"Is Climate 'Lukewarmism' Legitimate?"

Guest post by David Middleton

A very thoughtful column by Ross Pomeroy at Real Clear Science…

Is Climate ‘Lukewarmism’ Legitimate?

To many, prominent writers Matt Ridley, Ross Douthat, and Oren Cass are a baffling bunch. They are the visible proponents of the position that climate change is real, manmade, and occurring as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), yet it does not yet constitute a worrying or catastrophic problem. They are “lukewarmers.”

So what do we make of these climate change moderates, who do not hold the invalid, unevidenced opinions of those who deny the scientific consensus, yet at the same time, do not ascribe to the apocalyptic scenarios espoused by climate alarmists and the accompanying solutions to avert them?

As far as I can tell, lukewarmers’ views are legitimate. The mountains of evidence present in the most recent IPCC assessment report, comprising more than 9,200 peer-reviewed studies, cannot simply be cast aside as the product of a conspiracy or a statistical fluke of climate models. If lukewarmers accept the science, they are on solid ground.

[…]

To his credit, lukewarm New York Times columnist Ross Douthat agrees. “Every lukewarmer, including especially those in positions of political authority, should be pressed to identify trends that would push them toward greater alarmism and a sharper focus on the issue.”

In other words, they must recognize some level of evidence that will cause them to change their views. If they don’t, they have proven themselves not to be lukewarm moderates but dogmatic deniers.

Full Article on Real Clear Science

“Every lukewarmer, including especially those in positions of political authority, should be pressed to identify trends that would push them toward greater alarmism and a sharper focus on the issue.”

This is not a one-sided question. It should also be asked, “What trends would push a lukewarmer towards lesser alarmism and a sharper focus on the issue.”

For this lukewarmer, there is a level of evidence that would cause me to change my views.  This would be some level of evidence above…

Almost every catastrophic prediction is based on climate models using the RCP 8.5 scenario (RCP = relative concentration pathway) and a far-too high climate sensitivity. RCP 8.5 is not even suitable for bad science fiction. Actual emissions are tracking closer to RCP 6.0. When a realistic transient climate response is applied to RCP 6.0 emissions, the warming tracks RCP 4.5… A scenario which stays below the “2° C limit,” possibly even below 1.5° C.

models-and-observations-annual-1970-2000-baseline-simple-1850-1024x939

Ensemble of RCP 4.5 models and observed temperatures ( Zeke Hausfather at Carbon Brief).

Note that the 2σ (95%) range in 2100 is 2° C (± 1° C)… And the model is running a little hot relative to the observations.  The 2016 El Niño should spike toward the top of the 2σ range, not toward the model mean.  I am working on a more detailed post on this and “Gavin’s Twitter Trick,” that I hope to post later this week – So I won’t be responding to comments about the hotness of the models in this thread.

Ross Douthat had an excellent column on this in the New York Times (of all places)…

Neither Hot Nor Cold on Climate

Ross Douthat JUNE 3, 2017

LIKE a lot of conservatives who write about public policy, my views on climate change place me in the ranks of what the British writer Matt Ridley once dubbed the “lukewarmers.”

Lukewarmers accept that the earth is warming and that our civilization’s ample CO2 emissions are a major cause. They doubt, however, that climate change represents a crisis unique among the varied challenges we face, or that the global regulatory schemes advanced to deal with it will work as advertised. And they raise an eyebrow at the contrast between the apocalyptic, absolutist rhetoric with which these schemes are regularly defended and their actual details, which seem mostly designed to enable the globe’s statesmen to greenwash the pursuit of economic and political self-interest.

More specifically, lukewarmers look at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s official projections and see a strong likelihood that rising temperatures will drag on G.D.P. without leading to catastrophe. They look at the record of climatological predictions and see a pattern in which observed warming hugs the lower, non-disastrous end of the spectrum of projections. And they look at the substance of the Paris accord, which papered over a failed attempt to set binding emission rules with a set of fine-sounding promises, and see little to justify all the anguish and despair over Donald Trump’s decision to abandon it.

[…]

NY Times

Although, I do take issue with is this statement:

Lukewarmers accept that the earth is warming and that our civilization’s ample CO2 emissions are a major cause.

The Earth’s average surface temperature has warmed since the 1600’s and our CO2 emissions have played a role in that warming.  Relative to the total carbon flux, our emissions are hardly “ample” and 20-30% doesn’t strike me as a “major cause.”

And I would also take issue with Mr. Douthat’s answer to his own challenge:

I’ll answer that challenge myself: My own alarm over climate change has gone up modestly since the Obama-era cap-and-trade debates, as the decade or more in which observed warming was slow or even flat — the much-contested warming “pause” — has given way to a clearer rise in global temperatures.

If you chart this spike against the range of climate change projections, it brings the trend up into the middle of climatologists’ scenarios for the first time in some years. Maybe that will be temporary and it will fall back. But the closer the real trend gets to the worst-case projections, the more my lukewarmism will look Pollyannish and require substantial reassessment.

The 2016 El Niño spike didn’t bring “the *trend* up into the middle of climatologists’ scenarios.”  The bottom of the 2σ range is the P97.5 case, 97.5% of the model runs resulted in more warming than P97.5.  The model mean is the P50 case, 50% of the model runs resulted in more warming than P50.  The top of the 2σ range is the P02.5 case, 2.5% of the model runs resulted in more warming than P02.5. A major El Niño spike should spike from P50 toward P02.5, not from P97.5 toward P50.  For a discussion of this nomenclature see The Good, the Bad and the Null Hypothesis.

Lukewarmerism is well-grounded in science and economics.  I suppose it could even be viewed as a climatological version of Pascal’s wager.  Matt Ridley also has an excellent article on Lukewarmerism…

MY LIFE AS A CLIMATE LUKEWARMER

Published on: Tuesday, 20 January, 2015
The polarisation of the climate debate has gone too far

This article appeared in the Times on January 19, 2015:

I am a climate lukewarmer. That means I think recent global warming is real, mostly man-made and will continue but I no longer think it is likely to be dangerous and I think its slow and erratic progress so far is what we should expect in the future. That last year was the warmest yet, in some data sets, but only by a smidgen more than 2005, is precisely in line with such lukewarm thinking.

This view annoys some sceptics who think all climate change is natural or imaginary, but it is even more infuriating to most publicly funded scientists and politicians, who insist climate change is a big risk. My middle-of-the-road position is considered not just wrong, but disgraceful, shameful, verging on scandalous. I am subjected to torrents of online abuse for holding it, very little of it from sceptics.

I was even kept off the shortlist for a part-time, unpaid public-sector appointment in a field unrelated to climate because of having this view, or so the headhunter thought. In the climate debate, paying obeisance to climate scaremongering is about as mandatory for a public appointment, or public funding, as being a Protestant was in 18th-century England.

[…]

Update:

Marlo Lewis has provided a handy list of the range of opinions that come under the “lukewarmer” label. I subscribe to each of these in some form or to some degree:

“In general, I would describe a ‘lukewarmer’ as someone who:

– Thinks anthropogenic climate change is real but  very far from being a planetary emergency

– Takes due notice of the increasing divergence between climate model predictions and observations and the  growing body of scientific literature challenging IPCC climate sensitivity estimates.

– Regards the usual pastiche of remedies — carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, renewable energy quota, CO2 performance standards – as either an  expensive exercise in futility or a  ‘cure’ worse than the alleged disease (depending how aggressively those policies are implemented).

– Is impressed by — and thankful for — the immense albeit usually unsung benefits of the CO2 fertilization effect on  global agriculture and  green things generally.

– Recognizes that poverty remains the world’s leading cause of  preventable illness and premature death.

– Understands that plentiful, affordable, scalable energy (most of which comes from  CO2-emitting fossil fuels) is essential to poverty eradication and progress towards a  healthier, safer, more prosperous world.”

 

Update 2:

The main point of my article was to draw attention to how ad-hominem, vicious and personal the attacks on lukewarmers now are from the guardians of the flame of climate alarm. Though I had a huge and overwhelmingly positive response, I could not have wished for a better example of my point than some of the negative reactions to this article. An egregious example was the death threats I received from a Guardian contributor and Greenpeace “translator”, Gary Evans.

On 21 January The Guardian published an article by Dana Nuccitelli, specifically criticizing me. The article was illustrated with a picture of the severed head of a zombie. Beneath the article appeared the following comment from “Bluecloud”:

“Should that not be Ridley’s severed head in the photo?”

[…]

The Rational Optimist

Other Lukewarmers like Dr. Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christy are routinely subjected to similar ad hominem attacks from the “guardians of the flame of climate alarm.”

 

So… If you are a fellow Lukewarmer… What evidence would push you toward alarmism?  What evidence would push you toward rejecting human impacts on the climate as being less than a rounding error? (Note: I view the impacts as only being slightly larger than a rounding error).

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
rbabcock

There has been no doubt we have been in a warming trend over the past few decades. But before that we were in a cooling trend, and before that we were in a warming trend.
Is there a pattern here?

Sixto

We’ve not been in a warming trend for decades. We were in a warm cycle from the PDO flip of 1977 to the El Nino of 1999, but global average temperature has been flat since then, or cooling, except for the El Nino of 2016.
Before that, as you note, we were in a cool cycle from the 1940s to 1977, and before that in a warm cycle. We’re recovering from the Little Ice Age Cold Period, which followed the Medieval Warm Period, which followed the Dark Ages CP, which followed the Roman WP, which followed the Greek Dark Ages CP, which followed the Minoan WP, which followed a CP, which followed the Egyptian WP, which followed a CP, which followed the Holocene Climatic Optimum.
Despite the many pages of the IPCC, there is no actual evidence of a detectable human influence on global climate. Locally, yes. Witness Las Vegas, for instance.

TA

Climate Guru Hansen said in 1999, that the 1930’s was 0.5C hotter than the year ,1998, and 2016, which makes the 1930’s the hottest years since that time, up to and including today.
That doesn’t show up in the surface temperature charts because they have all been manipulated to show 1998 as hotter than the 1930’s
Any surface temperature chart that does not show the 1930’s to be as hot or hotter than subsequent years (including 2016, which tied 1998 for temperature) means you are looking at a bogus, bastardized surface temperature chart. The Bastardizers are trying to fool you, and they do a pretty good job as even skeptics use these bogus charts to try to make their point.
If the 1930’s doesn’t show hotter than 1998 and 2016, then you are looking at garbage being passed off as science.

MarkW

Either that or they pretend that history started during the 70’s.

Sixto

TA,
Yup, and when the world ceased warming after the 1990s, as Hansen expected or hoped would not be the case, then no problem! Just cook the books.

DWR54

Sixto

We were in a warm cycle from the PDO flip of 1977 to the El Nino of 1999, but global average temperature has been flat since then, or cooling, except for the El Nino of 2016.

All the global temperature data sets, both surface and satellite, show a warming trend between 2000 and 2015: http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
I can’t find any that show cooling. What’s your source for that claim please?

Sunsettommy

DWR54,
that warming rate is well below the IPCC per decade warming rate prediction. This one is Satellite data,
blob:null/08d26550-0e76-428c-b435-6f91d09bc72b
Only .125C per decade.

MarkW

2015 was the run up to the recent super El Nino.

Mick

Power of suggestion. I haven’t noticed any difference where I have lived since the early 70s. Still get 9 months of rain and occasional snow. Still get 3 months of hot dry summers. Still grow the same seasonal crops. Still get 4 seasons. Haven’t noticed anything unusual. It’s uneventful if there is warming but no climate change where I am

MarkW

As a lukewarmer (I feel that the climate change is real and that CO2 plays a minor role in it (sensitivity of 0.3 to 0.5C))
The evidence that would push me towards being more concerned would be a solid warming trend that can’t be attributed to any of the known climate cycles.
The evidence that would cause me to abandon my belief that CO2 plays a minor role would be evidence that natural cycles are sufficient to explain all of the warming. (Unfortunately we would need several hundred years of quality data to pull that off.)

I must be a denier. I have seen no evidence (or even a proper hypothesis) which shows that CO2 has any effect on the global climate.

CheshireRed

This ^^^^^^^

MarkW

As stated above, the CO2 signal is too small to be discerned in the over all temperature record.
Despite your efforts to believe otherwise, this is not evidence that it is not there.

Sixto

MarkW,
But because it can’t be discerned, your belief that it is there is simply an article of CACA faith, not a scientific conclusion. Fairies and elves can’t be discerned either, but Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in them. John Knight, who posts here, believes that earth, plants, day and night were created before the sun, because the Bible tells him so.
OK, now I really am gone.
No hasta luego, porque no estaria un luego. Entonces, vayan ustedes con Dios.

MarkW

While I admit that my beliefs can’t be proven from the data, the fact remains that CO2 does convert photons to heat. Both in the lab and the real world.
On the other hand your frequent claims that it can’t exist because the signal is less than the noise in the climate system is equally fatuous.

john harmsworth

I would say I am pretty close to this view. I think most of the warming we have seen since the 60’s, when I was a kid, has been due to natural causes and probably related to whatever caused the LIA. That period saw a growth of glaciers and very well recorded low temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere at least. This warming has been very good for mankind and slow enough that wildlife has been quite able to adapt. A warmer climate also generally means a wetter climate which combines with higher CO2 to be very beneficial for crops and other plant life. Even the Sahara is greening!
There is no disaster unfolding or imminent!
At this point there is no evidence that CO2 has any substantial effect on planetary temperatures and I see politics and grossly substandard and even phony, contrived science written all over this cause.
The biggest problem I have with climate science is actually the scientific aspects of it. As a long time science buff I am extremely disappointed in what I see as a major corruption of a scientific field by political opportunists like Al Gore and many others, who see in it a means to attack Capitalism.
I see lots of problems with Capitalism myself, but these people seek to tear it down with no clue as to what to put in its place. God knows, Marxism and Socialism and every other ism that has been tried have been murderous failures.
If Capitalism needs to be superseded it has to be a better idea, not recycled garbage disguised as Environmentalism. The Left has run up against a bankruptcy of ideas and clings to this phony crisis only as a path to power-the only thing they still exist for.
What would change my mind?
Honest data that indicates an acceleration of warming which cannot be explained by natural causes. Or, a better physical understanding of oceanic processes that relate to climate. Or, a recognition of the LIA and a coherent explanation of its cause and how that relates to present climate. Or, just some decent science! The work of Michael Mann is especially egregious in its deceptions, but most other work I see in the field is equally as flawed and politically directed, just not always so deliberate and aggressively false. The field is dominated by third rate people who are not just doing bad work but deliberately pedalling garbage science. The dissection and trashing of Mann’s “Hockey Stick” crap by McIntyre and Mickitrick should have been the death of Mann’s career. Instead the cabal of falsifiers was so endemic in the field that they managed to close around him and protect the rottenest apple in the whole rotten barrel. Very disappointing for science and very destructive to the entire world.
When people like Degrasse Tyson come out in support of the mainstream, and then make it obvious they really have no knowledge of the field, they do a great disservice to science. One can only conclude that they would rather protect their media status than show respect for proper science.
This entire fiasco just shows how easily people of weak moral fibre can be bought off.

jorgekafkazar

What about a solid warming trend that can be attributed to people fudging the raw temperature data?

Jorge – do you mean like this?
Tony Heller posted this sequence – all “global” surface temperatures – see the cooling of ~1940-1975 disappear?comment image

The evidence that would push me towards
=============
we have long term paleo records of CO2 and temperature going back at least 600k years. they all show the same thing. When CO2 is high, temperatures drop. When CO2 is low, temperatures rise.
this evidence show that if anything, GHG sensitivity to CO2 is NEGATIVE. It does not in any way support the notion that CO2 sensitivity is > 0.

I am a lukewarmer, but now trending away from the alarmist side to the ho hum side. I cannot get excited about warming as small as 1.5C and possibly 0.7C. Ho hum…
Nothing short of a persistent (log) rise in satellite and balloon temperatures to follow CO2 rise would impress me. The ground and ocean temperature sets are worthless imo. I have zero trust in adjusted and homoginized data.

Exactly.

Heh. German political scientists Walter Hallstein and Richard Löwenthal coined a term for it. Finlandization. Art of bowing to the East without mooning the West during the cold war.

Once again, those involved in the argument over CO2 emissions all seem the think “no change” will occur without our errecting windmills, solar panels, etc, when, in fact, simple economics is forcing
far more significant emission reductions than anything that the trillions spent so far have accomplished.
These people seem to be just about the only people on the planet who haven’t noticed the obvious
transition from gas to electric power going on in the transportation sector, a huge potential change in emissions as soon as the grid reduces same. How extensive is this transformation? Well, several automakers will no longer build gas-only vehicles after he next few years, some (BMW,
Mercedes-Benz, Volvo) will build an eletric version of every car they sell, etc. I count well over 40 electric models coming to dealer showrooms over the next several years.
Less well known are the revolutionary advances in nuclear power, mostly by the adbent of practical molten salt reactors, which cost a fraction of the money and time to build and operate compared to the typical LWR reactors, and which are as safe as anyone could possibly wish.

Tom Judd

Building the electric vehicles and selling them are two different things. Thus far the only thing driving (excuse the pun) electric vehicles is the fairly overt threat of compulsion and the only things enabling their sales are substantial tax rebates and carbon credits. When the dismal resale value of these highly limited and pricey vehicles becomes more well known the sales aspect will become that much harder.

jorgekafkazar

‘When the dismal resale value of these highly limited and pricey vehicles becomes more well known…”
Hmm. First I’ve heard of this. Got some data you can share with us? How bad is it?

I Came I Saw I Left

When you say “will build an electric version of every car they sell” what that translates into is mostly hybrids, which is essentially trendy and irrelevant. They are still ICEs. I looked at a gas-only car today that gets over 40 mpg hwy. Hybrids get what – 50 mpg? That 10 extra mpg is not worth the extra cost of a hybrid that will incur the additional cost of replacing the engine every 100,000 miles, or so (if not sooner), because of battery replacement .

+100

MarkW

I drive an ICE that gets better than 50mpg highway.

john harmsworth

What a load of hot air!

george e. smith

So where do we have one of these molten salt reactors supplying major league grid power on a 24/7/365 basis ??
I’m not aware of any of them operating in California, let alone enough of them to influence our energy supply.
G

transition from gas to electric power
=====
the power grid cannot support anything more than a few percent electric vehicles. we will need to increase the power grid by close to a factor of 10 to allow all electric vehicles. this will take a huge scientific breakthrough or it will simply not happen due to costs.
most people are not aware that the electricity used by a house is about 1 gallon of gasoline equivalent per day. even if we doubled energy production, you cannot move a car very far on 1 gallon of gasoline per day per household. now factor in truck traffic, and what is required to keep a modern economy moving.

Climate 101.
The accepted global temperature record is a complete fiction which even if it were true, may have limited relevance. CO2 is not the main driver of the greenhouse effect, water vapour is. There are enormous holes in the knowledge of the climate and models yet Ridley et al will argue about climate sensitivity to 2 decimal places.
Lukewarmers like the GWPF are a fifth column that make real opposition look ridiculous. They do a LOT more harm than good. They look like a valid opposition but they aren’t, they’re enablers of loony alarmism who give them credibility they don’t deserve.
Freeman Dyson thinks climate forecasts are absurd.

jclarke341

paisleyhistory…you wrote: “Lukewarmers like the GWPF are a fifth column that make real opposition look ridiculous. They do a LOT more harm than good. They look like a valid opposition but they aren’t, they’re enablers of loony alarmism who give them credibility they don’t deserve.”
I am not sure how being opposed to ‘loony alarmism’ enables ‘loony alarmism’. But this is not about enabling or disabling anyone. ‘Lukewarmism’ is the only stance on climate that actually comes directly from the science of climate. To assert that the CO2 concentration has no impact on atmospheric temperature does not adhere to the science. To assert that doubling the CO2 concentration from pre-industrial levels will create a climate crisis, does not adhere to the science either.
I believe my stand is close to Mr. Middleton’s: increasing CO2 is having an impact, but it is certainly smaller than natural variability and may be too small to ever be discernable. I also believe that the current warming, no matter the reason, is a wonderful thing for the majority of the living world, with perhaps a bit of an inconvenience for humans living at or below sea level if it continous (which I give just a 40% chance). The world should be rejoicing that we are returning much needed CO2 to the atmosphere.
Nothing in my stance enables the catastrophists. I am getting the impression that you believe that admitting that CO2 has some impact, is enabling them, but I believe that arguing that CO2 has NO impact, is far more enabling. The warmists may not care about the science, and may only be interested in their agenda, but it is the science that will ultimately undermine their evil plan, not directly attacking their evil plan.

CheshireRed

With respect is your position a bit of a cop-out? You say:
‘increasing CO2 is having an impact, but it is certainly smaller than natural variability and may be too small to ever be discernable.’
This is the climate equivalent of having your cake and eating it. If any CO2-caused ‘warming’ really is too small to ever be discernable’ surely that’s acknowledgement that you can’t discern any – and by definition there’s zero threat from warming so small is can’t be discerned?

Jean Paul Zodeaux

“This is the climate equivalent of having your cake and eating it.”
Eating your cake and having it too. Claiming that something is both indiscernible and discernible is the equivalent of eating your cake and having it too. Having a cake and eating it too is standard practice with cakes, just not so common in its idiomatic usage. The notion that I can’t have my cake and eat it too is absurd and meaningless. What is reflective of the real world is that I cannot eat my cake and have it to. That’s just the way the world works.

Here is an exchange with Dyson
E-mail 4/7/15
Dr Norman Page
Houston
Professor Dyson
Saw your Vancouver Sun interview.
I agree that CO2 is beneficial. This will be even more so in future because it is more likely than not that the earth has already entered a long term cooling trend following the recent temperature peak in the quasi-millennial solar driven periodicity .
The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale. The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1020 year range. For evidence of this cycle see Figs 5-9. From Fig 9 it is obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle. I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data. My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991. There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the activity peak and the probable millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data in 2003. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
There has been a cooling temperature trend since then (Usually interpreted as a “pause”) There is likely to be a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018 corresponding to the very important Ap index break below all recent base values in 2005-6. Fig 13.
The Polar excursions of the last few winters in North America are harbingers of even more extreme winters to come more frequently in the near future.
I would be very happy to discuss this with you by E-mail or phone .It is important that you use your position and visibility to influence United States government policy and also change the perceptions of the MSM and U.S public in this matter. If my forecast cooling actually occurs the policy of CO2 emission reduction will add to the increasing stress on global food production caused by a cooling and generally more arid climate.
Best Regards
Norman Page
E-Mail 4/9/15
Dear Norman Page,
Thank you for your message and for the blog. That all makes sense.
I wish I knew how to get important people to listen to you. But there is
not much that I can do. I have zero credibility as an expert on climate.
I am just a theoretical physicist, 91 years old and obviously out of touch
with the real world. I do what I can, writing reviews and giving talks,
but important people are not listening to me. They will listen when the
glaciers start growing in Kentucky, but I will not be around then. With
all good wishes, yours ever, Freeman Dyson.
Email 4/9/15
Professor Dyson Would you have any objection to my posting our email exchange on my blog?
> Best Regards Norman Page
E-Mail 4/9/15
Yes, you are welcome to post this exchange any way you like. Thank you
for asking. Yours, Freeman Dyson.

Thank you for posting this exchange Dr. Page.
Dr. Dyson is a gentleman for whom who I have the greatest respect.
At the risk of disagreeing with him, he is not “just a theoretical physicist”, albeit he is “91 years old” and is certainly not “out of touch with the real world”.”
He is a man of great intellect and integrity who speaks the truth for the benefit of all humanity, despite the risks of doing so in this toxic environment of global warming extremism.
.

Ron Long

The position of a geologist (I believe, from registered comments herein and my own interaction with fellow geologists, especially those familiar with sequence stratigraphy) is that the variation observed to date does not come anywhere near to exceeding the natural variation, ie, there is no actual signal detectable against the nosiey background. Whether or not there is some anthropogenic effect is not discernable, but if there is it is so small that it is irrelevant. Lukewarm then becomesa term of no scientific utility. Please do not take any of my comment as an endorsement of pollution.

Jimmy Haigh

As a geologist familiar with sequence stratigraphy I wholeheartedly agree.

Geoff Sherrington

Not a lukewarmer.
Would lean more towards AGW hypotheses on the date that the Pro-AGW people make their own case, purely by Science, devoid of all influence by talking heads, journalists, communicators, pollsters and the rest of the social riff raff like economists, lawyers and bureaucrats who seek to make a living from the derivatives of other peoples’ Science.
If the Science is good and pure, present the Science with purity, let the scientific process run its usual course of hypothesis testing, then publish only when the work is done so well that proper, formal error estimates put on it allow determination of whether it is significant and can be acted on with a high degree of confidence.
So far we have had endless episodes of Flying Circus Science.
Now let us have the few percent of that Science that might pass those tests be identified and the rest scrapped.
The concept of lukewarmer has no place in good pure Science which is devoidd of emotion and personal belief. Geoff

Frederic

The theory that CO2 warms the atmosphere is unproven because the feedback is unknown. And more than half the instrumental era data show it is false : before the 1950s where data show stable CO2 but increasing temperature and from the 1950s to the 1970s where data show increasing CO2 but there was a global cooling hysteria.
So no, lukewarmism is not well-grounded in science and is not legitimate.

Tom Halla

And we do have the real problem of “adjusted” surface temperature claims. There is so much infill, done by a non-blind process, that the expectations of the researcher have a free run. This situation is like N-rays or counting human chromosomes at best.

Steve Case

BINGO!
In the what we know, don’t know and know we don’t know departments, feed backs and “Corrections” are big players. Are feed backs positive or negative? Are the “Corrections” legitimate or subject to bias?
The corrections obviously follow a pattern that would suggest bias. That we know. Too many people think they are legitimate.
We should know that we don’t know the sign of feed backs. Too many people think they know it’s positive.

Gunga Din

There is no “control” for the experiment required to just what Man’s CO2 is doing to the planet.
The closest we had was the past temperature records which Hansen has fiddled with.
Call up current records of past temperatures online if you want but they are not what they used to be.

MarkW

Feedbacks either reduce or amplify the impact of CO2. They can’t negate it altogether.
All of the science to date indicates that the climate is regulated by multiple strong negative feedbacks.

richard verney

Mark
This depends whether you define a feedback as a feedback to CO2, or a feedback to warming.
What is there to prevent a doubling of CO2 causing a warming of 0.3 degrees, and a rise in temperature of 0,3 degrees to create more cloudiness resulting in a reduction of temperature of 0.3 degC such that each effectively cancel the other out, resulting in no net change.
That would mean that in Earth’s system, the climate sensitivity to CO2 would be zero.

Bartemis

“They can’t negate it altogether.”
Actually, they can, if there is an integrating element in the feedback loop. See “PID control”.

MarkW

Richard, there is no such thing as a feedback to CO2, there is only feedback to warming.
If warming caused an increase in cloudiness, which then caused the temperature to drop back to what the temperature was prior to the warming, then the cloudiness would also drop back to what it was.
For there to be an sustained increase in cloudiness in this scenario, there must also be a sustained increase in temperature.

MarkW

Forest, if the feedback caused more cooling than the initial warming, then the feedback would disappear since it was caused by the warming in the first place.
For an integrating element to work, you need an external source of energy.

MarkW

Another way to put it is that the energy that drives the feedback comes from the signal. The feedback can’t have more energy than the signal that is driving it.

Bartemis

Integration requires only non-dissipation. Nothing is ever totally non-dissipative in this entropy dominated universe, but it can be as close to it as makes no practical difference.

ripshin

Mark,
As Richard so accurately points out, and as you acknowledge, warming/cooling effects are not direct feedbacks to CO2. But, just because these aren’t, doesn’t mean that CO2 itself doesn’t have a feedback mechanism. In this case, I suggest that plant life would be the appropriate analogous feedback mechanism to consider. And given that there are different uptake rates (plant growth) from release rates (plant decay) it’s entirely possible (or, at least plausible) that a CO2 feedback could result in a end point (defined simply as the point in time when you took the measurement, since there’s no real ending) lower than your initial start point. I think that’s one of the fundamental aspects of non-linear systems. Even if we take that our climate isn’t perfectly chaotic, in that it seems to be strongly damped and bounded, it’s still non-linear and can surprise us with results that don’t follow from our simplistic linear thought processes.
rip

Javier

As a lukewarmer myself, I estimate human contribution to global warming as about one third, based on comparisons of the effects of last warming push (1975-2003) to previous ones. This assumes natural warming has continued at the same rate. As we cannot estimate natural variability during this time, we don’t know if it is a little more or a little less.
I would become alarmed if the rates of change increased significantly over the next couple of decades. I would think I might be wrong if the rates of change don’t decrease over the next couple of decades compared to the 1975-2003 period.
Nothing will make me think that human emissions don’t have an effect on climate, since the evidence for that already has been produced.
This is my view of future temperatures by 2025:
http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/613285-1.png
If I am way off then I don’t understand it. If I am spot on it could still be luck.

rbabcock

Javier, in 2025 we will be on CMIP11 and HadCRUT9 so you will need to adjust your “Observations” line down some pre 2015 and up post 2015.

Bill Illis

Those CMIP5 RCP4.5 numbers are NOT accurate with respect to the 1961-1990 mean.
The 2016 RCP4.5 average, for example, is +0.85C in the 1961-1990 base period.
In fact, even the Hadcrut4 numbers are not right with respect to the 1961-1990 base period.
That is the issue with so many of these graphs from the warmists. They mix up base periods to show an inaccurate but appealing to their audience view.
These are the accurate numbers for RCP4.5 with respect to 1961-1990.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icmip5_tas_Amon_modmean_rcp45_0-360E_90–90N_n_+++_19611990a.txt
Hadcrut4 here.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadcrut4_0-360E_90–90N_n_19611990a.txt

Javier

I’ll check that, thanks.

Javier

Hi Bill,
I checked the data and you are correct. Ed Hawkins figure is wrong. The CMIP data has a different baseline, and in the figure it is compressed, looking more similar to the observations than it really is. I will make a new figure with the correct data.
From now on I won’t trust Ed Hawkins.

Geoff Sherrington

Bill Illis,
Thank you for stressing this large incompatibility of graphs showing differences between CMIP and observed.
Steve McIntyre did several pieces on this on Climate Audit. Nic Lewis also.
One piece is at https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/
The other matter with large uncertainty is the observed temperatures after about 2000. Graphs showing temperatures using the Karl adjustments have different conclusions to others, such as satellite temperatures. Only one can be correct. Which is it? We should not tolerate loose science where pro AGW people look at Karlised and sceptics look at AUH, then go their separate ways with opinions. One will be wrong.
Geoff.

I’ll be convinced the globe is warming when it unequivocally gets warmer than the Eemian(last interglacial. At best the ice core records show that the current interglacial isn’t cooling as fast as the Eemian did.

coolclimateinfo

Try not to take this personally. Lukewarmism is applied both ways: for the cause and the effects – leaving the public mystified. All climate change is 100% natural.
>> Mankind has no large scale enduring influence on temperatures. None. <<
"Lukewarmism' is bad word usage leaving too many unanswered questions swept under the rug for the sake of conformity. Lukewarmism is going along with absolutely phony science – it is a 'go along' consensus groupthink construct. It is warmism-lite; lukewarmists utilize the same groupthink herding/blocking tactics as the warmists.
Lukewarmists will eventually be identified by the public as wrong wrt the human-caused climate connection, as it is now a matter of peer-reviewed science that solar activity causes warming and cooling, and that the sun caused the 20th century warming, the post 1976 warming, and the 2015-2016 ENSO.
CO2 does not control temperatures, it’s the other way around.
Contrary to AGW theory, rising CO2 did not warm the ocean or land during the 30 years of cooling after 1945. Lukewarmists have the same intractable problem as warmists in using manmade CO2 emission theology to explain the three different rates of warming under increasing CO2 over decadal scales.
http://climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20AndCO2.gif
The sun alone causes warming, cooling, and extreme events, not CO2!
So Matt Ridley – lukewarmism is wrong on causation. All climate change is natural. 100% natural.
CO2 warmism has technically already bit the dust so why do skeptics keep it alive?
Were the recent hurricanes 33% manmade too?

MarkW

Lukewarmists do not claim that CO2 controls the climate. That’s the alarmist position.
Lukewarmists acknowledge that CO2 has an impact on climate, but it is one of many such influences and far from the most important one.

“Lukewarmists do not claim that CO2 controls the climate. That’s the alarmist position.”
When someone claims to be a lukewarmist and assigns 33% of warming to mankind, then it is clear lukewarmers DO attribute CO2 as a temperature controller, albeit not 100% but still a major controller of temps and therefore of climate.
See the duplicity?

richard verney

The warming since 1850 has only been in the neighborhood of 1 C</blockquote.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
Have a look at the (old) HADCRUT4 plot. Apart from the recent strong El Nino (2015/16), temperatures are only about 0.1 degC above that observed in 1880! ie., around an anomaly of +0.5degc compared to the 1880 anomaly of + 0.4degC.
If the current forecasts for a La Nina at the end of this year/early 2018 are correct and a La Nina develops, then by April/May 2018, it is likely that we will see that current temperature anomalies will again be only about 0.1degc above those observed in 1880!

MarkW

cool, there is no duplicity, just you trying to pull a fast one with the labels.

AndyG55

Except for the fact that what you have graphed as “observed” bares little resemblance to reality.
Who knows where that maladjusted sequence of non-data will end up !!

Sixto

HadCRU is a pack of lies.
There is no actual evidence that human activities, which both warm and cool, have had any measurable effect on global average temperature or any other planetwide climatic phenomenon, with the possible exception of cleaning the air since the ’70s, which China and India are now dirtying again.
Urbanization, irrigation and other human activities have affected localities and regions, but these activities haven’t yet added up to a detectable global effect, in part because what we do cuts both ways. We can’t even know the sign of any net human effect.

Javier

Sixto, you are welcome to believe whatever you want. I have researched the issue with the same care I put on past climatology, reading hundreds of scientific articles on the issue, and checking the data. I am convinced that the effect of human emissions on climate is clear, but it is not overriding natural variability.

john harmsworth

I agree with Sixto on this basis:
Evidence does not exist to show warming caused by humans
The warming we have seen is not outside past natural variance limits
No indication that this recent warming trend, which stopped around 2000, isn’t already over.
No reason to think it is not just a continuation of the trend out of the LIA
No explanation for the LIA, just persistent attempts to cover it up, which is not science ( certainly no indication that CO2 or lack thereof,had anything to do with it)

Sixto

Javier,
Please state the evidence that you have found for a human fingerprint on global climate since c. AD 1950, or whatever point at which you think our influence became detectable.
It doesn’t matter how many pages IPCC reports have or how many papers you’ve read. I have yet to find convincing evidence for the alleged human fingerprint. I’ve been looking since the 1980s and still haven’t found it. Maybe I haven’t read the papers which you have, so I’d appreciate knowing what has convinced you that a human influence is detectable.
Thanks.

Sixto

David,
How do you separate and increase in radiative forcing from more H2O in a warmer world from a possible effect of man-made GHGs?
How do you show that whatever manmade warming there might be isn’t from cleaner air rather than more CO2?
I repeat. There is no dispositive evidence whatsoever that man-made CO2 has had any measurable effect on “climate”. How then to justify dismantling industrial civilization?

TA

“I am convinced that the effect of human emissions on climate is clear,”
Would you mind pointing out to me how you reach this conclusion?

Javier

Sixto,
It is hard to write in a comment what has been distilled from scores of articles and data, and at the same time be convincing to people that don’t want to be convinced. Anthropogenic warming is somehow of a different nature than natural warming. It essentially affects minimum temperatures more than maximum temperatures. It seems to affect night temperatures more than day temperatures. It appears to affect winter temperatures more than summer temperatures. It appears to decrease the rate of cooling more than increase the rate of warming. It appears to be more global while natural change is more regional.
And the most sensitive aspect of anthropogenic warming are glaciers. Experts agree quite unanimously that globally glaciers have not been this reduced for thousands of years. About 5000 years ago appears to be the time when glaciers were this short. And that is the reason many things buried in ice thousands of years ago are appearing now. Like Ötzi, the ice man from Tyrol, that is ~ 5200 years old. Some people believe this means our temperatures are like 5000 years ago. On the contrary I think glaciers are specially sensitive to CO2. The air above glaciers is very cold and very dry. The lower amount of water vapor makes it more sensitive to the increases in CO2. Despite higher winter precipitation and no appreciable changes in snow cover, the mass balance of glaciers is very negative.
Real skeptics don’t subscribe to any particular belief. They just trust the evidence. We have lots of evidence that our emissions are affecting the planet. Mostly in a good way by increasing the photosynthesis and decreasing water loss by plants, increasing forest biomass, increasing carbon sinks. That they affect also our climate is mostly a given. The warming is only partly caused by our emissions, and has some good aspects, as the higher temperatures are mostly beneficial, and there is a reduction of many extreme weather manifestations. It also has some bad aspects as everything in life. Heat waves are to become more frequent with higher temperatures, and high precipitation events also, as a warmer climate is a more humid climate.
When you see somebody embracing every positive aspect of CO2 and rejecting every negative aspect, he is not a skeptic. He is just a different type of believer.
A figure recently published by the UK Met Office that I modified to show a rule of thumb estimation of anthropogenic warming:
http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/615691-1.png

It essentially affects minimum temperatures more than maximum temperatures. It seems to affect night temperatures more than day temperatures. It appears to affect winter temperatures more than summer temperatures. It appears to decrease the rate of cooling more than increase the rate of warming. It appears to be more global while natural change is more regional.

You’re mixing up root cause. Min T follows dew points, dew points are following the ocean cycles.
RH dropped after the AMO positive cycle started In 2000, that was the step.
And land surfaces have been drying the air since.comment imagecomment image
And you can see water vapor reducing the cooling rate in net radition signal in this 3 day series of mostly clear skiescomment image
But it’s interesting that temps stabilize, net radiation drops by 60%, yet optical window still about -60W/m^2comment image

Sixto

Javier,
I’d be glad to be convinced. There just isn’t any dispositive evidence. You see what you want to see.
Your example of glaciers doesn’t wash. What we actually see in glaciers is that those which have indeed retreated are where they were in previous naturally occurring warm cycles. For example, those Swiss passes which are only open during warm cycles show artifacts from Oetzi’a time at the end of the Holocene CO, from the Minoan, Roman and Medieval WPs. Perhaps you’re unaware that the ice in which Oetzi was found had moved downhill, so his remains have nothing whatsoever to say about the relative warmth of his time and now. The Holocene CO was demonstrably warmer than now.
Why should glaciers be especially sensitive to CO2? No evidence supports that article of faith.
When and if the Current WP ever shows three 50 year intervals warmer than the three 50 years intervals still warmer than any such interval in the Current WP, then maybe we can talk and try to tease out any human influence. But so far the Current WP has been cooler than the Medieval WP, as it was cooler than the Roman and the Roman was cooler than the Minoan. Hence, no detectable human influence.
Thanks very much for presenting what you think is evidence of man-made global warming due to CO2, but to me it’s not convincing and actually not even evidence.

Sixto

David,
No I am not.
Javier presents no evidence. Just observations which he interprets as evidence.
Retreating glaciers reveal forests 1000, 2000 and 3000 years old. Less rarely the 5000 years which he finds to be evidence for a human fingerprint in the current warming.
IMO the preponderance of evidence shows that the Current Warming has so far been cooler than the previous warming cycles. Hence, no human fingerprint from higher CO2.
Science doesn’t do “proof”, although colloquially that term is sometimes used. It does confirmation and falsification. There is no evidence confirming the hypothesis that man-made CO2 has warmed the planet globally. And the hypothesis is easily shown false by every possible line of evidence.

Sixto

David,
As I mentioned previously, allegedly greater radiative forcing (a dubious claim) is not exclusively consistent with more CO2. Better or at least competing explanations exist, as I pointed out.
For example, Gore claimed that retreating ice on Kilimanjaro was evidence of “global warming”. But there had been no local warming and deforestation was a superior explanation for that observation.
Similarly, Javier supposes that an alleged (by Warmunistas) exceptional net glacial retreat offers some kind of “evidence” of man-made global warming. But all the evidence in the world shows that supposition not to be the case. There is no evidence that temperatures now are higher than in prior warming cycles, nor any physical basis for the unsupported assertion that glaciers are particularly responsive to CO2. Were that the case, then the land ice which matters most, the EAIS, would not be gaining mass.

Sixto

David,
My response is lost in cyberspace. This happens so often, that I’m probably going to quit commenting here.
I hope it does eventually show up, but even if it doesn’t, I’ll add that if glaciers were indeed super-sensitive to CO2, then they should all be retreating, which of course they aren’t. Major glaciers and every continent are advancing.
The same applies to the mass of the land ice formation which matter by far the most, ie the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Javier

Sixto,
The evidence you are NOT looking for is obviously in scientific articles.
1. J. Oerlemans. Holocene glacier fluctuations: is the current rate of retreat exceptional? Annals of Glaciology, Volume 31, Number 1, January 2000, pp. 39-44(6)
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2000/00000031/00000001/art00008
“Integrations for a 10 000 year period, driven by random forcing of a realistic strength, show that the current retreat cannot be explained from natural variability in glacier length and must be due to external forcing.
2. Johannes Koch, John J Clague and Gerald Osborn: Alpine glaciers and permanent ice and snow patches in western Canada approach their smallest sizes since the mid-Holocene, consistent with global trends. The Holocene 2014 24: 1639
http://kochj.brandonu.ca/ho_2014.pdf
“Glacier retreat in western Canada and other regions is exposing subfossil tree stumps, soils and plant detritus that, until recently, were beneath tens to hundreds of metres of ice. In addition, human artefacts and caribou dung are emerging from permanent snow patches many thousands of years after they were entombed. Dating of these materials indicates that many of these glaciers and snow patches are smaller today than at any time in the past several thousand years.”
“The global scope and magnitude of glacier retreat likely exceed the natural variability of the climate system and cannot be explained by natural forcing alone. This departure is best explained by the ascendancy of another forcing factor – the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
3. Goehring, B. M. et al. 2012. Holocene dynamics of the Rhone Glacier, Switzerland, deduced from ice flow models and cosmogenic nuclides. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 351–352, 27–35.
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/download/fedora_content/download/ac:152773/CONTENT/j.epsl.2012.07.027.pdf
“After 5 ka, the Rhone Glacier was larger than today, but smaller than its LIA maximum extent. The present extent of the Rhone Glacier therefore likely represents its smallest since the middle Holocene and potential climate warming will lead to further rapid retreat of the Rhone Glacier.”
4. B. K. Reichert, L. Bengtsson and J. Oerlemans: Recent Glacier Retreat Exceeds Internal Variability. Journal of Climate 15 (2002) 3069.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/courses/EVAT795/Reichertal-JClim02.pdf
“Preindustrial fluctuations of the glaciers as far as observed or reconstructed, including their advance during the Little Ice Age, can be explained by internal variability in the climate system as represented by a GCM. However, fluctuations comparable to the present-day glacier retreat exceed any variation simulated by the GCM control experiments and must be caused by external forcing, with anthropogenic forcing being a likely candidate.”
5. O. Solomina, W. Haeberli, C. Kull, G. Wiles Historical and Holocene glacier–climate variations: General concepts and overview. Global and Planetary Change 60 (2008) 1–9
“The finding of the Oetztal ice man in the uppermost part of a small glacier in the Austrian Alps clearly illustrates that Alpine glacier volumes (not lengths!) have become smaller now than during at least the past about 5000 years.”
6. Bakke, J., Lie, Ø., Dahl, S.O., Nesje, A., Bjune, A.E., 2008. Strength and spatial patterns of the Holocene wintertime westerlies in the NE Atlantic region. Global and Planetary Change 60, 28–41
http://folk.uio.no/joh/GEO4011/Bakke_07GPC.pdf
“The retreat of maritime glaciers along western Scandinavia over the last century is unprecedented in the entire Neoglacial period spanning the last 5200 yrs.”
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/Glacier%20extent_zps4smk8tz8.png
A) Koch & Clague 2006 meta-study of global glacier extent showing that current retreat exceeds the global range and minimum extent trend since mid-Holocene (Trend lines added). Notice how it shows glaciers now shorter than Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period.
http://kochj.brandonu.ca/pages_2006.pdf
Koch, J., & Clague, J.J. 2006. Are insolation and sunspot activity the primary drivers of Holocene glacier fluctuations? PAGES News, Vol. 14 No 3 pp 20-21.
B) Thompson et al., 1995 study of the Huascarán glacier. Ice-core of the glacier with the temperature proxy showing that current glacier temperature is unprecedented for thousands of years and anomalous within trend.
http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/Icecore/publications/Thompson%20et%20al%20Science%201995.pdf
Thompson, L.G. et al. 1995. Late Glacial Stage and Holocene Tropical Ice Core Records from Huascaran, Peru. Science vol. 269, 46-50.
http://i1039.photobucket.com/albums/a475/Knownuthing/ice%20remains_zps2d4bszof.png
Organic remains entombed in ice at mid-Holocene and freed by present global warming.

Javier

My answer had too many links I think. Hopefully it will appear some time in the future.

Sixto

David,
Worse is hard to imagine. But even when I copy and repost, many comments never show up. For long ones, it’s frustrating.
I have other things to do, and can’t afford to waste time, especially when so few people are liable to read my comments even when they do show up.
Plus, it’s disturbing that so much creationist cant is allowed here. It only reinforces the arguments of my acquaintances who equate CACA skepticism with creationism as equally anti-scientific.

Sixto

Javier September 25, 2017 at 6:24 pm
I know that too many links is a no-no, but those do usually appear after moderation. What bugs me is how many comments without any offending material simply disappear, never to reappear.

Sixto

micro6500 September 25, 2017 at 6:25 pm
Correct. Slightly warmer winters and nights is exactly what happened during prior warming cycles, with also perhaps some slightly higher summer day maxes. So how was the late 20th century warming any different from the early 20th century warming and the late 19th century warming, coming out of the LIA?

Sixto

David,
I’ve been squelched for disrespecting “people of faith”, ie those who try to defend the Bible as science. I’ve seen others leave this blog because of its promotion of creationism.
I’m glad that you don’t get moderated, but I have been. Repeatedly. And other Christians who understand that the Bible isn’t science, but have been accused of being atheists because we know that fact.

Sixto

David,
Yet again my comment has disappeared in cyberspace, without mention of moderation.
I’m outa here.
(I have looked through the Spam and Trash folders, NONE of your missing comments are there,could be a problem at your end?) MOD

MarkW

My understanding was that Oetzi’s body was in a naturally formed hollow, and as a result the flow of the glacier went over him. He was found pretty much where he died. If he had been caught up in the glacier itself, he would have been expelled after just a few hundred years.

MarkW

Posting a lot of posts in a short period of time seems to increase the chances of a post disappearing.

Dan Sage

Mark W, that was my understanding also about Oetzi’s body.

I suspect that if that were not the case, the body would not have been in such pristine condition, and the associated artifacts would have not been so close by.

Javier

MarkW, the position where Ötzi lied was exposed 5000 years ago, and became exposed again now. If it had been exposed for any significant period of time in between Ötzi would have disappeared. Take a look at the bibliography provided if you want to know about Holocene glacier changes.
The figures that didn’t show are:comment imagecomment image

MarkW

Javier, I was responding to Sixto’s claim that Oetzi’s body had been caught up in the glacial flow and had been found downhill from where he died.

Javier

Forrest,
I don’t know how the calculate the error, but if we can put little faith on the temperature values, much less on the error.

Javier

Hi Forrest,
The models never converge. It is little known, but if instead of anomalies, absolute temperatures are used, the models are all over the place, as they don’t agree on the temperature of the planet. They are aligned by anomaly at their multidecadal baseline. In this case 1961-1990, but there is no point at which they converge.

john harmsworth

What happens to this trend if its extended back to 1930? Back to 1650? This is just the tail end of a longer trend that absolutely has nothing to do with CO2 levels, at least before 1950. As such, I cannot ascribe any of it to CO2. It is only hypothesis. Perhaps only conjecture.

Whenever anyone, whatever technical background he or she has or does not have, says, “Accept the Science,” I stop reading. Science is not something to be accepted. Science is comprehended or not comprehended.
As a mechanical engineer who has dug into atmospheric radiation at length, I have learned that CO2 is already saturated less than three meters from the surface, and all this absorbed infrared radiation is immediately thermalized. So, the significant warming occurs only at the Top of Atmosphere, where 400 ppm has raised the altitude at which the atmosphere can radiate freely to space. How far was it raised, and how much more heat does the atmosphere contain since it is now radiating to space at a slightly lower temperature, and what did this do to the lapse rate? NO ONE CAN CALCULATE THIS.
Thus, all attempts to define Climate Sensitivity are based on the assumption that all warming since 1850 has been caused by CO2. Since this is a baseless assumption, no one has ever correctly calculated Climate Sensitivity.

Ian W

+1
It does appear that there should be a small team of engineers validating the claims made by academic scientists, who, contrary to normal science, seem eager to prove rather than falsify their hypotheses.

Bob boder

Lukewarmer that thinks the small amount of warming caused by Anthropogenic CO2 is mostly positive and the atmospheric CO2 increase itself is clearly positive for mankind and the earth bio environment as a whole. BAGW Beneficial Anthropogenic Global warming. As I say over and over there is no C in AGW.

Earthling2

BAGW…good description. We have to dispel the notion that CO2 is a pollutant. Otherwise soda drinks will be next on their hit list. Or by their reasoning then they should be, just to show how absurd some of the CAGW meme is becoming.

Bob boder

Forrest
They clearly want to reduce the number of humans on this planet into the millions to save it, so my guess is they already have come to that conclusion what’s 6 or 7 Billion people when you’re talking about saving the polar bears from having to change their diet a little.

Bob boder

or should that be Chance the Gump?

Jimmy Haigh

Fence sitters.

Phoenix44

That’s simply inaccurate, Lukewarmers like Ridley are extremely vocal about the Alarmists and the damage they are causing:
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/climate-change-the-facts/
That is not sitting on the fence, is saying that we are doing a great deal of harm and the poor arebearing the brunt. What are you doing exactly?

MarkW

False dichotomy.
There is no reason why “We’re all gonna die” and “CO2 has no impact” should be the only options.

john harmsworth

Except the actual evidence does not indicate any impact! Only some limited correlation.

MarkW

Not correct by a long shot. All we can say with any certainty is that the CO2 signal is less than the very noisy natural change signal. This is not proof that there is no CO2 signal, no matter how much you may wish it to be true.

Geoff Sherrington

MarkW,
Critics do not have to show there is no CO2 signal.
Global warming advocates have to show there is one.
They have failed to do this.
Normally that would be game set and match. Natural wins.
But the game rules get changed when the topic is green house guesses. Geoff

MarkW

Warmists need to show that there is a CO2 signal and that it is large enough to worry about.
My only issue is with the religious belief that it is impossible for CO2 to have any impact on climate.

Zigmaster

I am a complete laymen but I actually think lukewarmers do not help in the climate debate. If the global warming theory had not been espoused I would challenge anyone to understand whether the weather or climate had actually changed in the last 60 years. Certainly I don’t believe that the increase in CO2 is directly corelatable to temperature . I would argue that in the real world the only influence on temperatures are natural , whether that be sunspots, natural cycles or whatever. The only contribution that man has made to the temperature has been the obvious and clear amendments to historical and current data that has been done to suit the political narrative. It is clear this unexplained, arbitrary and suspicious manipulation of data represents at least 50% of the rise and perhaps as much as 100%. It is only a matter of time before a whistleblower exposes this deliberate and insidious fraud.
I think that rather than Lukewarmers rather than becoming warmists as the fraud becomes more evident they will become more passionate full blown skeptics. But even if lukewarmers don’t change the one area I do agree with them is that attempts to change the future climate, through taxes, or blowing up coal fired power plants or blighting the landscape with windmills or solar panels are doomed to fail and won’t impact on future temperatures.

john harmsworth

Agreed! I can’t tell today’s weather from the 1970’s and I challenge anyone to say different anywhere in the world. Zero noticeable change in 40 years is a pretty damn poor catastrophe and precious little indication that anything is exceeding the potential of a system we barely (if at all) understand. Politics cum religion dressed up as science.

TA

“I would argue that in the real world the only influence on temperatures are natural , whether that be sunspots, natural cycles or whatever.”
That is the correct attitude for this subject. Heating and cooling of the atmosphere are from Mother Nature until proven otherwise.

MarkW

That’s as ridiculous a position to take as is the claim that CO2 is 100% responsible for the changes.

TA

“That’s as ridiculous a position to take as is the claim that CO2 is 100% responsible for the changes.”
It’s ridiculous to say it’s all Mother Nature until proven otherwise? That position doesn’t eliminate the possiblity that CO2 has some effect, all it says is until you have some evidence CO2 *does* add net heat to the atmosphere, you should go with Mother Nature as the cause.
There is NO evidence that human-caused CO2 is adding any net heat to the Earth’s atmosphere, so that leaves Mother Nature as the driver.

John

I’m a lukewarmer. For example, I think evidence shows we are growing more food with more CO2 in the air, and warmer temps in places like Russia, which just had record harvests. Positive effects should not be ignored when striking a balance. Many deserts are getting a bit greener.
Here is what would cause me to move toward alarmism:
1. Evidence that cyclones (hurricanes in N America) are getting larger in area, are more likely to be class 4 or 5, and drop more rain than in the past, to the point where hurricanes become considerably more economically damaging than in the past. This applies to cyclones world wide.
2. Evidence that very damaging (economically) weather extremes are becoming more common. Things like 20 inch rainfalls in 2/3 days in places that almost never used to get them. Or having such events occur fairly frequently in places where they had previously been rare.
3. Evidence that sea level rise is accelerating.
Of these 3, I think acceleration of sea level rise is least likely, I think it will remain close to about a foot a century, possibly even less. But I could be wrong, obviously.

Geoman

Obviously, none of those is evidence of climate change. Literally none. They are “symptoms” of climate change, but could be symptoms of something else.
I can spin scenarios where the trends for each of those phenomena would be higher or lower sans climate change. For example, as the Antarctic is what is known as an “artic desert”. Very little precipitation. As the air warms, even slightly, we could see more snowfall in Antarctica. Given this is the largest mass of land bound ice on the planet, this could reduce sea level rise.
So sea levels could rise…or fall with warming.
Damaging weather extremes? our record is spotty, and also there are more of us, with more infrastructure to damage, then ever before. Therefore economic measures of weather extremes are meaningless.
Storms form due to the difference in temperature between two areas (that is how “work” is created). Given climate change predicts the poles will warm faster than the tropics, this would reduce the temperature differential, reducing the size, and power of storms. So more storms = global cooling.
So, no, none of those phenomena definitively prove anything.

ricksanchez769

Ron Long has said it all. The climate is changing and it behooves us that windmills and solar panels are going to prevent climate change because the climate is going to change regardless (as that is what it does). All the citizens of earth (not just the rich countries) deserve cheap and reliable energy, cheap and reliable clean water. Give them both these things instead of devoting vast, copious, egregious sums of money to silly schemes that do nothing. Frack the gas, dig the coal and do it responsibly with minimal pollution but mostly do it for all those much less fortunate citizens of the planet to raise their living standards.

MarkW

Lomberg calculated that for the amount of money we spend each year trying to avoid a trivial amount of warming, we could provide clean water to every person on the planet.

john harmsworth

I think this sums up how most of us feel about the issue. Fantastic waste of resources for negative return in human terms, and hardest on the poor.

Urederra

The 2016 El Niño should spike toward the top of the 2σ range, not toward the model mean.

Excellent point. I am looking forward to reading your next post.
Just a nick pick, though. Should it be “models mean” instead?

Sort of like AA: My name is Roger and I am a lukewarmer.
I would be inclined to alarm if the match between observed temperatures and model projections trends to a match over the next ten years especially because I worry that the temperature trend will be down.
Even in that case though, I don’t see any possible solution to the alleged problem simply because replacing fossil fuels is so expensive that the cure is worse than the disease. I think fossil fuels are the best thing that ever happened to mankind so even if there are problems with its use using fossil fuels we can afford to adapt to the problems.

Rick Pfizenmayer

Wouldn’t “Climate Realist” be a better description?

The gas pressure, volume, mass and temperature are connected. pV=nRT. Alarmists don’t need anything more than to show gas composition having a meaningful role in it.
In the meanwhile the effect of parts per million variations in the atmospheric composition on temperature is equivalent to homeopathy. Even without e.g. sudden changes in the volume none seems to be able to explain. https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere.

The Reverend Badger

Thanks for the inspiration. I hereby lay claim to the new word;
————————- THERMEOPATHY ————————–
25th September 2017 21:12hrs UK
The Reverend Badger.
THERMEOPATHY – the scientifically nonsensical claim that small variations in trace gases in a planetary atmosphere can have a significant effect on surface temperature of the planet.

john harmsworth

Beautiful, gentlemen, beautiful!

Tom Judd

Is Climate ‘Lukewarmism’ Legitimate?
Hell yes!

richard verney

Essentially, catastrophic alarmism is based upon the RCP8.5 pathway scenario, but observational warming is closer to the RCP 2.5 pathway scenario,
The author states:

Actual emissions are tracking closer to RCP 6.0. When a realistic transient climate response is applied to RCP 6.0 emissions, the warming tracks RCP 4.5…

Whilst the first figure supports that claim, it is so only because of the very recent warming associated with the strong El Nino of 2015/16, and it is material to bear in mind that the ENSO cycle has not yet completed and should a La Nina develop (as forecasts presently suggest for late 2017/early 2018), the temperature anomaly will then fall back so that temperatures/warming will once again be tracking the RCP 2.5 pathway scenario, as they were tracking in 2013/14 prior to the recent strong El Nino and when the pause was still current and being discussed in the literature.

RWturner

Typical babbling nonsense from a science illiterate — how could we ever simply toss out the 9,200 peer reviewed papers in the last IPCC report they ask. Well, Google Scholar brings up 365,000 papers when searching for ‘Steady State Universe’, what does this suggest to them I wonder?

Phoenix44

I suspect that all 365,000 are refuting the Steady State?

LdB

No it was the favoured model pre 1940and will included physics greats in the list like Einstein. I suspect more will be for the model than against, which was killed rather fast by a single observation rather than a prolonged debate.

john harmsworth

And new evidence indicates that the SuperNova measurements that are a foundation of the expanding universe idea may be radically wrong! Where will we go from there? The brains working on astrophysics are constantly rediscovering physics while the pontificating pinheads of mainstream climate science can’t see past their puffed out chests.

Geoman

I’m sorry, but this article by Middleton leaves me slightly ill. The question is simply, are lukewarmers allowed to have different opinions? Yes, we are allowed to have different opinions. “Legitimate” implies we are deranged, or unscientific. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Lukewarmers are firmly within the predictions by the IPCC, but they are at the low end of the spectrum.
The question is really to catastrophic climate believers: what are your proposed solutions, what will they cost, and will they absolutely work? At some sort of marginal cost, I might say, well, I could be wrong, and a bit of insurance is probably worth it. Unfortunately the minute a catastrophic climate believer starts talking about solutions they begin to sound like deranged lunatics. None of their proposed solutions will work, and none can by applied without spending money we don’t have. Literally their solutions are insane. Which circles back to, who is legitimate in their beliefs and who is not? people who propose solutions that obviously won’t work are the “rational” ones?

Phoenix44

This is mainly where I have moved to. Arguing about numbers that we literally cannot know is pointless, and the only “proof” we will ever actually get as to who is right is what happens to the climate over the next 10-100 years.
What I deeply object to is the lunacy of moving from “there might be a problem” to wholesale mass lunacy based on debased economics and mass wishful thinking. I have lnked to this above, but everybody should read it:
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/climate-change-the-facts/

john harmsworth

You must have better hearing than I do, Geoman. I hear energy poverty and the death of Western civilization by economic suicide.

Freedom Monger

What am I? I accept that the Earth has warmed slightly since the 1800s, but there is no attainable scenario that would make me become an alarmist. I believe that all Warming is essentially good.
Global Warming does not constitute a Universal or Comprehensive Problem. There are Pros and Cons associated with every type of Climate, be it Hot, Cold, or anything in between. But the fact remains – it is scientifically evident from the fossil record and real world observation that the advantages associated with a Warmer Climate far outweigh the disadvantages.
I am for Global Warming. I am Pro-Warming. I want more Warming. Warming is GOOD.

MarkW

20C of warming would not be good. However there is no viable scenario for that to happen until the sun goes into it’s red giant phase.

“What evidence would push you toward alarmism?”
I consider myself a lukewarmer, however; while the effect of incremental CO2 on the equilibrium surface temperature is finite, it’s definitely not a significant contributor and at most is a minor second order effect.
‘Evidence’ in the form of trends, real or imagined, is insufficient to change my mind as the constraints imposed by the laws of physics are immutable and those constraints require the sensitivity to be less than the lower limit claimed by the IPCC. Any ‘data’ evidence to the contrary is either mischaracterized, misinterpreted or maladjusted.
The ONLY thing that would change my mind is the discovery and validation of new laws of physics that override the constraints imposed by Quantum Mechanics, the SB Law and Conservation of Energy.

The Reverend Badger

The new laws of physics you seek have already been done – see classic K-T diagram. Heat transfer from cold to hot, radiative fluxes added by simple math and result used to compute temperatures via SB. All the new, exciting and innovative distortions of previous scientific knowledge you could possibly want contained within CAGW. You just have to BELIEVE it ! Simples !!

RB,
The problems aren’t with using arithmetic to add radiant fluxes or considering that the transfer of energy by photons is independent of the temperature of the emitting or absorbing bodies (which BTW is NOT heat transfer from cold to hot).
Adding radiant fluxes is perfectly valid since one Joule is no different from any other, thus superposition applies. The cold heating hot argument is bogus since it only applies to a 2-body system and not to the sum of absorbed energy emitted from multiple sources (in this case, the Sun and the atmosphere).
SB is an immutable law of physics and using it to convert equivalent emissions into an equivalent temperature is also valid. The ONLY average temperature with any correspondence to reality is the equivalent SB temperature corresponding to average emissions.
Besides, when these principles are properly applied, the calculated and verifiable sensitivity is between 0.2C and 0.3C per W/m^2 and not between 0.4C and 1.2C per W/m^2 as claimed by the IPCC.
The get the wrong answer because they DO NOT apply these techniques to derive the sensitivity and instead just assume a very high one. This high sensitivity came along with the establishment of the IPCC which required a sensitivity that large in order to justify their creation. They haven’t corrected it since because to do so eliminates their reason to exist and if there’s one thing bureaucracies are really good at, its self preservation.
The real problem is a conflict of interest where the IPCC has become the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science by what they publish in their reports, yet they require a significant anthropogenic component in order to justify their existence.

Phoenix44

I think it is possible that the additional CO2 has slightly warmed the planet. However I start from the position that we know so little about the climate that making any definitive statements on either side is ludicrous.
One we can explain the various cycles properly and in detail, once we can use first principles to build accurate models, once we can explain the LIA and the MWP and so on – then I will listen, but otherwise we are simply mking observations and guessing.

As I have said before, the alarmist package involves three assertions:comment image
As David points out lukewarmers dispute that 100% of observed warming is from burning fossil fuels, but think that humans make more than o%. I think it less than 20%, but the point is these are all opinions since no one has successfully separated natural and man made warming in the real world.
As Matt Ridley points out, lukewarmers dispute the notion that warming now or in the foreseeable future is dangerous, as Richard Lindzen has also mentioned. I agree, with the proviso that we should be at least preparing infrastructure and energy resources to meet storms already experienced.
Finally, the third leg, that governments can moderate future warming by reducing emissions, is a stretch too far for me, and I gather for most lukewarmists, even true believers like Jim Hansen.
The problem for lukewarmers is that the alarmist/activist stool falls down with only one leg missing. And dissenting on any of the three claims gets you labeled a denier.

Not sure how you would classify Richard Lindzen when he says this (at the end of a recent presentation:
I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science, but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications.
The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable?
Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.
Can’t think of anything to add or subtract.

gbaikie

I would say it’s mostly about the ocean and secondary to the ocean, it’s mostly about the clouds.
Lots of lukewarmers believe clouds play much larger part of the global climate, than the alarmists do.

John

I’m a lukewarmer I guess.
Without doing much of anything, we appear to be on track to stay within 2c, therefore I would ask for some solid science as to why we need to do more.
I would also ask them to categorically state that they think they have oceans cycles licked and not mention them with hand waves after the fact.
I would also ask them to initialize new models with what they know about the current ones running hot. They know its happening…
Stop linking weather events to climate change.
I guess, I ask for a dose of reality and then I remain open to be convinced something more drastic is needed, using models (backed up by science) that are keeping in touch with reality by something other than a mathematical coincidence.
I would ask them to be open to Nuclear energy as being part of a solution, where appropriate (no Tsunami or earthquake active zones). Currently the climate change is unduly negative on Nuclear, because they refuse to accept it as a solution, as its a dirty word…
I’d ask them to be objective about cleaner coal stations and ask them to stipulate where coal needs to get to before they think its acceptable.

Alex

I’m totally not a lukewarmer as far as CO2 is concerned. Yes, mankind does affect the environment in a limited way with various forms of pollution.

LdB

I am a Lukewarmer but more than that I am also Realist. I mean that in the sense that being from a science background I know for a fact there is a huge risk that one day we are likely going to get hit by a dam big meteor. Now if I was a climate activist I would arguing we have to get off this planet because our death is a certainty. The reality is there is nowhere safe in the universe and whatever you do will have new risks.
The same reality exist on global warming many of the effects are slow and easier to plan to deal with rather than try and deal with directly especially since there is zero chance of getting emissions inside what they say is required. So you have new risks emerging such as social unrest and inequality divisions opening up. The divide between 1st and 3rd world have never been so wide and getting worse.
The implementation of CAGW policy is never going to happen the world will go to war well before that point and the German election result should have made that very clear. The shear uncompromising attitude of the CAGW supporters has guaranteed it will fail because no lasting solution to any problem has ever been done by force.
Watching the whole CAGW play out across the world is like a a slow moving train wreck. The result is never in doubt just who and how much gets smashed in the process is all that is being decided.

paul courtney

Excellent post, maybe we should rename the categories as “realist” and “unrealist.” I’m with LdB and the realists, CAGW alarmists are (you guessed it) the unrealists. They take unreal data, adjust it further from reality, and propose unrealistic “solutions”. What evidence would push me toward them? After I took the lsd, I would begin to consider the alarmist position after I read that one prominent alarmist, just one, pointed out the hypocrisy of the rest of them, published by the MSM.

paul courtney

DM: Thanks for reading, you’re right of course. So I stand with the (mostly) hypocrite-free realists; the “other” realists are awash in people who demand the rest of us do what they will not do. I know, it doesn’t solve anything, but I sure do appreciate you folks letting me post it.

Earthling2

I am a mild lukewarmer who hopes lukewarm is real and sustaining. It has to be obvious that human kind now at 7.5 billion people on the planet will tend to cause more heating than it would cooling, all things being equal.
However, the long term trend in earths climate is an ice age, and we are in an interglacial that has been getting progressively cooler since the higher warmths of the Holocene Optimum. All previous interglacials came to an abrupt end and this one will not be different. The return to ice age dynamics may have already begun in the dark ages, or the LIA, probably with the assistance of volcanic events. If the downward trend in temperatures continues over time as it has over the last 5000 years, then our brief fling with an earth optimum to human civilization may be coming to an end while we retreat into ice house conditions over the next century. I view warming as always better than cooling, since significant cooling will never support a planetary population where we are presently.
I don’t understand why there is any alarmism from perhaps .7 degree warming that has maybe been partly caused by humans in the last 150 years. Especially when considered against recently coming out of the LIA when life was brutal in the cold, and a much stormier climate change of all types was the norm and much more severe than today due to a much larger temperature gradient. If we accept that adverse climate change has always been with us, then we now need to drop the term climate change, since that is just a play on emotion. Like a cookie monster is to a toddler.
If we are to follow any precautionary principle then it must be one of vigilance of global cooling. A decadal series of volcanoes in various parts of the world would be sure to stress humanity far more than an equal amount of warming which could be mitigated for survival of the human race. Any major disruption of our food production, most of it in the northern hemisphere would cause global calamity, the likes of which the world has never known and would be a direct assault on civilization, immediately. Global warming is better than the alternative and staying static for long is not in the earths temperature record.

gbaikie

I think of a lukerwarmer as someone who thinks there could be some warming from rising CO2 levels [which in the future might be measurable]. But I don’t think a lukerwarmer is predicting that it will warm in distant future [+50 years]. I don’t expect average temperature to lower by 0.5 C within next couple decades. Or still seems to me we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age.
But if we get significant evidence of what could cause cooling, it’s possible I change my mind- but even the approaching solar min, doesn’t change my view that we could see a drop in average temperature by as much as 0.5 C within 20 years.

Alarmism over climate? Rapid onset of an ice age disrupting Northern Hemisphere agricultural production is the only climate event that alarms me.
Why do we continue to argue about the AGW hypothesis with temperature data? The AGW hypothesis includes specific positive feedbacks (water vapor) and warming patterns (latitude and altitude) that are not happening. The hypothesis is invalid. The fact that global temperature isn’t matching the predicted values is a given. If anthropogenic CO2 is contributing to a warming climate in a significant manner, than the current hypothesis is not describing the function and needs to be withdrawn.
If you want to be an AGW lukewarmist describe how CO2 is having a significant role without positive feedbacks, do so with a decent and defensible handling of winds and clouds, compare the modern rise in CO2 from past rises, adjust for land-use changes, determine the spatial error in climate datasets, and incorporate the benefits of rising CO2 in your analysis of its costs.

Mike Maguire

As a lukewarmer and operational meteorologist for 35 years, it seems anti scientific method/skepticism to be anything but a lukewarmer.
I could type pages of reasons that both sides provide to support their one sided views…….many of them excellent points……..except they mostly suffer from placing the greatest weight on factors that support their view.
The alarmists clearly suffer from this the most. To not acknowledge the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period and Minoan warm period as significant(and previous cyclic warmings), global events is blatant denial of previous natural global warming.
To not dial in the enormous agricultural benefits of increasing CO2 on our greening planet, with its booming biosphere is more denial because it proves that CO2 is a beneficial gas(even if it is also a “greenhouse” gas too).
Global climate models have been too warm and warming the higher latitudes decreases the meridional temp gradient, so the atmosphere does not need to work as hard to balance the heat disparity.
What often happens though, is that when you see one side spinning the facts and science(using every natural drought and hurricane) or even lying about and discarding realities that really count, you distrust EVERYTHING from those sources.
On the other extreme side, tunnel vision also takes over. Meteorology 101 tells us that increasing the temperature of the atmosphere 1 degree, will allow it to hold something like 4% more moisture. The physics of CO2(which some don’t believe in) tell us that increasing it, will lead to X amount of atmospheric warming.
A warmer ocean temperature, should provide some hurricanes with a bit more fuel, even if we have not seen a trend that shows it happening in the real world yet.
The global temperature is 1 deg. C warmer than it was and ocean temperature .5 deg. C warmer than it was over a century ago, regardless of data adjustments, what source you use, theories and models……………and nobody, anywhere has the franchise on climate science knowledge or is smart enough to separate out the fingerprint of how much was caused by humans and how much was natural.
The higher the confidence in it being almost all from one or the other, the less open minded the scientist.
It’s certain that climate science is being used as a political tool, as evidenced by ridiculous, non scientific agreements like the Climate Accord and Al Gores junk science movies/statements being sold as “Save the Planet” marketing schemes.
Seeing stuff like that drives a skeptic, even farther to the other side to show how scientifically fraudulent these sources are. If your case agrees partially with these extremists, for instance, it may not have the same impact as if you just try to blow them up completely by showing the opposite of what they state and proving them wrong on as much as you can.

andrew dickens

So us lukewarmers are asked: what would make you an alarmist?
Are alarmists asked the same question in reverse? I am aware of one example. The Royal Society were asked about 2-3 years ago: how many years does the “pause” have to last before you accept that your climate prediction models are wrong? Answer given: 50 years (that’s another 50 years, so 67 years altogether).

john harmsworth

That’s interesting Andrew. Did the Royal Society provide any scientific basis for that statement? I’m guessing not. Probably their answers on this valid scientific question were provided by the communications department after consulting as to what was politically appropos. Everybody duck and cover!

Jeff L

What about the idea that climate sensitivity is on the low end of the spectrum (lower than “consensus”) ? Is that a form of “lukewarmism” ? It seems like a lot of folks might fit in that category. With the implication that any warming will not have catastrophic effects and that any cost of attempted mitigation would far exceed any benefits.
With this definition, the difference between “skeptics” & “lukewarmers” might not really be significant.

TomRude

You have to love how the 1998 El Nino is now barely similar to the years that followed in the Zeke graph… and follows exactly the models’ predictions.
Soon it’ll be drowned as if it barely happened. That’s science.

AndyG55

As I said up above. The temperature series depicted is so mal-adjusted that it bares very little resemblance to reality. That make to whole graph more than a bit of a joke.

john harmsworth

Poor human race! At this rate, the boiling point of water will be 100F by 2100.

MarkW

If sea levels rise 10 feet, and we move up in elevation 10 feet, then atmospheric pressure where we are would be unchanged.

MarkW

Another way to put it is that atmospheric pressure at sea level remains the same, regardless of where sea level is.

MarkW

Let me apologize for being half right in my previous statements.
My statements above are true for instances when the water entering the oceans are coming from acquifers that don’t subside as they are being drained, micro-comets and thermal expansion.
In such a situation, the top of atmosphere will rise as the oceans rise.
However, when water is coming from melting glaciers.
Using the simplifying assumption that the volume of water equals the volume of ice it came from.
Under this assumption, as ice melts, the oceans rise, but the top of atmosphere doesn’t change. As a result, the atmospheric pressure at any point above sea level doesn’t change as the seas rise.
Since ice does take up a bit more room than water, when it melts, top of atmosphere would actually fall a little bit, As a result, the atmospheric pressure at any given spot above sea level will drop by an extremely small amount.
In conclusion, what happens to atmospheric pressure at any given spot above sea level depends on the relative mix of water from glaciers vs. water from other sources.

Peter Morris

A huge fraction of the anthropogenic CO2 was released within just the last two decades. What would push me to alarmism is if we saw a corresponding spike in temperatures, with a rising oscillation, because I understand it wouldn’t simply be a smooth upward curve.
Instead we see spikes driven by ocean heat release, and a relatively stable temperature profile. The global temp may even drop back down below what it was before this most recent El Niño spike. Who knows?
But the theory of the CO2 control knob looks well and busted. It should be scrapped.

Nelson

Don’t we all understand that the oceans heat/cool the atmosphere and not the other way around? The ocean heat content is driven by solar influences. Isn’t it clear from the data that the satellite-based temperature record can be explained by the AMO. A quick look at the data from Woodfortrees (I don’t know how to post a graph) shows the relationship. There is a natural experiment in the works. As the AMO rolls over into a cool phase, the earth’s atmospheric temperature should decline. by about as much as the satellite data shows it warmed from 1979 to today.
Obviously, there are lots of ocean currents, so there is more going on than just the AMO. The ENSO process can clearly be seen in the satellite data. However, I am willing to hypothesize that the coming cool phase of the AMO will drive the satellite data. This is a very simple test.
Given the structure of the earth’s surface, which is dominated by water heated by the sun, I am amazed that so much of the scientific community has focused on changes in CO2 as a climate driver.
Over the longer term, I believe the series of articles by Javier over at Judith Curry’s blog, as well as others, capture the dynamics of climate quite well.
As an Econometrician, I am not sure I understand the lukewarmist position. The null hypothesis is that the observed temperature changes are driven by natural forces. I know of no data that causes the rejection of the null hypothesis. I, therefore, continue to accept the null hypothesis.
Nelson

Sixto

IMO the null hypothesis is that nothing out of the ordinary is happening in Earth’s climate now, hence no special explanation is called for.
That might be a distinction without a difference, since in any case natural variation must be dominant. My formulation allows that there might be a human influence, but that it’s negligible or undetectable, whether to warm or cool on balance.

Part of the problem with the lukewarmer position is that it implicitly fails to distinguish between “it rained yesterday but is sunny today. Absent human intervention, it would have been sunny yesterday and rainy today” on the one hand, with “humans are making the climate increasingly inhospitable for life” on the other.
If the climate is within natural variability, than the possibility of human influence is meaningless. Our contribution irrelevant.
Secondly, I want to see some humility. It seems more likely than not that the earth has been getting slightly warmer over the last century plus, but given how paltry the data is going back even a few decades, it is pure hubris to state that as fact. 150 years ago, 99% of the earth wasn’t within 100 miles of a thermometer and 99% of the area that was was not recorded with the accuracy necessary to prove the amount of warming claimed. Go back further than weather satellites, and I want to see great big error bars or I want you to sit out the conversation. The data is simply not there.
And that’s even before getting to some kind of calculation as to human contribution (which itself needs great big error bars considering how poorly we understand the climate).
And on to the “conspiracy” ad hominem. People act in concert all the time without there being a formal conspiracy. Give a group of people scant data and a financial incentive to find something and most will find it. That’s human nature. The claim t”conspiracy theory!” is a canard by cowards trying to avoid real discussion.

john harmsworth

This summation should be in bold type on the front page of this website and sent to every media outlet with a particle of interest and integrity. And then put it up in the schools.

Reasonable Skeptic

As a frequently labelled denier, but really a luke warmer I set my metric for alarmism a long time ago (about 6-7 years ago in fact). I want the global temperatures to be above the model mean for a few years. I can’t rely on the surface temps, so I chose the higher quality satellite data.
Now, if they change (lower) the model means, then that is different of course, but I mean the ones that are showing 2100 to be on the 3 deg + range).

john harmsworth

So no science involved in your analysis whatsoever. Understood. Just don’t pretend to be anything but a full blown Warmist.

Bruce Cobb

A lukewarmer is someone who only partly Believes, because straddling the fence feels safer to them. Sorta like someone going to church on religious holidays, to keep their foot in the door, and “just in case”.

coolclimateinfo

Amen

The Reverend Badger

We make those sort pay more, and I don’t just mean the coins on the plate.

john harmsworth

Exactly! Not interested in the science. Just trying to get along with the monster under the bed. Even when it isn’t really there.

MarkW

It really is fascinating how even those on “our side” need to stake out extreme positions and denigrate anyone who disagrees with them.

richard verney

There are so many reasons for not being persuaded by the radiative GHE, AGW (other than on a micro climatic level caused by land change usage) and CAGW, that one would have to write a book to address the issues. This enables people to have quite different and varying views as to why do not accept, or why they partially accept AGW.
I am a sceptic which means that I am sceptical of almost all arguments in support of AGW, and sceptical of almost all arguments against AGW. But I believe in applying the scientific method including the application of the null hypothesis, and I have seen no evidence that persuades me that the null hypothesis has been displaced.
I do not dispute the radiative properties of CO2, but that does not mean that it is a GHG. That is something that can only be determined by observation as to how it works when added to Earth’s (convective) atmosphere, and presently there is no observational evidence which has been able to isolate the warming signal to CO2 (if there be any at all). That is why I do not understand any lukewarmer who signs up to man being responsible for any warming whatsoever.
In fact I remain completely unconvinced that there is any climate change. Temperature is of course but one property that goes to make up climate, and the various and many parameters that go to make up climate are never in stasis, and are constantly varying/meandering between upper and lower bounds. One of the central issues is what is meant by climate and what does this encompass, and I consider that this is something that has not been rigorously examined, identified and determined.
I do not accept the rationale that climate can be assessed as the average of weather over a period as short as 30 years. That is a blink of the eye, and why should such a short period be the bench mark? From a global perspective, there may only be 3 types of climate, ie., those when the world is largely ice free, interglacials and glacials.
Are we today simply observing the type of climate that is typical in an interglacial? Of course, during the course of the Holocene, there have been some cooler periods and some warmer periods, but heck that is simply what one would expect in an interglacial.
Whilst I accept that the globe has warmed since the LIA, I remain wholly unconvinced by the evidence that the Northern Hemisphere is any warmer today than it was back in the 1930s/1940s. In fact, i consider that there are multiple lines of evidence that suggest that within the margins of measurement errors (including our approach to the assessment and reconstruction of data) that the Northern Hemisphere is any warmer than the 1930s/1940s. There is simply too little historic data and the coverage too sparse in the Southern Hemisphere in order to make any reasonable assessment of change in the Southern Hemisphere. Given the known problems with our data sets/the temperature reconstructions, I fail to understand how anyone can be reasonably persuaded that today is any warmer than the highs of the 1930s/1940s. That carries immense significance since some 95% of all manmade CO2 emissions have taken place since 1940.
We are not even in a position to judge to what extent man is responsible for the rise in CO2 since we do not sufficiently understand or know the ins and outs of the carbon cycle. I consider that the evidence as a whole presents a strong case that man is responsible for much of the rise in CO2 levels, but even that is not beyond reasonable debate. For example ants and termites are responsible for the emission of CO2 and since we do not know how their numbers have changed these past 100 years, we cannot rule out even such lowly creatures from having had a significant impact.
I consider that there has been a lamentable failure to properly identify what is the ideal quantity of CO2 for the biosphere of this planet, and what is the ideal temperature for the biosphere. I consider that the balance of evidence suggests that this planet has too little CO2, and that it is presently too cold. I consider that the balance of evidence strongly suggest that a warmer world is a better world, and that the biosphere would greatly benefit from the globe being several degrees warmer. In my opinion, this is an area where there has been far too little research and consideration, and for some unknown reason, it has been accepted that 2 degrees C poses a real threat without there being hard evidence substantiating such claim.
Whilst I consider lukewarmers to hold a reasonable position, and one which may be right, I consider their position, as far as they accept that manmade CO2 has and is causing warming, to be unscientific.

The Reverend Badger

An excellent summary, Richard. This covers most of the essential scientific issues in a careful and considered manner and is wholly accurate. I would disagree with your final comment however and think the lukewarmers hold not only an unscientific position but an UNreasonable one and also perhaps a dangerous one. The AGW nonsense is so full of unscientific BS that it somewhat undermines efforts to attack it when part of the “other side” have their own steaming dollops.

john harmsworth

Unscientific!
Could there be a greater insult to a complex, unproven hypothesis that calls for the overturning of the economic model that has propelled the world to never before known levels of well being and promises to do much more for all?
Unscientific says it all!

coolclimateinfo

Lukewarmism cannot be legitimate. If it were there would be multiple scientific responses to the challenge laid out many times here by me and others.
Every lukewarmer who believes in the influence of CO2 and manmade emissions has a great opportunity here to explain how rising CO2 caused a negative, then positive, then flattish rate of temperature:
http://climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20AndCO2.gif
I respect Middleton but I won’t respect a non-convincing vague answer or non-answer while I’m supposed to think of lukewarmism as legitimate and superior. If lukewarmists cannot explain this glaring discrepancy in agw theory then it is not legitimate science, it is simply a prevailing popular opinion – ie groupthink.
You all should realize there is no legit AGW answer to my challenge. From there all you need is the sense and courage to admit what the warmists won’t, that CO2 has nothing to do with driving increasing temperatures.

coolclimateinfo

Sorry David that really falls under the ‘non-convincing answer’ – but you’re a great post writer!

coolclimateinfo

Mike, use ‘the physics’ you hold dear to explain how while CO2 rose for 30 years temps declined.

MarkW

Bob, all you have proven is that CO2 is not the only driver of climate and that there is at least one driver that is more powerful than CO2. Despite your desire to believe otherwise, you have not proven that CO2 has no role in the climate.

coolclimateinfo

“Bob, [1] all you have proven is that CO2 is not the only driver of climate and that there is at least one driver that is more powerful than CO2. [2] Despite your desire to believe otherwise, you have not proven that CO2 has no role in the climate.” – MarkW
[1] Certainly glad to see you agree there is a driver greater than CO2.
[2] I never claimed it had no role in the climate. It is a response to temperature change, not a driver of it. CO2 enhances leaf area which indirectly is important to climate but not in driving temperature.

lloydr56

So much great stuff in this post and comments. I would just add:
1. There may be nothing worse than thinking you know something when you don’t actually know that specific thing. Socrates is supposed to have said that skilled carpenters tend to think they know everything–especially what to do in politics. Skilled modellers?
2. I gather from the many smart people or experts here: effect of man-made CO2 on temps almost certainly not zero. Very likely to be less than 50%, likely to be no more than 30%.
3. Regardless of what this exact number is, what are the alternatives? Life without fossil fuels? As they used to say on rude blogs: bwahhahahaha. Bring on nuclear plants at a realistic cost, methane hydrates.
4. New study suggests increase in CO2 will help produce more plants, bigger, etc., but nutrition in plant food will decline, as it tends to do whenever output per plant is increased by selective breeding or whatever. Is GMO food the solution?
5. We spend a lot of time on small things: I like the suggestion that temps only went back up to the mean of the models because of El Nino in 2015-16; by rights it would have been predicted that observations would have been even higher, so models that don’t include El Nino are still running too hot. I look forward to ten more years of data, and more posts.

Ellen

I’m old. I live in Minnesota. It’s certainly getting warmer around here. I’ve lived long enough to see it. In Saint Paul, they used to build ice castles for the Winter Carnival. I’ve seen pictures of the late 1800s castles – they were enormous and elaborate. When I was paying attention in the 1960s and 1970s, I kept hearing about the troubles they had with the castles melting. The planned 2017 ice “castle” is despicably small. They’re talking about a giant castle for 2018 (the first since 2004), but “Recent warm winters have the Winter Carnival folks exploring options for building a massive ice structure, Bump said. They looked at an “alternative panel system,” which didn’t work out, she said.” http://www.twincities.com/2016/12/29/st-paul-winter-carnival-ice-castle-2018-super-bowl/
There’s no way I can ignore local warming. It’s happening. Global warming is a harder thing to experience, but since we are no longer in a Little Ice Age, I’ll accept it. Anthropogenic? So far, the climate models have done little to persuade me.
The one common factor I have found for all these catastrophes-to-be is the cure. Put the Left in charge, give them money, and do what they say. Shut down our industries, live humbly, and abase ourselves for our sins against Gaia. They said that for the coming Ice Age, for Acid Rain, for Ozone Holes, for Global Warming, and now they are saying Climate Change, because people are starting to snicker behind their hands when they say “warming”.
It’s politics and religion, it is, and the people working it for everything they can are hucksters and useful idiots.

Steve Case

That’s right winters east of the Rockies are getting warmer and the summers are getting cooler. It would appear that the winters are warmer than the summers are cooler – hence the averages are up. Here’s a map of the United States that shows the declining maximum temperature trends:
http://oi67.tinypic.com/10er3ps.jpg
The key doesn’t show it, but TMax in most of those states in the Mississippi River valley have shown a negative trend since the 19th century.
Source:
NOAA’s Climate at a Glance
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

MarkW

Your problem could just as easily be UHI as global warming.

dmacleo

used to be somewhat a lukewarmer but now…don’t even think can be considered that.
time will tell if I am wrong or not.

John

AR5 admits a pause. Gavin has a solution for that…3 new GISS versions that turn it into a rise 😉
While that happens in my face, I’m highly skeptical.

john harmsworth

Yup! So unnoticeable they have to lie about it. And yet it’s dangerous! What a joke!

Clyde Spencer

David,
This and other recent posts (e.g. Larry Kummer) contrast model ensemble projections with global average temperature sets. Most notably, were it not for the recent El Nino, the apparent agreement between the two would not look nearly as good as it does. Yet, whenever we have cold weather, the alarmists are quick to point out that weather is not climate and we should ignore the snow on the ground outside the conference venue. So, the most important take away is that we have to wait at least a couple more years to see if we appear to be at one of the innumerable steps, or if temperatures return to the trend (hiatus) that we appeared to have prior to the most recent El Nino.
Secondly, as I’ve tried to point out before, averages hide a lot of information, as in, “The Devil is in the details.” If we had a cold equator and hot poles, one could get the same average global temperature. I’ve just finished reviewing the chapter on models (IPCC AR5) and note that the claim for the quality of models has a very high correlation coefficient for GLOBAL average temperatures. However, the correlation coefficients for precipitation patterns only account for less than 72% (CMIP5) of the variance of the spatial patterns. I would then expect that the regional temperatures would be about the same. In summary, it isn’t just important what the projected average global temperatures are, but whether projected regional average temperatures are reliable.

The lukewarmers are total losers.
They think CO2 controls the climate, which is wrong, but at least they
usually reject the bogus water vapor tripling the effect of CO2
positive feedback crackpot global warming theory.
They are in the middle of the road, and will get run over by traffic on both sides!
CO2 has never controlled the temperature, and if there is any effect at all,
it is harmless — most likely too small to notice in a lifetime
Lukewarmers are not paid to believe CO2 controls the climate.
That would be a good excuse.
Lukewarmers generally know enough about science to realize the lack of correlation between
average temperature and CO2 levels in most decades since 1940.
Being dumb is not an excuse.
So if the lukewarmers are not paid to believe, and know enough science not to
be tricked by climate models that have made wrong predictions for 30 years,
then what is their problem?
The problem is they are losers trying to be liked by everyone,
both global warmunists and skeptics.
Anyone who thinks the causes of climate change are well known (CO2) is a loser.
Anyone who thinks computer games can predict the average temperature is a loser.
Lukewarmers, therefore, are losers.
They just can’t say “I don’t know” or “No one knows”
when asked about the future temperature,
even though both are the correct answers!
Climate blog for non-scientists
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

gbaikie

Richard Greene
September 25, 2017 at 11:30 am
The lukewarmers are total losers.
They think CO2 controls the climate, which is wrong, but at least they
usually reject the bogus water vapor tripling the effect of CO2
positive feedback crackpot global warming theory.
Well I don’t think CO2 controls climate.
I think the greenhouse effect theory is pseudoscience.
Mars has 28 times more CO2 per square meter as compared to Earth and
CO2 of Mars causes no “greenhouse effect” warming- sublimation of
CO2 at poles- different issue.
Now Mars has about 25 trillion tonnes of CO2 in it’s atmosphere.
If 25 trillion tonnes of CO2 or N2 was added to Mars atmosphere, it
seems there could be some warming.
Or 50 trillion tonnes of N2 could have less warming effect than
50 trillion tonnes of 50% mix or 100% CO2.
Or I think it would have enough of effect that it could be measured.
I don’t think the effect of CO2 in Earth has been measure but the upper
limit seems to me, that if CO2 increased from 400 to 800 ppm that this
might cause 1 C increase to Earth’s average temperature.
Probably more likely it’s closer to 0.25 C than 1 C
And if global temperature increase by 2 C before 2100, I think this would
mostly be good news- but it won’t happen. As there is no reason or evidence
that it could.

MarkW

“They think CO2 controls the climate”
When you have to lie about what others are saying, you have lost the argument before it even began.