!!
For those of you who swallowed the Mann “hockey stick” completely and who are still, now having difficulty regurgitating it, do please view the (above) “link”: it will be twenty-seven minutes of your time well spent.
Replies or comments will not be necessary unless they be from a qualified railway engineer who has spent all our money. Such reply should be in writing, on paper, must express deep apology and also have attached to it a certified cheque in the amount of many millions of millions of US dollars or GB pounds made payable to N.I.P.C.C..
Unfortunately, the APS is in bed with the IPCC and the governments and large corporations that are desperate to tax us for living and breathing. I was among a group at the APS that tried to get them to revise their stand on man-made global warming a couple of years ago, but it was a complete waste of time. That is why I quit my membership in the APS.
I could be wrong, of course, but it seems to me that we probably should not beat up on the American Physical Society (APS) too much on this matter. It might be, for example, that they have arrived at the same sort of crucial existential watershed that the Roman Catholic Church had arrived at in around 325AD, when, to avoid a schism and factions forming amongst the religion’s orders, the leaders of the RC Church hatched the brilliant idea of inventing the Nicene Creed as a method for compromise and cohesion – i.e., to encourage the separate factions to stay together under the Church. It was very pragmatic.
Whether it worked or not is history, but Christians still recite that creed today, as an affirmation of their belief in the prescribed holy dogma.
This is arguably what any sensible religio-political group might conceive of at such crucial times.