The Great Debate Part D – Summary

 

By Andy May

In Part A of the Great Debate series (see here) we discussed Dr. David Karoly’s and Dr. William Happer’s arguments regarding how unusual recent global warming is and how we know the recent observed increase in CO2 is due to human activities. In Part B we examined their thoughts on the amount of warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions and the accuracy of the calculation. In Part C we discussed the dangers of global warming, the calculation of the vital value of ECS (the equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2), and discuss the need to do something about climate change. In this final part of the series I will summarize the debate and provide my thoughts.

Summary

Karoly summarizes as follows:

“Science has established that it is virtually certain that increases of atmospheric CO2 due to burning of fossil fuels will cause climate change that will have substantial adverse impacts on humanity and on natural systems. Therefore, immediate stringent measures to suppress the burning of fossil fuels are both justified and necessary.”

Happer’s key point is:

“Climate models don’t work. They have predicted several times more warming from greenhouse gas increases than has been observed.”

In a nut shell, both agree the world is warming, and CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the warming. Karoly and Tamblyn think the recent warming is unusual, but Happer and the historical record suggest it isn’t, or if it is, there is certainly no evidence it is unusual. Rapid rises of more than one-degree are common in ice core records, three geologically recent examples that occur at about the same time in Greenland and Antarctica are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Examples of one degree increases in temperature in 100 years or less, in these examples increases occurred in both Greenland and Antarctic ice cores at about the same time. Source: (May 2018). Year BP means years before 1950.

Tamblyn, Karoly and Happer agree that the contribution of human emissions to modern warming cannot be measured and must be computed with climate models. Tablyn and Karoly think the models are accurate and use the model results to predict dangers to mankind and the planet. Happer disagrees and provides evidence the models are not accurate and compute too much warming. He also provides us with an elegant and novel calculation of the direct impact of CO2 on temperature of about one-degree C per doubling of CO2 (the “CS”), which if correct, predicts that it will take 600 years for temperatures to rise two-degrees. His calculation is net of any feedbacks, but as he points out we really don’t know if the net feedback is positive or negative.

The debate clarifies a key point. The dangers due to man-made climate change hinge on CS, is it about three as Tamblyn and Karoly believe or is it about one as Happer believes? Is warming of two degrees a hazard or will we be fine up to higher temperatures? Even the assertion that 2° is a dangerous temperature rise is speculative and controversial. The current global average temperature is about 15 degrees, but over the last 500 million years the overall average surface temperature has been estimated by Christopher Scotese to be about 20 degrees, five degrees higher than today (Scotese 2015).

Karoly and Happer have significant and substantive disagreements on CS and on the temperature-rise that is dangerous. All the speculative hazards to mankind and the planet hinge on the value of CS used to predict future warming and on the temperature increase considered to be dangerous. Currently, as Happer and others have pointed out, warming and the additional CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial and they will continue to be beneficial for many more years. The dangers hinge entirely on model predictions based on assumed and unvalidated values of CS that are probably too high, according to Happer. They also rely on an assumed “tipping point” of 2°C above either today’s average temperature or the 19th century temperature, depending upon who is speaking.

Thus, it appears that Karoly’s initial statement that human-caused climate change is “virtually certain” to be dangerous and we must use “immediate, stringent measures” to deal with it is unproven (see Part A).

Happer’s initial statement (in Part A) was, in part:

“There is no scientific basis for the claim that increases in atmospheric CO2 due to burning of fossil fuels will cause climate change that will have substantial adverse impacts on humanity and natural systems.”

This can be considered true. Because all the proposed hazards of CO2 hinge on a poorly estimated value, the climate sensitivity (CS) to CO2. Low values of CS are no problem. High values may be a problem, but no one knows what the correct value is.

The last part of Happer’s initial statement is:

“Any resulting climate change will be moderate, and there will be very major benefits to agriculture and other plant life.”

Because the CS is so poorly understood, the first part of this statement is stated too firmly. Given what we read in the debate materials and the references, I think we can safely say any human-caused climate change will probably be moderate. The last part of the statement is fine, we can be certain that there will be major benefits to agriculture and other plant life, that is already happening.

Generally, the debate was very informative and interesting. The organization of the documents is poor, and they are quite long and repetitive. I’ve tried to fix these problems here. The material will not be new to many readers, but Karoly and Happer are well-known, credible experts and that gives weight to their remarks and opinions. Tamblyn’s arguments are weaker than those of the other two and are mostly conjecture, using unstated and unrealistic assumed temperature increases with little foundation. Happer describes them well in his final reply:

“Mr. Tamblyn has produced not so much a response to my Statement, as a primer on global-warming alarmism, a whole list of scary talking points and computer-generated graphs, with occasional asides to deplore how obtuse I am for not understanding the gravity of this supposedly existential threat to the planet or how ignorant I am of basic physics.”

That last bit had me chuckling, Professor Happer is probably the most accomplished and brilliant physicist alive today. Tamblyn did not pick up where Karoly left off and chose to begin a new debate by listing a lot of very speculative claims of the dangers of warming. Most of these “dangers” involved warming rates and amounts that are completely unrealistic. Unfortunately for us, what he adds is mostly irrelevant to the original discussion between Happer and Karoly. Thus, Happer had to defend his views in two separate debates, but he soldiered on and did quite well in both. It is a shame that Karoly backed out in the middle of the debate, had he stayed, the result would have been better. As it is we gained something, we found out it is all about how much and how fast it is warming. In my opinion, Happer won the debate, both of them.

Works Cited

May, Andy. 2018. Climate Catastrophe! Science or Science Fiction? American Freedom Publications LLC. https://www.amazon.com/CLIMATE-CATASTROPHE-Science-Fiction-ebook/dp/B07CPHCBV1/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1535627846&sr=8-1&keywords=climate+catastrophe+science+or+science+fiction.

Scotese, Christopher. 2015. Some thoughts on Global Climate Change: The Transition from Icehouse to Hothouse. PALEOMAP Project. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher_Scotese3/project/Earth-History-The-Evolution-of-the-Earth-System/attachment/575023e708aec90a33750af1/AS:368505070342144@1464869863189/download/Some+Thoughts+on+Global+Climate+Changev21ar+copy.pdf.

 

Advertisements

150 thoughts on “The Great Debate Part D – Summary

  1. We know the world is warming out of the LIA; the last Thames Ice Fair was 1814.

    We know from Mauna Loa’s Keeling curve that atmospheric CO2 is rising, and we know from its 12C/13C rario change that the rise is anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion.

    We know there is a temperature rise attribution problem inadvertently highlighted by AR4 WG1 SPM F.4; the rise from 1920-45 is indistinguishable from 1975-2000; the former is mostly natural since there simply was an insufficient change in CO2 concentration for thatbto be the main explanation.

    We know the CMIP5 models run hot; depending on which paper, by 2x to 3.5x in thentropical troposphere.

    We know why they run hot; computational intractability forces parameterization of essencial,processes like convection inside large area grids, and for CMIP5 those parameters were tuned to best hindcast from 2005 back to 1975, thus dragging in the attribution problem.

    We know these hot running models produce an ECS about twice that deduced from energy budget calculations; CMIP5 ~3.2 versus Lewis and Curry ~1.6.

    We know ocean acidification is overblown; AR4 did not factormin natural buffering and AR5 did not factor in epigenetics.

    We know from long record tide gauges with diff GPS vertical land motion correction that sea level rise is not accelerating; moreover we know that this rate closes.

    We know that many ‘alarms’ demanding action are simply bad science; for example polar bears do not depend on summer sea ice since the seal whelping season is spring ice.

    We know that many other alarming predictions have simply proved bogus; for example the disappearance of Arctic sea ice, the disappearance of Tuvalu, the disappearance of UK winter snow.

    We know there is not only a vast academic enterprise with a vested interest in continued CAGW alarm at the expense of academic integrity, there is also a vast renewable energy industry invested in stuff that simply does not work as advertised because of intermittency.

    in my opinion there is not a lot left to debate. The win goes to Happer’s side. And since the debate is really political rather than scientific, what is needed are sound bites such as suggested above.

    • Good post Rud.

      One minor quibble re your:
      “… we know from its 12C/13C rario change that the rise is anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion.”

      I’m not going to argue that increasing CO2 is NOT from fossil fuel combustion, at least in large part, but my impression is the 12C/13C argument is weak. The Mass Balance Argument is probably stronger, but neither is fully conclusive.

      • The 13C/12C ratio in fossil fuels is about 2.5% lower than in air CO2.
        However, the 13C/12C ratio in marine organic C, land plants, and soil organic C and CO2 are all similar to that in fossil fuels. Each of these C reservoirs exchanges with air CO2.
        Air 13C/12C is more like that in limestone and volcanic CO2, but ~1% lower than CO2 in shallow (but not deep) ocean.
        MANY process and reservoir exchanges complicate using 13C/12C to precisely determine the CO2 origin in air.

        There is no doubt fossil fuels have contributed to the growth in air CO2. However, because large reservoir exchange is continual, the 13C/12C signature of fossil fuels is quickly mixed and diminished.

        • The oceans are on the surface. UAH/RSS use an algorithm that uses the same satellite data and mathturbates it differently. Both are the same instrument – that do not agree with the previous one. Unlike surface temps which are derived from thousands of instruments. When you can find agreement between both those sources and crucially themselves (the several V incarnations) and you can tell me whether it’s the sensor on NOAA 14 or NOAA15 that was wrong, then that snake-oil graph from the master Monckton proves nothing, except that you wish to cherry-pick the coldest GMT series (at the time – no longer since V4) to back up your ideological stance. The scientific process is to evaluate ALL evidence.

          Try the latest V4 …
          https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/RSSv4-vs-UAH-MT-original-series.jpg

          Cue the Mears is a ” …. ” response.
          As though that is a rational argument.

          • “except that you wish to cherry-pick the coldest GMT series (at the time – no longer since V4) to back up your ideological stance”….

            and yet, in those “coldest” almost 2 decades…..sea level kept rising at exactly the same rate…both graphs show sea level rise decoupled from temperature

            I have no idea what else you were trying to say….”The oceans are on the surface.”

          • 0.72 c in 100 years. i am a quivering wreck at the thought. whats the betting the next time the amo bottoms out even mears can’t “mathturbate” a warming trend from the satellite data.

          • bit chilly.
            And, most of that overpowering 0.72 results from increases at night and Winter, not from Summer heat waves.

          • So you think the surface temperatures involve no “mathurbation”? How are we getting surface temperatures from areas with no instruments then? And what, every methodology used produces the same results then does it?

            I have no ideology in this, and the ad hom really just shows that probably do.

      • … and we also know that rise in the global temperature correlates well with another natural variable (decrease in the strength of the earth’s magnetic dipole)
        http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GT-GMF1.htm
        but as it is often stated ‘correlation doesn’t mean causation’ unless the case can be supported by the known laws of physics.

      • Latitude, you should mention that the satellite data
        in your chart have far less infilling (wild guesses)
        than surface temperature data,
        and measurements in the troposphere
        should show significantly more warming
        than surface data, because the greenhouse
        effect is in the troposphere, but don’t.

        Everyone should wonder about the surface temperatures,
        because there is more infilling than actual data,
        and too much warming compared with what is
        happening in the troposphere.

        The current claim is that
        the atmosphere
        is warming the surface
        at a greater rate than
        the atmosphere is warming !

        That’s nonsense, not science !

    • “September 3, 2018 2:35 pm

      Rud Istvan

      We know the CMIP5 models run hot; depending on which paper, by 2x to 3.5x in the tropical troposphere.”

      Would that be due to the models initialise the Earth as a flat idealised black body radiator which it is not?

    • Large companies like GE will build windmills, but they’d be just as happy to get into the nuclear power plant business. Academics who have been overstating the case for CAGW might never change their views as their professional reputations could not survive a reversal.

      But I’d say that the vested interests of academics and the renewable energy industry are dwarfed by the interests of nations who wish to receive wealth transfers, governments who desire to collect taxes, and politicians who wish to direct the transfers of wealth.

    • It would be worth debating
      whether or not the slight warming
      since 1880 has been good news,
      or bad news.

      There is no logical reason to debate
      the future climate, since no one knows
      what it will be.

      We have three decades
      of wrong predictions,
      since the late 1980’s,
      as evidence.

      I think it’s obvious a small amount of warming
      since 1880 (assuming the haphazard measurements
      are in the ballpark) is good news, especially because
      most of the warming has been at night, in the
      northern half of the northern hemisphere
      — how is that bad news ?

      I’ll add the greening of Earth as
      additional good news
      … plus an assumed acceleration
      of food crop growth,
      which has multiple causes,
      but more CO2 in the air can only help.

      So, all I see is good news, but then I’ve
      only been reading about climate
      science since 1997 — maybe more study
      is required to find that pesky bad news?

      So far all the so-called bad news
      has not happened, or remains
      as a fairy tale in the worried minds
      of perpetually unhappy leftists!

      My climate change blog
      over 20,000 page views so far:
      http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

  2. Today BBC and the Met office claimed that the England’s 2018 summer was hottest on the record, but they used the daily maximum temperatures (usually last an hour or even less), disregarding the daily average.
    Using data from the Met office we find that during the ‘global cooling’ the daily average summer temperature of 1976 was 0.5 degree C higher than the daily average of the 2018’s summer, as this graph shows.
    http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/CET1976-2018.htm

    • “Today BBC and the Met office claimed that the England’s 2018 summer was hottest on the record, but they used the daily maximum temperatures (usually last an hour or even less), disregarding the daily average.”

      Err, no they didn’t ….

      https://www.wired-gov.net/wg/news.nsf/articles/Record+breaking+summer+03092018131500?open

      “However, it looks more likely that it could be the warmest summer on record for England with the mean temperature standing at 17.2 C, which would narrowly beat the record set in 1976 (17.0C). It is not going to be a record for Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales where the records stand at 14.1C (2003), 15.5C (1995) and 16.1C (1995), respectively.”

      17.2C is NOT a mean max temp.
      BTW: AGW is acting most markedly on min temps.

      • Err, not so.
        What BBC was reporting earlier during the day was the number of days the temperatures were exceeding 30C, which appear to be higher in 2018 than in 1976, therefore their weather man’s concluded that 2018 was the hottest. Later in the day they dropped daily max (above 30C) and referred to the average.
        Met office own data for the CET daily average, I used to construct above diagram shows 1976 exceeding 2018 by 0.5 degree C (17.8 against 17.3)
        Therefore, 1976 summer was the hottest by a large margin if the Met office data is to be believed.
        Only data that are fully scrutinised are those for the CET, while for the rest of the country continuity going back to 1976 may not be as reliable.

        • Basically they tortured the data until they found something that would support the point they wanted to make.

      • What MET office says:
        ” If we look back through the CET series only 10 summers recorded an average temperature above 17C. Six of those have occurred since 1976, and only two (1826, 1846) were pre 20th Century, which is consistent with the general picture of our warming climate globally and here in the UK.”
        As you can see they ‘conveniently’ omitted to say how much above 17C was 1976 and the subsequent 6 occasions, which as their data shows were all well below 17.8C that was recorded in 1976.

      • “BTW: AGW is acting most markedly on min temps.”

        Then it can’t be AG CO2 which enhances temperature in the sunshine. Warming at night is caused by water vapour and clouds.

        If one were to argue that warmer surface daytime temperatures (of the ground) retained enough heat to make the night warmer, it would have to be hotter in the daytime, which it is not, on average.

        Your assertion that it is “AGW” is unsupportable. AGW from AG CO2 is a causal claim yet there is a poor correlation between AG CO2 and the global minimum temperature (which you isolated from the peak and averages because it looks better). Over the past twenty years the CO2 concentration shot up and the temperature didn’t. These are two relevant facts.

        Lack of correlation is proof of lack of causation. In fact, AG CO2 emissions don’t correlate with anything except fossil fuel use. CO2 concentration doesn’t even correlate well with AG fossil fuel use. It sure as heck doesn’t correlate well with temperature or sea level or Arctic ice or hurricanes or tornadoes or cloudiness or pH of the oceans.

        The best correlation for CO2 is with the number of disconnected assertions that it is bad for all forms of life, even though all forms of life are ultimately completely dependent upon it. There is a word for those unsupported assertions and it isn’t “science”.

        • “Lack of correlation is proof of lack of causation.”

          That’s not actually true. It is possible to have no correlation and causation. Imagine an inflation rate that you target at say 2%. You control interest rates to keep it at 2%. You have perfect foresight and so can turn the knob to change interest rates at exactly the right amount and exactly the right time to keep inflation at a constant 2%. So interest rates fluctuate all the time, but inflation stays at 2%. But the flat 2% is caused by the highly variable change in interest rates. Thus you have causation but zero correlation.

          Or you could imagine a vehicle going up and down hills at a constant speed. The accelerator will be changing constantly, but the speed stays fixed. Causation but zero correlation.

          • To put it another way “Lack of correlation is proof of lack of causation” is only a truism in a world in which only one input factor is changing and there is a constant, linear relationship between input and output.

            In a world with multiple input factors, the other factors could easily be hiding the correlation that you are looking for.
            Anything that changes the time relationship between cause and effect can also hide correlation.

          • MarkW shows all of us he has no clue about “correlation.” If there is no correlation between A and B, then neither is the cause of the other. Nothing else matters. Keep your day time job and don’t even think of a career in mathematical statistics.

          • MarkW

            There might be some minor contribution by CO2 to temperature, but the effect is so small we cannot find it in the data we have. Occasional correlation could be by chance alone.

            Until something is found, it doesn’t exist. Speculating about something is fine, and fun, but that doesn’t make it exist.

          • Pheonix

            Your two examples give pause for consideration, however: interests do not have direct control over inflation, people do. The interest rate arguably has an effect (on people), but there are many examples where it doesn’t work well at all. It would be more correct to say that inflation drives interests rates. Unless inflation rises, interest rates generally won’t.

            As for the vehicle, the “cause of the constant speed” is a combination of factors, not the accelerator alone. As soon as the terrain and the accelerator are considered together, the causes and the correlations are perfect.

            If you consider all the contributors to global temperature, one will be CO2, but a minor one. The claim that it is the principal or only driver of temperature has been firmly disproven. There is far more evidence that temperature drives the CO2 concentration.

            It is somewhat like the argument that you can disprove a hypothesis, but not prove it. It is a one-way street.

      • Since the borders between England, Wales, Scotland and northern Ireland are arbitrary (being political and not geographical), the distinction in the summers must also be arbitrary.

        Talking about England having the hottest summer is literally meaningless.

    • Interesting comment, could somebody get the current latest temperature figures for “Central England” (one zillionth percent of the planet’s surface but nevertheless, a reference often quoted.

    • Today BBC and the Met office claimed that the England’s 2018 summer was hottest on the record

      The MET Office refer to England. The CET only covers part of the country. There is a separate temperature record for the country as a a whole. It’s quite possible, therefore, that 1976 was hottest in the CE region while 2018 was hottest across the country.

      For what it’s worth, they are calling it a 4 way tie (see Update in link), i.e the summers of 1976, 2003, 2006 and 2018 were equally warm. It seems that 2018 for the UK as a whole was also joint warmest.

      https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/end-of-summer-stats

  3. Good job Andy. Here’s the question (forget trying to get the alarmists to read this) how do you get less informed, but curious and in the middle, persons to read things like this? I have personally been appalled at the lack of scientific curiosity shown by some alarmists that I believe to be generally fairly intelligent, and by how readily they drink the kool-aid served by Socialists. It’s probably a long wait for the next glacial event, but that may be the really deciding factor. Good luck.

    • I wish I knew. I’ve also seen many very intelligent people, some with considerable scientific training, that will drink the climate change kool-aid and not investigate the issue themselves. Many are just intellectually lazy and want to be spoon-fed their beliefs, I suppose this is why we have political parties, they require no thought.

      • “Many are just intellectually lazy and want to be spoon-fed their beliefs,”

        I think that describes a lot of otherwise intelligent people.

      • The vast majority of intelligent people believe the vast majority of things without investigating them. Almost no non-science graduates I know can explain how evolution works, and even fewer can explain how their car works!

    • Good comments Ron.

      You express concerns regarding the lack of scientific curiosity by the warmist minions.

      The great American philosopher George Carlin explained it thus:

      “Think of how stupid the average person is; and then realize half of them are stupider than that!”

      • Really.

        W, X, Y, and Z have IQs of 130. K has an IQ of 90.

        Average IQ of the 5 = (4*130 + 90)/5 = 122.

        Obviously, then, 2 1/2 of these five people have IQs < 130….

    • “how do you get less informed, but curious and in the middle, persons to read things like this?”

      Something that might help somewhat is to reduce the amount of incivility in the Discussion replies to WUWT articles. When trolls show up, don’t go ad hominem. Just patiently and accurately explain why they are wrong in your response.

      • Ralph – I think the trolls know they are wrong – that they are lying- they are just amusing themselves, and writing to create confusion among the uninformed.

        There is a point where replying in detail to their nonsensical one-liners is a waste of time and effort.

        I was polite for about the first ten years of this discussion – lately I have little time or patience for trolls.

        This is especially so since the deceitful and aggressive actions of the hockey team and other global warming conspirators have become fully known through the Climategate emails, etc.

        Anyone who still believes that the leaders of the global warming alarmist conspiracy are just “innocent scientists with a different viewpoint” are delusional. Their extremist and disgraceful conduct of the warmists says otherwise.

        • Allan, Good analysis and it would also apply to most in the organized environmental world. There are many scientists I have known that buy into whatever the environmental orthodoxy is at the time never attempted to research even the most obvious blunders being presented.

          I will not repeat my troll analysis since I cannot find the paper on the issue that I was sent. Yet it should be clear to everyone that the trolls are not here or elsewhere to debate anything. Even the “nice” ones that do produce some data, graphs, etc, some semi-logical argument still post solely to distract and frustrate the blog from reasonable debate.

  4. If only reasoned sensible debate between well informed clear thinkers would make any difference, this series would be very helpful. But people make up their minds based on primitive superstition. This is called pro-science.

    • I can not agree more with your thoughts Hokey Schtick.
      The greatest problem is that the news media continues to trot out half truths and straight out lies.
      If lies are repeated enough times people begin to think maybe there is something to this global warming after all.
      People who should be able to work out that they are being fed nonsense begin to believe that floods and storms are becoming more severe because the news media highlight all natural disasters and it is right in front of them every day from some where around the world .
      I am sure that governments all around the world encourage news media to push the catastrophic global warming because it suits their political agenda .
      Genuine debate is suppressed and we are now being force fed propaganda and any one who dares stand up and speak some common sense is denigrated and ridiculed .

      • Gwan, The first problem we have is people are no longer taught to critically think. They believe because their minds are whirring away that they are thinking. Even many call themselves scientists cannot describe Scientific Method or understand formal logic.

        When it comes to weather people view it based on their memories. One of my favorites is when the news media interviews someone about some weather event and they say, “I lived here all my life and this is the worst I have every seen.” Meanwhile they are not much over 30 years old.

        I was in the newspaper often relative to various environmental issues. Usually the news media would misquote me or take me out of context. The next day my phone would ring off the desk with people complaining about what “I said.” Interestingly I got to know many of the folks complaining. When they were in the news and were misquoted I would call them complaining. They got the hint. I asked why if the newspaper got what they said wrong why did they believe the newspaper when they quoted me. I never got a clear answer to that question. While the American people have a lower opinion of the news media that attorneys the news media still affects public opinion.

  5. Excerpt from above:

    “Tamblyn, Karoly and Happer agree that the contribution of human emissions to modern warming cannot be measured and must be computed with climate models. Tablyn and Karoly think the models are accurate and use the model results to predict dangers to mankind and the planet. Happer disagrees and provides evidence the models are not accurate and compute too much warming. He also provides us with an elegant and novel calculation of the direct impact of CO2 on temperature of about one-degree C per doubling of CO2 (the “CS”), which if correct, predicts that it will take 600 years for temperatures to rise two-degrees. His calculation is net of any feedbacks, but as he points out we really don’t know if the net feedback is positive or negative.”

    I have one major disagreement with the above paragraph – we do NOT need climate models to estimate climate sensitivity to CO2. Climate models are black boxes that have little or no credibility, based on experience. There are much better and more reliable methods available.

    Here are two “full-earth-scale” analyses that describe a simple and robust approach that provides an UPPER BOUND (maximum) climate sensitivity of approx. 1C/(2xCO2).

    That upper bound of approx. 1C/doubling is sufficiently low to dismiss any alleged global warming crisis as unfounded false alarmism.

    Best, Allan

    BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

    Lewis and Curry (2018) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.6C/doubling for ECS and 1.3C/doubling for TCR, using Hatcrut4 surface temperatures. These surface temperatures probably have a significant warming bias due to poor siting of measurements, UHI effects, other land use changes, etc.

    Christy and McNider (2017) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.1C/doubling for UAH Lower Tropospheric temperatures.

    Both analyses are “full-earth-scale”, which have the least room for errors. Both are “UPPER BOUND” estimates of sensitivity, derived by assuming that ~ALL* warming is due to increasing atmospheric CO2. It is possible, in fact probable, that less of the warming is driven by CO2, and most of it is natural variation.
    (*Note – Christy and McNider make allowance for major volcanoes El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991+)

    The slightly higher sensitivity values for Curry and Lewis are due to the higher warming estimates of Hadcrut4 surface temperatures versus UAH LT temperatures.

    Practically speaking, however, these sensitivity estimates are similar, and are far too low to support any runaway or catastrophic manmade global warming.

    Higher estimates of climate sensitivity have little or no credibility and there is no real global warming crisis.

    Increased atmospheric CO2, from whatever cause will at most drive minor, net-beneficial global warming, and significantly increased plant and crop yields.

    The total impact if increasing atmospheric CO2 is hugely beneficial to humanity and the environment. Any politician who contradicts this statement is a scoundrel or an imbecile and is destructive to the well-being of society. It IS that simple.

    Best, Allan

    • Allan,
      You make many good points, and I agree Lewis and Curry and Christy and McNider’s papers make good estimates of the maximum influence of rising CO2. However, my statement and yours are not the same.
      Here are the two quotes:
      Mine

      Tamblyn, Karoly and Happer agree that the contribution of human emissions to modern warming cannot be measured and must be computed with climate models.

      Yours

      we do NOT need climate models to estimate climate sensitivity to CO2.

      In reality, both are true, they are not mutually exclusive. At least at this time, there is no way to measure the effect that human emissions have on climate. What we can do, and these papers and others have done, is compare estimated CO2 levels to measured global temperature averages and estimate what CS is needed for all of the temperature increase to be caused by CO2.
      This always results in a lower CS than the models give us and that is why the IPCC will not give us a most likely value for ECS.

      • Understood, thank you Andy – I was disagreeing not with you, but with Tamblyn, Karoly and (even) Happer – and I do not like disagreeing with Happer, who is an excellent scientist and a very good man.

      • DMA.
        What displays is a notice that “Because of its privacy setting, this video cannot be played here.” However, it does play when I click on it.

  6. Thank you Andy for your work on presenting the debate. It has been very interesting, particularly because these debates are so extremely rare for such a polarized question. It speaks volumes that consensus-supporting climate scientists refuse to have public scientific debates on the question, and on this occasion Karoly abandoned the debate in the middle. They know they don’t have a good answer to some of the most important questions when they face skepticism. They go to great lengths to suppress dissent in the media and that is never a good sign.

    The situation is slowly turning into a joke. Global warming is newsworthy during the summer, and almost absent in the news during the winter. It has become another seasonal event.

    Meanwhile we are in one of the longest and more profound multi-year cooling stretches in the last 70 years, and it is essentially incompatible with model predictions, as it is taking the global average temperature outside of the 95% models spread. It is still absent from the news but it is turning more and more difficult to ignore.

    https://i.imgur.com/Od0lDU0.png

    When I update the figure by the end of the month, it is going to be even lower.

    • Thanks Javier, I really appreciated this bit:
      “The situation is slowly turning into a joke. Global warming is newsworthy during the summer, and almost absent in the news during the winter. It has become another seasonal event.”

      A joke it is, I bet Josh is on it!

    • I looks like even the bogus, bastardized surface temperature charts are not going to be able to save the CAGW narrative.

      All that dishonest work for nothing! It couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch of Climategate liars. They rigged the game and still couldn’t win it.

      • It seems like it’s playing into alarmists’ hands to have any debate focus solely on CO2’s rôle in affecting temperature and climate. CO2 is the main variable that alarmists want to dwell upon, because people like Maurice Strong recognized that it’s one the demonization and regulation of which could do the most damage to capitalist economies, even moreso than trying to demonize and regulate chlorine, as Patrick Moore tells us Greenpeace had wanted to do circa 1990.

        Framing debates exclusively around CO2 is like focusing solely on diet in debating the etiology of heart disease, while ignoring other known factors such as smoking, sedentary lifestyle, hypertension, Type A personality, etc. Alarmist climate models fail to predict or project accurately, because they presume a priori that manmade CO2 emissions are the control knob of climate. That idea was pre-determined mainly by the UN’s charge to the IPCC.

        Besides employing those arguments that show CO2’s effect is very small and cannot be important or dangerous (and is even beneficial), debaters should also be prepared to inject frequently into the argument other causative factors, such as various solar effects, including modulation of cosmic rays and clouds, oceanic oscillations, Milankovitch cycles, etc. Don’t let the enemy choose the battleground, and don’t fight solely on their terms.

  7. His (Happer’s) calculation is net of any feedbacks, but as he points out we really don’t know if the net feedback is positive or negative.

    If I wish to measure the response of a system, I am said to be characterizing the system. link

    The standard way to characterize a system is to provide a step change, or an impulse change, to the input and watch what happens at the output over time. To measure climate response, I would suddenly change the atmospheric CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm. Then I would graph the global temperature over the next thousand years.

    Clearly the conditions to measure climate sensitivity don’t exist. We can sort of ‘measure’ transient climate sensitivity. Given the cycles, quasi cycles, and pseudo cycles that exist in the system and given that some of them may be on the millennium time scale, we can’t ‘measure’ the equilibrium climate sensitivity.

    Positive feedback was hypothesized by James Hansen because, otherwise, global warming due to increased CO2 is completely not alarming. He didn’t justify the mathematics he used, and it can’t be justified.

    Happer’s statement is 100% correct. There is no proof, mathematically or empirically that such feedbacks exist. Trying to justify them using models is a joke of the unfunny kind.

  8. Andy,

    You stated, ” The current global average temperature is about 15 degrees, but over the last 500 million years the overall average surface temperature has been estimated … to be about 20 degrees”

    There is too much reliance in climatology on a single number — global average. I’m reminded of the old joke about a guy with one foot in a bucket of ice water, and the other in a stove. On average, he’s in pretty good shape. However, that average number tells us nothing about just what he is experiencing.

    We are pretty certain that the Arctic is warming about twice as fast as the global average. An argument has been made that the tropics are so limited by ocean evaporation that they are nearly at the maximum temperature possible. What we are left with is the important question “How much warming is occurring in the regions of the Earth where the most food is grown, and the most people live?”

    I’m of the opinion that the warming that is taking place varies considerably with the climate zone. We need information on the diurnal and seasonal temperature (and humidity) variations of land areas that support the bulk of human population. Humidity is important because it is used in calculating the subjective experience of heat that we define as the Heat Index. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were discovered that the Climate Sensitivity (CS) isn’t a single number, but varies with the climate zone.

    A single, global average annual temperature isn’t sufficient! We need to analyze Earth’s climate by climate zones, not as a single point in space where water and land air temperatures are averaged. We also need to use diurnal temperatures for ALL analyses, not annual averages of monthly averages of daily averages. Averaging averages reduces the apparent variance, making natural variation look smaller than it actually is.

    Fundamentally, those being paid to study and understand climate are doing a poor job. They are responsible for the decisions on what data to use and how to process it. They are making, in my judgement, poor decisions. The worst decision is to place all their marbles in the pot called “Global Annual Average.” Averaging, especially without associated information such as standard deviation and kurtosis, is an information-poor representation that is easily misused.

    • Clyde, I couldn’t agree more. Maps of delta T show the Northern Hemisphere is warming much more than the Southern Hemisphere. But, CO2 is a well mixed gas and the stated objective seems to be how can we prove CO2 is causing the warming? Not the more neutral, “What is causing the warming.” If CO2 is to blame, then the warming will be global, so they go global and bury the variability.

      • how much of that northern hemisphere warming is due to a warming arctic and how much of that warming arctic is down to areas of open ocean in summer that were ice covered at the beginning of the satellite era ? global temperature graphs give the impression the uncovered arctic ocean is on fire, when in reality the large anomaly is the difference between ice and open water.

        while i am here can anyone tell me why when i check global sea surface temperature anomalies the gulf stream is always shown in fiery red ? i have read umpteen theories on the gulf stream speeding up, slowing down etc, but seem to have missed it has warmed by a significant amount ?

    • To talk about energy and then use temperature as a metric is an error of the first order. Energy discussions have to include temperature and humidity because then we can speak correctly of a change in enthalpy.

      The enthalpy of the total atmosphere has meaning as a way to track changes. The temperature does not. To talk of the CET temperature without the humidity factored in is not helpful. Because of decades of cooling, 1976 may have been drier than 2018 and the energy in the atmosphere over CE was just the same. We don’t know from the temperature.

      There is too much BS in this GW discussion.

      • Crispin,

        How does one measure energy directly? I’m not adverse to converting temperatures to energy, but then one would not only have to measure temperatures in climate zones, but also determine the specific heat of the air masses in the proximity of the measuring stations. Because the heating of the ground can influence the temperature of the air immediately above it, the specific heat of the rocks, soil, and vegetation would also have to be taken into consideration. We aren’t in the habit of measuring the temperature of rocks, so we would be missing the energy stored in the rocks. While there is merit in your complaint, I think that it would be an intractable problem to try to actually calculate even the energy contained in the atmosphere, particularly since convective overturn can cause large differences both laterally and vertically.

        Temperatures are important because plants, animals, and humans respond directly to the ambient temperature (not energy) as energy moves from high temperatures to lower temperatures. Temperatures don’t give the whole picture, but they are an important part of it.

        • Clyde

          Temperature does not convert to energy. Temperature is an intensive measurement and energy is a quantitative metric derived from two or more measurements.

          The total energy can be determined for the “air column” above a measuring station using the water vapour profile and the temperature profile plotted against altitude. This gives the enthalpy of the column (total energy). As it varies, any change can be determined.

          I agree about the rocks, however this can be estimate quite reasonably. A lot of remote sensing is devoted to this. Temperature is an important aspect of agriculture and “the whole picture” but it is not a good indicator of heat gain or loss. That is why people calculate the ocean heat content. Now, what is the air heat content? Even a calculation of the heat content of the bottom 100 m of the atmosphere would be more useful than temperatures alone. Just because it is hotter doesn’t mean there is more heat stored in it – not when the water content is such an important factor in the calculation of the enthalpy.

    • Your very important point is well taken. And in fact at least one study exists analyzing how temperature and precipitation have varied from the defined ranges for Köppen climate zones. The paper is: Using the Köppen classification to quantify climate variation and change: An example for 1901–2010 By Deliang Chen and Hans Weiteng Chen Department of Earth Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
      http://hanschen.org/koppen/#home

      My synopsis is https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/data-vs-models-4-climates-changing/

      The table and images show that most places have had at least one entire year with temperatures and/or precipitation atypical for that climate. It is much more unusual for abnormal weather to persist for ten years running. At 30-years and more the zones are quite stable, such that is there is little movement at the boundaries with neighboring zones.

  9. Here is a recent exchange with Professor Happer
    Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 9:43 AM
    To: William Happer
    \Subject: Climate Forecasting
    Dr Norman Page Houston XX@att.net XXX XXX XXXX
    Professor Happer. Climate models surely are unable to make useful forecasts. A different forecasting paradigm is required.The hadsst3 data shows global SST temperatures are now below the pre El Nino trend. https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Dm8qOXHv_6Q/Wmpht1JTNlI/AAAAAAAAAnU/NxsBfAdmSq4gLI0Gxs64F0LZ8IlBwX_VQCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/HADSST2018125B.jpg
    Reality is finally beginning to intrude upon the RealClimate dangerous global warming team. They say ” it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.”
    Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2004+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
    and an earlier accessible blog version at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html Here is the abstract for convenience :
    “ABSTRACT
    This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths.It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
    For the current situation and longer range forecasts see Figs 4 and 12 in the links above.
    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ouMJV24kyY8/WcRJ4ACUIdI/AAAAAAAAAlk/WqmzMcU6BygYkYhyjNXCZBa19JFnfxrGgCLcBGAs/s1600/trend201708.png
    Fig 4. RSS trends showing the millennial cycle temperature peak at about 2003 (14)
    Figure 4 illustrates the working hypothesis that for this RSS time series the peak of the Millennial cycle, a very important “golden spike”, can be designated at 2003 The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-c0ctAz7WDTA/Wnox5ru2vxI/AAAAAAAAAog/mt4uteTiQyA9bNqkeDxWiNpEVrfpkD3JwCEwYBhgL/s1600/cyclesFinal-1OK122916-1Fig12.jpg

    Fig. 12. Comparative Temperature Forecasts to 2100.
    Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (redharmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed. Best Regards Norman Page

    On 2/6/2018 9:21 AM,
    William Happer wrote: Dear Norman, We clearly agree that establishment climate models don’t work. I hope we can help to stop ruinous policy decisions based on these flawed models. Best wishes, Will

    Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 11:11 AM To: William Happer Subject: Re: Climate Forecasting Will . I’m sure you are extremely busy but I would be most grateful if you could find the time to read my 2017 paper linked below and make whatever comments you think appropriate on the working hypothesis and forecasts made. Best Regards Norman Here is a link to a previous 2015 exchange with Freeman Dyson. https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2015/04/climate-and-co2-exchange-with-freeman.html

    Dear Norman, Freeman Dyson has been a good and respected friend of mine for many years. I agree with his note to you. I did take a quick look at the material at the links you sent. If I understand it correctly, you believe the main driver of Earth’s climate is solar activity, perhaps through control of cloud cover. Svensmark and Shaviv have been promoting similar ideas. And Wilie Soon is also persuaded that “it’s the Sun, stupid.” These ideas and the observational data in support of them seem much more persuasive to me than the establishment picture of a climate controlled solely by concentrations of CO2 with a little CH4, N20, etc. to help. If you are right, we need to be able to predict solar activity. Based on my very brief glace at your work, my impression is that you think observed solar cycles are regular enough that we can extrapolate future activity from their amplitudes and phases. Nicola Scafetta and Abdussamatov have somewhat analogous views. You may be right, but I have always been nervous about models based on Fourier analysis of past data. They have failed spectacularly when applied in some other areas, including predicting stock prices. I hope these stream-of-consciousness reactions are of some help. I am short of time, as you correctly guessed. Will

    From Norman Page
    Will. Many thanks for your prompt response. I would just note that I do not rely on Fourier analysis for the forecasts.The paper says “The millennial cycle peaks are obvious at about 10,000, 9,000, 8,000, 7,000, 2,000, and 1,000 years before now as seen in Fig. 2 (8) and at about 990 AD in Fig. 3 (9). It should be noted that those believing that CO2 is the main driver should recognize that Fig. 2 would indicate that from 8,000 to the Little Ice Age CO2 must have been acting as a coolant……….The later 2012 Christiansen and Ljungqvist temperature time series of Fig. 3 is here proposed asthe most useful “type reconstruction” as a basis for climate change discussion. …………. Note also that the overall curve is not a simple sine curve. The down trend is about 650 years and the uptrend about 364 years. ……………The depths of the next LIA will likely occur about 2640 +/-. In the real world no pattern repeats exactly because other things are never equal. Look for example at the short-term annual variability aboutthe 50-year moving average in Fig. 3. The actual future pattern will incorporate other solar periodicities in addition to the 60-year and millennial cycles, and will also reflect extraneous events such as volcanism. However, these two most obvious cycles should capture the principal components of the general trends with an accuracy high enough, and probability likely enough, to guide policy. Forward projections made by mathematical curve fitting alone have no necessary connection to reality ifturning points picked from empirical data in Figs 4 and 10 are ignored………From Figures 3 and 4 the period of the latest Millennial cycle is from 990 to 2003 – 1,013 years. ” In other words the cycle lengths and amplitudes are picked from the empirical data – the simple assumption is that the current cycle beginning in about 2004 will most likely be similar to the last cycle which began in 990+/. Would you have any problems if I posted this exchange on my website? Norman.

    Dear Norm,
    Feel free to post my response. It was not meant to be disparaging. Please fix any spelling and grammatical errors. I did not proof what I wrote very carefully. Will
    Will.
    I did not think is was disparaging – my response was just for clarification. Norman

    • Norman,

      I took the time to read your paper. I hope you will take my comments in the same way you would (or should) take comments from a peer reviewer – they are not personal, and not meant to be from any particular AGW viewpoint, they are about the article itself.

      ” Essex 2013 (1) proved that models with the number of variables in the GCMs are simply incomputable.” Scientists don’t “prove” things. You should know this, being one yourself (though as I understand it, your career was in oil exploration, so you could be forgiven for this). This may be seen as nitpicking, but it’s a very important facet of scientific methodology and philosophy that isn’t well-understood by the public, and I hate to see in perpetuated in scientific publications. (How are GCMs “incomputable”?)

      “The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. ” They are not “ephemeral,” they are part of the record. In Fig. 5 you stopped the trendline before the 2015-16 El Nino even occurred, and the El Nino was over by the end of your data set. Why did you choose different points to start and end your trend lines for the RSS and HadCRUT datasets? If you are going to exclude the latest ENSO (already past) event from your trend lines, then the effects of all ENSO events should be removed from the data. It’s not the same as cherry-picking a starting point.

      “The millennial cycle peaks are obvious at about 10,000, 9,000, 8,000, 7,000, 2,000, and 1,000 years before now as seen in Fig. 2 (8) and at about 990 AD in Fig. 3 (9). It should be noted that those believing that CO2 is the main driver should recognize that Fig. 2 would indicate that from 8,000 to the Little Ice Age CO2 must have been acting as a coolant.” If there is an “obvious” millennial cycle, why don’t you see all the peaks at X,000 years before present? You are picking the peaks to look at and ignoring the rest. Using the word “obvious” is bound to cause problems.

      “The climate model forecasts, on which the entire Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming meme rests, are structured with no regard to the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities that are so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense. ” This is not advisable in a scientific publication – it shows how biased you are, and detracts from your credibility. Furthermore, it suggests you are unaware of the research done looking at periodic cycles, or why the cycles you say are “obvious” are not included in the models. What you say is obvious is not at all obvious to me, and I’m looking at your graphs!

      “It should be noted that those believing that CO2 is the main driver should recognize that Fig. 2 would indicate that from 8,000 to the Little Ice Age CO2 must have been acting as a coolant.” This makes no sense. For one thing, this is only temperature at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet, not a global average. For another, the rise in CO2 is only 20 ppm, max, and part of that was during a warming period. Third, it ignores any other possible causal factors driving temperature; volcanic eruptions are hypothesized to play a major role in the cooling phase of the LIA. Simplistic statements like this suggest a lack of depth of knowledge of the literature, and once again, you show your bias. Good scientists try not to let their bias influence their research – that’s part of the reason statistics are such an important tool.

      “hockey stick was instrumental in selling the CAGW meme to the grant awarders, politicians, NGOs and the general public.” Scientifically irrelevant.

      ” The later 2012 Christiansen and Ljungqvist temperature time series of Fig. 3 is here proposed as the most useful “type reconstruction” as a basis for climate change discussion. ” Why? Why use this particular extra-tropical NH graph to represent global climate? You need to justify such a choice. It may be useful for the purposes of your argument, but that doesn’t make it a valid choice.

      What I’d really like to get across is that choosing a few graphs to build a case is not good science. There are a million graphs out there, and choice and interpretation is largely subjective. Compare, for example, your graphs of global temperature anomalies in figures 8 vs. 12. Eight supposedly shows the 60-year cycles (I wouldn’t agree, but anyway…), while in figure 12 those disappear. It all depends on the length of the moving average.

      Your paper would be much stronger if it had statistical analysis to support your ideas.

      I wish I could see the final, published version. I would think it would have to have some major revisions in the peer review process, if it’s anything like the draft on the blog. One thing it does show, though, is that even those papers that question “AGW dogma” get published.

      • Kristi Thanks for reading the paper – few readers actually bother.
        1. Re Essex – go to time 30m 2 secs of the presentation.He shows that to compute climate models at a suitably fine grid mesh would take 10 to the 20 years. That seems like a proof to me that the models are not appropriate for forecasting purposes.
        Re your snide comment re oil exploration -the fundamental task of the oil explorationists is to correlate events and build a narrative of events in time and space – so oil business geologists know what correlations look like .It is impossible to forecast the future unless we know where earth is now regard to the natural cycles which emerge from the data as emergent properties. The success of the oil industry in distinguishing signal from noise in seismic data has completely transformed the world economy and global energy and economic power relations in the last 20 years.
        2. I say ” ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends.”
        Look at the 1998 El Nino in the top figure above it is perfectly reasonable to call the peak an ephemeral deviation FROM THE TREND.
        3.I just pick the turning points on the least squares trend analysis.Every data set will come in a bit differently and each El Nino peak will have a somewhat different shape and take a somewhat different time to reflect the return to the trendline. I suggest 2019 or 2021 above. I absolutely wouldn’t remove the Enso events – they represent very important information.
        4. I think these Holocene peaks are obvious. The beats between the various solar cycles go in and out of phase with time so sometimes the disappear.
        5. I say “The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense” It is not bias to tell the truth. The establishment modelers have made a schoolboy error of judgement in that their sample size is too small All their analyses are based on a sample size of 150 years or less when the important cycle is millennial. It is very likely therefore that all their forecasts will fall outside the real world. They lack common sense because they project straight ahead beyond the Millennial Turning Point. See Fig 12
        6. “It should be noted that those believing that CO2 is the main driver should recognize that Fig. 2 would indicate that from 8,000 to the Little Ice Age CO2 must have been acting as a coolant.”
        This is my idea of a bit of a Joke – I guess you didn’t recognize it.
        7. You say “Scientifically irrelevant” . The IPCC is an organization of governments – the various SPMs are political documents. Most establishment academic scientists are publicly funded .The IPCC was not set up to study climate science but the human contribution to climate change – academia gave the governments what they wanted to keep the funding coming.
        8.You say” It may be useful for the purposes of your argument, but that doesn’t make it a valid choice.” ALL data analyses are cherry picked to illustrate the authors hypotheses. It is for the reader to judge on the relative plausibility of the proposals put forwards.
        9.Two 60+/- cycle peaks appear on Fig 12 at about 1940 and 2000+/
        10 Statistical analyses add nothing to most interpretations of anything since the period lengths and the samples chosen can be picked to prove almost anything anybody wants.
        11. The contents of the published version are different only in the color of the figures and the layout.
        Again many thanks for taking the time to read the paper Best Regards Norman Page

        • Norman,

          1. Sorry if I sounded snide. I didn’t mean it like that, but it was poor form nevertheless.
          2. I don’t see why ENSO events would be considered “ephemeral.”
          3. I still don’t see why you would end the trend lines at different points.
          4. While I can see what you mean about the appearance of many of the Holocene peaks being “near” 1000 years apart, what is near enough to qualify as an obvious cycle? 1300 years? 600? The peaks in the middle of the graph aren’t just of diminished strength, they don’t fall where they should based on your hypothesis.
          5. If modelers can identify no processes that are strong enough and regular enough to produce cyclical climate properties, there is no reason to use them in the models. They have certainly done plenty of research into it. Solar cycles are part of the models – improved data on solar variability will be used in the next round of models. https://phys.org/news/2017-07-representation-solar-variability-climate.html
          “The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense” is an opinion, not truth. I have no idea why you say modeling climate lacks commonsense. Nor do I understand why people say they have utterly failed in their predictions. I believe many people don’t recognize the limitations of models as well as scientists do, take into account the confidence associated with different predictions, or the fact that natural variability is expected. No one involved expects the models to be perfect or to be able to predict when particular climate states (such as El Ninos) will happen.
          “All their analyses are based on a sample size of 150 years or less ” Not true. They use pre-industrial data to start their models, which begin running hundreds of years in the past. The parameters are also based on research that includes pre-industrial data. Regardless, there are several statements in your paper that suggest bias.
          6. A scientific research paper is not a place for jokes.
          7. Still scientifically irrelevant.
          8.”You say ‘It may be useful for the purposes of your argument, but that doesn’t make it a valid choice.’ ALL data analyses are cherry picked to illustrate the authors hypotheses. It is for the reader to judge on the relative plausibility of the proposals put forwards.” NO. For one thing, you are confusing analyses and graphs. Graphs are representations of data and/or analyses. They can be taken from other research to illustrate a hypothesis, yes, but those graphs are not normally the basis of original research presented in a publication. Analyses are of two types: exploratory and hypothesis-testing. Normally the latter is more common, but there’s a place for the former if it’s transparent. Statistics are used to reject the null hypothesis, not to “illustrate” a hypothesis. Ideally, the analyses are chosen before the data are gathered, but this isn’t always the case. The reader should not have to make a judgment about plausibility – the data should speak for themselves. Normally (ideally) a researcher will in the discussion place the results in context of other research (both supporting and contradictory), and discuss their limitations and caveats.

          We all know that science is not always executed ideally; humans are not machines. But some of us believe that the majority of scientists have professional integrity. Social and medical research are notorious for poor research methods, but the hard sciences (including climate science) do not have that reputation outside skeptic circles. The allegations of mass fraud, groupthink, greed and stupidity are unproven. They make me sick, and one of the main reasons I got involved in the debate was to try to put holes in this way of thinking, but it’s too ingrained, too big a battle. (Just because Climategate revealed some unprofessional conduct doesn’t mean the field is full of it – and if one knows the context of some of the emails, they show that CRU scientists were in fact fighting peer review abuses. Many of the emails have been widely and willfully misinterpreted. Good came out of the whole thing though – data and code are more widely available now.)
          9. If you are going to complain about the modelers using a short range of time, I don’t see how you can use a similar range to analyze 60-year cycles, or why you would choose an endpoint to a cycle based on a few years of cooler-than-normal weather. The fact that they go in and out of phase so that a cycle becomes unclear is not an excuse when you say the cycles are “obvious.” The second “cycle” starting in about 1940 has such a minimal trough that it’s very difficult say where the low is, especially in fig 12. The cooling periods are much less dramatic than the warming ones. The overall impression is not one of cycling around an average, but of warming interrupted by a period of near-stasis. It may well be that there are 60-year cycles, but to me these data are not “obvious” illustrations.
          10. I don’t mean this as an insult, but you apparently know little about he proper use of statistics.
          11. Huh. No revisions? Interesting. And it was peer reviewed?

          If Ockham’s Razor were used to support a hypothesis, it would support AGW.

          You complain that the model predictions are untestable, but you do nothing to test your own hypotheses or predictions (which would also seem to be untestable). “However, these two most obvious cycles should capture the principal components of the general trends with an accuracy high enough, and probability likely enough, to guide policy.” Why don’t you do a PCA, then, to see whether you can explain any historical patterns???

          Your hypotheses are interesting, but there needs to be more done to analyze them.

          Norman, I’m genuinely sorry if I come off as confrontational or offensive. I admire the work you put into this, and believe that you are doing it for what you think are good reasons. It’s just that I am very concerned about the quality of science that gets published. If I saw a paper using similar methods to argue for CAGW, I would be critical of it for all the same reasons. I appreciate the dialog. I in no way intend to offend you. Honest! I know I can be very blunt and lack diplomacy. It’s a problem I have in general.

          Best regards,
          Kristi

          • Kristi In my opinion the data presented does speak for itself – It is just that a majority of the consensus scientists are hard of hearing at this time.
            Note these excerpts from the paper;
            “From Figures 3 and 4 the period of the latest Millennial cycle is from 990 to 2003 – 1,013 years. This is remarkably consistent with the 1,024-year periodicity seen in the solar activity wavelet analysis in Fig. 4 from Steinhilber et al 2012 (16).Fairbridge and Sanders 1987 (17) p 452 provide the commensurability relationships of planetary and lap periodicities as a basis for future analysis of the sun-climate connection. Their reported Uranus Saturn Jupiter Lap time periodicity of 953 years is pertinent. here. Scafetta 2013 (18) compares the GCMs with a semi-empirical harmonic climate model based chiefly on astronomical oscillations. The model is constructed from six astronomically deduced harmonics with periods of 9.1, 10.4, 20, 60, 115 and 983 years. Scafetta’s abstract also states: “In particular, from 2000 to 2013.5 a Global Surface Temperature plateau is observed while the GCMs predicted a warming rate of about 2 C/century. In contrast, the hypothesis that the climate is regulated by specific natural oscillations more accurately fits the GST records at multiple time scales.”…………………
            Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (red harmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed. Easterbrook 2015 (32) based his 2100 forecasts on the warming/cooling, mainly PDO, cycles of the last century. These are similar to Akasofu’s because Easterbrook’s Fig 5 also fails to recognize the 2004 Millennial peak and inversion. Scaffetta’s 2000-2100 projected warming forecast (18) ranged between 0.3 C and 1.6 C which is significantly lower than the IPCC GCM ensemble mean projected warming of 1.1C to 4.1 C. The difference between Scaffetta’s paper and the current paper is that his Fig.30 B also ignores the Millennial temperature trend inversion here picked at 2003 and he allows for the possibility of a more significant anthropogenic CO2 warming contribution.”
            When looking for statistical proof for millennial cycle forecasts I would suggest that at least couple of the 60 year cycles would be needed .That is why in climate matters the plausibility is only a matter of professional opinion. (That is what the IPCC uses-a couple of dozen government chosen guys sit round a table and vote their professional opinions – a great environment for Groupthink which always moves to the extreme – 95% certainty in this case)
            You can see what my opinion is. No doubt yours differs. The paper on the blog includes several corrections and helpful improving suggestions made by one of the anonymous referees. No hard feelings – climate science is something of a contact sport these days. Cheers Norman

  10. I look at what advocates of the phenomena currently self-identified as “climate change” demands of us. Their demands almost universally converge on larger government, less personal freedom, higher taxes and socialistic policies. To the hundreds of billions of dollars already sunk into climate-related research, their demand is not only for at least that much yet again, but their demands are for changes to personal activity and business conduct that amount to trillions of dollars of higher costs.

    Even with how certain these advocates are about the dire consequences of inaction, they have yet to publish cogent and consistent theories on how, for example, as recently as a mere 25,000 years ago where Chicago presently sits was covered by a mile of glacial ice. You know, something simple like that. I get the distinct impression that history does not matter, especially when a compliant media is so quick the the memory hole. What matters are theories going forward that are more effective as scaring the public and scaring up more research funding.

    Given the costs of their proposals, you would think they would welcome any sound reason they should be modified so as to make them more affordable. When any contrary idea makes that person an enemy and a “science denier”, that should make it clear we are dealing with ideology and not science.

    Because their models still fail back testing by laughable margins, as far as I am concerned the burden of proof is upon them to move from assurances and demands to predictions and policy suggestions that are not only credible but that can in fact be implemented .

    • QUOTE “they have yet to publish cogent and consistent theories on how, for example, as recently as a mere 25,000 years ago where Chicago presently sits was covered by a mile of glacial ice. You know, something simple like that”

      An interesting point…While that ice MAY have built up slowly over tens of thousands of years as I was taught, It certainly did not take that long to melt. Obviously man made CO2 did not supply the necessary kilocalories.

      So where did the energy to melt thousands of cubic miles of ice in a few Kyrs (or less) come from? ..and what turned it off? Ice cores seem to show something similar happening roughly every 100Kyr (in recent geological times) The most recent time being very catastrophic and the others much less so.

      So yes when “climate science” can explain this cycle, it might be worthy of some attention.

    • Buck,
      “When any contrary idea makes that person an enemy and a “science denier”, that should make it clear we are dealing with ideology and not science.”

      You have enough disparaging assertions in here that it suggests you are no better. Skepticism, too, has become an ideology.

      I hope that some day scientists on the opposite “sides” can get together and find out what they pretty much all agree on, and then cooperate and compromise. I don’t believe the answer is net zero emissions – that standard is too high, too impractical, too economically disruptive. Lowering emissions, though, is not. Slowing the rate of change allows for longer time for both humans and non-human organisms to adapt. The mechanism shouldn’t be sought simply in energy source, but in greater energy efficiency and conservation, new technologies, and recognition of the role of land use. In my opinion.

    • It reminds me of Upton Sinclair’s statement: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” link

    • Jeff – So what? Your implication is that because the grant system is part of funding science, scientists lack integrity. You could make the same argument for Happer’s regular research – does the fact that he gets grants make his work in atomic, molecular and optical physics less believable?

      • … does the fact that he gets grants make his work in atomic, molecular and optical physics less believable?

        It’s not the grants per se, but basically yes.

        Academics face perverse incentives. They truly must publish or perish. To publish, they must produce interesting results, but not so interesting that they upset any apple carts. There is no penalty for being wrong. As a result, most published research findings are false. Where reproduction and replication have been attempted, the failure rate can reach 90%.

        I’m willing to put up with the system, even though it is very expensive. The very few actual breakthroughs that we get are what push our technology forward and are responsible for vastly improving our standard of living.

        • commieBob,
          “As a result, most published research findings are false. Where reproduction and replication have been attempted, the failure rate can reach 90%.”

          This is for some fields. It can’t be extrapolated to all of science.

          ” To publish, they must produce interesting results, but not so interesting that they upset any apple carts.” I disagree. Scientist love to upset apple carts, as long as they are pretty darn sure they are right. It can make (or break) a reputation.

          It is becoming a much more widely recognized issue that “null results” need to be published, and many journals are beginning to accept research before it’s even begun. Science is moving forward, correcting its problems. It doesn’t happen overnight, but it happens.

          Scientists don’t do research to get grants, they get grants to do research. Yes, they may focus on research that is more likely to get funded. Yes, they must do research to get tenure and/or establish themselves professionally. But scientists don’t generally go into it for the money (which isn’t great, considering the schooling and work involved), and don’t benefit financially from grant money except indirectly – by doing quality, relevant research. Grants are a means to an end, not the end itself. It’s a pain in the arse to apply for grants. A scientist could get a huge grant, but if the quality of the research that comes out of it is mediocre, they aren’t going to climb the professional ladder.

          • Only in a world of academia funded by the ivory in unicorn horns.

            In the real world of politicized “science” dominated by the people in today’s Deep State from 1992 through 2016, “No.”

            Grants are given based on sex, race, politics, and the ability of the receiver to deliver the results needed by the bureaucracies giving the money to those who have been proven to deliver the needed results.

  11. I believe that somewhere is this series there are comments about costs for remediation and prevention of damage attributable to CO2-induced global warming. Without commenting on the accuracy of these cost estimates, it should be pointed out that discussing only these costs is only one side of even a simplistic economic analysis.

    The other part of the economic analysis that must be considered is the decrease in economic efficiency and productivity that are unavoidable if extreme decreases in CO2 emissions due to reduction of fossil fuel combustion occurs. The resulting loss of prosperity is likely to be considerably higher than the remediation/prevention costs, but in any event, the loss of economic activity offsets the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions.

    • In the recent Cities v. Big Oil case, the presiding judge had this to say:

      Judge Alsup said that climate change was an issue of global importance but that the companies were not solely at fault. “Our industrial revolution and the development of our modern world has literally been fueled by oil and coal,” he wrote. “Without those fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible.”

      In light of that, he asked: “Would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded? Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?” link

      He was able to rule without considering the above, but any other court probably can’t ignore his remarks.

  12. “The current global average temperature is about 15 degrees, but over the last 500 million years the overall average surface temperature has been estimated by Christopher Scotese to be about 20 degrees, five degrees higher than today (Scotese 2015).”

    We are in an Ice Age. Also called an Icebox climate which characterized as cold oceans and
    polar ice caps. I would guess the average temperature over last 2 million years has be about 12 to 13 C.
    One could say there should be uncertainty of how Earth looks if we had average temperature of 20 C.
    Our cold oceans of our icebox climate has ocean temperature in range of 1 to 5 C and to have global average temperature of about 20 C, needs an ocean temperature of around 10 C.
    Or over last 500 million years our oceans have been about 10 C.
    It is certain that over last 2 million years we have not had an average temperature of 10 C, but we have ocean temperature of about 5 C.
    And our average ocean temperature is currently at about 3.5 C and currently the global average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C.

    And our average land temperature has risen more than ocean surface temperatures over the last century or two and currently has average temperature of about 10 C.

    To have an average global temperature of 20 C requires entire ocean to warm and to have average ocean surface temperature of around 20 C or more.

    This can not happen at time soon, but maybe within centuries one could decades of time of global temperatures somewhere near 20 C- say 18 to 19 C.
    I don’t think we had decades with an average global temperature above 18 C, in the Holocene, but may have had it, in the last interglacial period.
    During the Eemian it is thought ocean temperatures were about 5 C and sea levels were at least 5 meters higher than today and world had an average temperature much warmer than today.
    And reaching such peak global temperatures and then falling back into a glacial period.

    It does not seem completely irrational to assume that a warmer ocean in an icebox climate could be prelude to beginning of a glacier period.
    An Ocean with average temperature of 5 C, will result in a higher ocean surface temperature, and that higher ocean surface temperature is higher average ocean surface temperature in regions outside of the tropics. And having these surface water warmer would cause higher global water vapor. Or cause more snowfall in the polar regions.
    It seems there is both possibilities causing increase or decrease of glacial ice in polar regions- one say it is dependent on “weather”.
    One could say, that ocean has an abundance of energy to make it snow a lot or rain a lot and you should get both.

    But this is dependent upon the 3.5 ocean warming by about 1 C and this is not happening and can not happen anytime soon.

    • gbaikie, Remember, with the extreme north south orientation of the continents, the deep oceans only ventilate near the poles right now, keeping the deep ocean cool. In the past they ventilated nearer to the equator. The oceans are normally much warmer than they are today. The surface ocean temperature in the tropics is limited by evaporation, warming occurs at the higher latitudes.

      • –Andy May
        gbaikie, Remember, with the extreme north south orientation of the continents, the deep oceans only ventilate near the poles right now, keeping the deep ocean cool.–

        I not sure why Oceans are cold. Other than the location of Antarctica and other things.

        “In the past they ventilated nearer to the equator. The oceans are normally much warmer than they are today.”

        My understanding is this an explanation related to hothouse climates, though of course it could be related to non hothouse climates- or Earth “normal” climate which is neither icebox or hothouse climates.

        • Why wouldn’t they be cold? They are huge and don’t have much in the way of a heat source, the small contribution of cold waters from the poles is insignificant by volume

          • I would tend to agree that insignificant poles [the region: 90 degrees to 66.5 degrees N and S] would not be cooling them much.

            But we are in an Ice Age in which most of the time is spent with colder average global temperature.

            What does Earth look like when it’s average temperature is about 10 to 12 C?

            Roughly I would say the tropics is not a lot different, but outside the tropics it is a lot different.

            During glacial period the ocean can cool down to average of 1 C
            and glacial periods are 100,000 or more years and interglacial are about 20 to 30K.
            Or say, 5 times more time when colder period than time in which it is warmer period.

            And glacial periods are due and/or related to Milankovitch cycles and what Earth looks like during glacial period depends these cycles.

            When Earth is at Perihelion when at northern hemisphere and during glacial period, it’s not 90 degrees to 66.5 degrees S region which has the colder than 0 C water which falling, but rather a region of say 66.5 to 45 degree S which getting cold dense water falling.
            Donut hole not doing as much as the donut.

      • Is that referring to the closure of the Isthmus of Panama 3.1mya perhaps starting the current ice age? Something very counterintuitive to do with the new gulf stream?

        • Our current icehouse climate actually began at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary some 34 Ma, when deep oceanic channels formed between Antarctica and South America and Australia, leading to ice sheet build up on Antarctica.

          Things got worse some three Ma when the Isthmus of Panama formed, allowing ice sheets also to form in the Northern Hemisphere.

    • A further insight from Christopher Scotese is that the transition from ice house earth to hothouse earth involves decreasing the temperature gradient between equator and poles. That is, equatorial regions stay the same while mid and higher latitudes warm. Here is his diagram demonstrating the importance of meridional warming shifts.
      https://i2.wp.com/clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/meridional-profiles.png

      Scotese says we are still in the category “Severe icehouse” but moving slowly upward toward “Icehouse” Good news! Stay the course. My synopsis is https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/fact-future-climate-will-be-flatter-not-hotter/

      • Hothouse climate is obviously more equable than icehouse, ie the difference between low and high latitudes is less than during glacial epochs.

        During hothouse intervals, cold-blooded reptiles and amphibians live in the ice-free polar regions.

  13. You cannot establish a Virtual Certainty

    What is such a thing?

    Of course you can have Virtual Certainty, anybody can, inside dreams as you may experience during sleep or while (virtually) awake inside a Magical Thought Bubble. (MTB)

    The creation of said MTB requires disablement of brain activity – easily achieved and actually practised at least 3 times per day at ‘set’ mealtimes and many more times with snacks between – or with a large number of substances of varying legal status.

    Seriously- How or why are the carbs you may have for breakfast any different from those you may have just before bedtime (hot chocolate, cocoa, Horlicks, Ovaltine etc) – widely used & recommended as effective remedies for insomnia?
    You have cornflakes, toast, croissants, jam, jelly, coco pops, Cheerios etc etc for breakfast and 2 hours later you are effectively asleep.
    What sort of science can anyone do under those conditions apart from dream or virtual science?

    Don’t kid yourself that ‘You can handle them’
    Don’t kid yourself that you ‘Can handle alcohol or cannabis’

    The drug will tell you that. That is the essence of the MTB
    The drug lies. Every Single Time you swallow it down.
    The drug here is sugar

    You cannot handle it any more than you ‘can handle’ nor wish to handle, surgical anaesthetic should you find yourself in a hospital operating theatre.
    Nobody can.

    Back to top – this is virtual (imaginary) science.
    Anything can, will and does happen.
    Complete Junk

  14. The statement, “we know that climate change is happening because of human fossil fuel burning” is a bold and bald, unproven assertion. The statement “GCM climate models accurately predict Earth’s future climate” is a bold and bald, unproven assertion. The consensus argument is a logical fallacy.

    If that’s the best that Karoly and Tamblyn can come up with, they lose this debate hands down. They’ve not even made an argument. It’s just faith (in models) and propaganda and sophistry, all the way down.

    • Thanks for the series, Andy. You did great at maintaining your objectivity and your sense of decorum.

  15. “Karoly and Happer have significant and substantive disagreements on CS and on the temperature-rise that is dangerous. All the speculative hazards to mankind and the planet hinge on the value of CS used to predict future warming and on the temperature increase considered to be dangerous. Currently, as Happer and others have pointed out, warming and the additional CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial and they will continue to be beneficial for many more years. ”

    I think CS is interesting debate, but it does not matter much.
    Mainly because you talking about air temperature rather than ocean temperature.
    You have to talking about ocean surface temperature- because that is global air temperature.
    But what warms the ocean is sunlight.
    CS is not about increasing the intensity of sunlight, rather it’s about reducing the amount of energy leaving Earth and/or increase air temperature. And air temperature has little effect upon the average temperature of the entire ocean.
    Unless CS is about allowing more sunlight to penetrate the surface of the ocean- such as making tropical ocean have less clouds and thereby allowing more intense sunlight to reach the ocean- it’s not going to warm the entire ocean very quickly- though warming the entire ocean is not something done, which can described as done “quickly”- something possible within a century or two.

  16. One degree or three degrees. Who cares, actually? Two degrees is no big deal unless you are a climate hysteric. And you can forget tipping points. We are at around 400ppm. 250 million years ago we were at more than 1000ppm. Look in the mirror. Still alive? OK, good. Move on…

  17. An excellent series, the best clear and reasonably simple account I have seen. The great strength is that it focuses on the logic – what is the point at issue, what is the evidence, what are the arguments regarding it, how strong are they. Its the last point that is so good and so rare – a focus on what exactly the facts cited show, and with how much certainty, and organised on the key issues.

    Consider posting the whole series as a booklet or pdf. Very valuable.

    • i would second the motion to create a booklet or pdf. would come in handy for people i know that only read headlines in the msm.

    • I’ll see what I can do, pulling together a pdf is something I might be able to do. Printing a booklet I will leave to others.

      • Jo Nova made an ehandbook style summary many years ago. Stilk fairly current and easy to read. A style worth replication.

      • Andy if you get off done, send it to create space.com who will sell a print copy via Amazon. Costs you nothing, you may get a few cents or pennies…

  18. Mr. Tamblyn has … occasional asides to deplore how obtuse I am …

    One of the reasons for the so called consensus is the punishment meted out to dissenters. Science has a bullying problem. If Tamblyn were in a position of power over Happer, we pretty well know what would happen. One of the things I learned as a summer student (lo those many years ago) is that scientists can be darn petty.

      • Andy,
        Yes, I have just endured a couple of days of attack by someone with the handle PlentyCoup. I was raising concerns about the recent paper about voracious agricultural insect pests. The comments were through the Yahoo comment board. This individual was vitriolic and even went so far as to try to get me to confirm where I lived after he had found a likely match to my name. I think the individual has too much helium in his balloons. He definitely was over the top in his accusations of my political leanings.

  19. Karoly says ““Science has established that it is virtually certain that increases of atmospheric CO2 due to burning of fossil fuels will cause climate change that will have substantial adverse impacts on humanity and on natural systems. ”

    Is he a liar or just stupid? This ^ statement is false

    #certitude
    No mention of what he doesn’t know, which apparently is a lot

    Karoly is the Larry Krauss of Climate science.

  20. (I discuss here some points from parts A and B to support my own “summary.”)

    “Professor Happer is probably the most accomplished and brilliant physicist alive today”

    Perhaps it’s true in the fields of atomic, molecular and optical physics (I have no idea), but that doesn’t make him an expert on climate change. Of over 200 publications listed here, 4 are on climate change. https://academictree.org/physics/publications.php?pid=284745

    In Part A, Andy states that Happer is an atmospheric physicist, which he clearly is not.

    Dr. Karoly, on the other hand, is a climate scientist, and has published extensively in the field.
    https://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/display/person67077#tab-publications.

    (I am not the one that brought up expertise – Andy did.)

    Andy appears to present arguments and graphs that were not in the debate – for instance, the rebuttal by McIntyre and McKitrick. I don’t see why this should be included in the article. Is he making up for Happer’s lack of evidence?

    Then Andy discusses a graph about NH temps and draws a conclusion about global ones: ” The display portrays the uncertainty in the proxy reconstructions and clearly demonstrates that one cannot definitively say the recent 0.9 degree rise in global average temperature is unusual” Why not look at the graph of global temps, if that is what you want to discuss???

    All in all, it’s very hard to know what is Happer’s argument, and what is Andy’s… or what was even in the debate:

    “‘The hockey-stick temperature record was conspicuously absent from the latest IPCC report, which speaks volumes. My guess is that the hockey stick started out as an honest but mistaken paper, but one welcomed by the global-warming establishment. They had been embarrassed for years by the Medieval Warm Period, when Vikings farmed Greenland, and when emissions from fossil fuels were negligible. A.W. Montford’s book, The Hockey Stick Illusion (Anglosphere Books, 2015), is a pretty good summary of what happened.’ The Happer Interview.”

    So, if this part of an interview, why is it in the article? At any rate, it’s conjecture, not evidence of anything.

    From part B, after statements by Happer and Tamblyn,
    “So, 3000 ppm in the Ordovician ice age is equal to 500 ppm today, yet we are currently at 400 ppm? Tamblyn’s point about resolution is valid but does not prove his case and his numbers are inconsistent with his thesis. He lists many valid influences on climate but fails to make the case that CO2 is the dominant influence. The quoted passage appears to weaken Tamblyn’s case and strengthen Happer’s.”

    Why are you adding your poor interpretation, Andy? Why are you making a judgment? You are not reporting, you are arguing. You don’t even understand the point of Tamblyn’s statement! Why do you assume that CO2 has always been the “dominant influence” over climate change, or that that’s what Tamblyn is arguing? “The explanation is that changes in the greenhouse effect over time, due to changes primarily in CO2 and methane levels, explain much of the observed climate history.” Greenhouse effect explaining much history does not equal CO2 is the “dominant influence.” Isn’t the strength of the sun kind of important? That’s the main weakness in Happer’s argument, and you seem to have missed it entirely. The sun wasn’t as strong 450 mya.

    This is the problem with public climate change debates: people can say whatever they want and make it sound believable, when the details and evidence will prove them wrong – but it’s not always possible to have such details and evidence on hand for rebuttal, much less to make it understandable to the public.

    My summary: it’s very hard to gauge anything about the debate or who won it, as presented. It is hard to distinguish what was even in the debate, and Andy’s presentation is obviously biased.

    • Kristy writes “The sun wasn’t as strong 450 mya.”
      Kristi, are you sure about this”
      Have you read the literature from which this was deduced?
      And the literature rebutting it?
      If not, then I shall state again that there is very little value these days in parroting the work of others with approval, if you have no clue as to its veracity or plausibility.
      You are merely arguing in the way that you are criticising Andy May for doing. Double standard. Geoff.

      • “If not, then I shall state again that there is very little value these days in parroting the work of others with approval, if you have no clue as to its veracity or plausibility.”

        It’s accepted Main sequence Stellar physics and conforms to what we know of the Universe….

        “2.1. A Fainter Sun in the Past
        [5] By the 1950s, stellar astrophysicists had worked out
        the physical principles governing the structure and evolution
        of stars [Kippenhahn and Weigert, 1994]. This allowed the
        construction of theoretical models for the stellar interior and
        the evolutionary changes occurring during the lifetime of a
        star. Applying these principles to the Sun, it became clear
        that the luminosity of the Sun had to change over time, with
        the young Sun being considerably less luminous than today
        [Hoyle, 1958; Schwarzschild, 1958]…..”

        http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1029/2011RG000375

    • Kristi,

      In Part A, Andy states that Happer is an atmospheric physicist, which he clearly is not.

      In the world of physics, Professor Happer is best known for his work on the sodium guide star. This is a technique of removing atmospheric distortion of light entering or leaving the atmosphere. The work is very complex atmospheric physics, his signature accomplishment, in a long and distinguished career in atmospheric physics. You are wrong.

      rebuttal by McIntyre and McKitrick

      Happer mentions Ross McKitrick in his interview. I included a very relevant quote from McKitrick in Part A to flesh out the discussion of the Hockey Stick. In many parts of the series I did this where I thought more explanation was needed. Both Happer and Karoly often assumed their readers might know more than is reasonable to assume. There is no shortage of evidence that the Hockey stick is nonsense, the problem is to state the evidence clearly and concisely – McKitrick did a good job.

      Then Andy discusses a graph about NH temps and draws a conclusion about global ones:

      The Hockey stick is a Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction that was presented by the IPCC and Mann as a global one. I was comparing the AR5 NH to the Hockey stick, perfectly valid. Besides, my illustration contained a global reconstruction, bottom right.

      So, if this part of an interview, why is it in the article? At any rate, it’s conjecture, not evidence of anything.

      Each scientist was interviewed, wrote a major statement, a detailed reply and a final reply. It was all of these documents that I was summarizing. Happer’s interview is part of the package. Please take a look at the original documents.

      Why are you adding your poor interpretation, Andy? Why are you making a judgment? You are not reporting, you are arguing. You don’t even understand the point of Tamblyn’s statement!

      Part D was my interpretation and it was clearly marked as opinion, take it for what it is worth. I fully understand what Tamblyn was saying and consider it BS. No need to rebut all of it, Tambyn’s arguments defeat themselves as stated in the post.
      From Pat Frank, in a comment to Part B:

      “With differences in solar output, 3000 ppm then [the Ordovician] is equal to 500 ppm today.”
      During the Ordovician, solar luminosity was about 95% of the current 1361 W/m^2. The forcing of 3000 Ordovician ppm can be estimated by taking 0.95 of the 5.35 Myhre coefficient. So, 3000 ppm produced 17.7 W/m^2 of forcing in the Ordovician, and produces 18.6 W/m^2 today.
      Likewise, 500 ppm today produces 14.4 W/m^2 of forcing and in the Ordovician produced 13.7 W/m^2.
      In the Ordovician 681.2 ppm of CO2 would have produced the same forcing as 500 ppm today.

      Tamblyn’s arguments are nonsense.

      This is the problem with public climate change debates: people can say whatever they want and make it sound believable, when the details and evidence will prove them wrong – but it’s not always possible to have such details and evidence on hand for rebuttal, much less to make it understandable to the public.
      My summary: it’s very hard to gauge anything about the debate or who won it, as presented. It is hard to distinguish what was even in the debate, and Andy’s presentation is obviously biased.

      I presented the arguments by Happer and Karoly as accurately as I could in Parts A-C, just put it in a more concise, organized and understandable form. Every reader has to make up their own mind.

    • It is dead standard to slag skeptical scientists by claiming that they are not climate scientists.

      By the above logic, the alarmists must repudiate Dr. Michael Mann and his hockey stick because he is a physicist and not a tree scientist.

      • Kristi defines “climate scientists” as anyone who agrees with her. This is analogous to Al Gore who defines them as those that agree with him. No PhD required, no wonder there are so many of them.

        • “Kristi defines “climate scientists” as anyone who agrees with her. ”

          No doubt the irony of that escapes you Andy.

          I suspect Kristi defines it as I do “climate scientists who subscribe to the consensus”.
          The consensus being the consensus of observations and empirical physics this last ~150 years.
          NOT a consensus of opinion.
          In your case and the purpose of this Blog it’s anything but CO2 – ABCD.
          The first is science (imperfect but the best we have) and yours is by ideology. Because you don’t like it..

          You don’t get to turn the world upside down and make yourself and others here to be the consensus view. It’s nowhere near, despite the apparent illusion of an Internet Blog.

          • There is a consensus that the weather has warmed over the last 150 years.
            There is no consensus that CO2 was a major factor in this warming.

          • Anthony Banton, From your comment I guess you also think Professor Happer is unqualified to be an atmospheric physicist, regardless of his 50+ years of experience in the field? It sounds like you think observations support the so-called consensus view. I would recheck your sources on that.

          • Andy, did you look at his publication list? Is there any official site that calls him an atmospheric physicist? Does even he call himself that?

            Do you believe there is a conspiracy among climate scientists to promote the “consensus view”? Do you believe they lack scientific integrity? What do you think it does to your perspective to be so involved with a blog like this? Are you getting the full picture?

          • Anthony:

            “I suspect Kristi defines it as I do ‘climate scientists who subscribe to the consensus'”

            Not entirely true.

            “The consensus being the consensus of observations and empirical physics this last ~150 years.”

            It’s hard to say what the “consensus” here is, since there have been a variety of observations and empirical physics. Even now, some of the ideas that are held as true by many could very well be wrong, some things are the focus of much debate, and some things are simply unknown. Some scientists have a lot of faith in the models, some are more aware of their limitations.

          • Along with the substitution of consensus for experimental confirmation we also have the substitution of modeling for experimental confirmation. I would say that in general, models can help us understand but they cannot confirm theory: only physical experiments can confirm theory.

            Anything we propose in a theory can be broken down into mechanisms, and these mechanisms can be tested. If we say that they can’t be tested, then we admit that our theory is just fluff: unable to be falsified, and unable to be confirmed.

            Don132

          • Don – I’ll take a wild guess that you aren’t a scientist.

            By the time something is deemed a “theory,” it already has substantial support from a range of overlapping research. Until then, it is a hypothesis. Personally, I wouldn’t say any experiment is “confirmation” of a theory or hypothesis – that’s too close to saying it provides definitive proof, which science does not do – it’s is philosophically and methodologically designed NOT to prove things.

            Experiments ARE models. They are representations of reality.

            Experimentation is different from testing a hypothesis. There is much research that cannot ever be done through experimentation. For instance, many studies of humans would be unethical if they were dependent on experiments. We have only one Earth, so experimenting on the planet as a whole (by alteration of CO2 levels, for instance) is impossible. We have limited ability to experimentally test ideas about cloud formation or ocean currents in any but a scaled-down, simplified way which is not likely to reproduce reality accurately enough to be useful. Science has found other ways of testing hypotheses. Large datasets from medical records, for instance can be used to retrospectively test hypotheses, or people can be chosen and followed through a given time period to see what the outcome is. Statistics (which are models) are then used to test for differences.

            The immensely complex models of global climate are not inherently a poor way of doing research. The problems arise because some aspects of climate are poorly understood, and the resolution is limited by current computing power. That makes GCMs of limited value if one is looking for a precise answer. However, that doesn’t mean they have no value. Part of their value comes from the fact that many independent groups are formulating their own models. There is overlap in the data used, and in some of the modules (code for parts of the models is shared between some groups). Still, they are independently tuned and parameterized. Some groups focus on developing model skill in some aspects of climate, some groups on others. This is why the overlap in their estimates of climate sensitivity is important – despite the fact that there are unknowns, and the models are built and tuned different, there is still remarkable agreement in the range of sensitivity they come up with. Precise? No, not at all. Accurate? Likely. Not “very highly likely,” but likely (maybe even highly likely) that climate sensitivity falls within a range between 1.5-4 C Possibly lower or higher, but that is less likely (according to the models).

            As researchers continue to learn about facets of the climate that are not well-understood, and as computers are able to process more data (one team evidently uses a network of computers made available to them when their owners are not using them), models will get better – better at making projections on a regional scale, better in terms of increased confidence of projections, hopefully better at narrowing the range of sensitivity. It would be foolish to stop modeling now, when so much has been invested already, and there is new research to be incorporated in the next round of models.

            There are more simplistic ways of estimating climate sensitivity and making projections, sure. But there is no reason to believe that simple ways of looking at climate are better – all it means is that more is assumed. If people are going to argue that GCMs are partly based on poorly understood phenomena, how can they support models that completely ignore nearly all climate phenomena? It makes no sense.

            You mention falsification. It’s important to remember that the null hypothesis of climate change is random variability, NOT natural variation. Natural variation has to be explained, too. GCMs are falsifiable using past observed data. (It is a myth that all models are tuned to the same period against which they are validated – some are tuned to pre-industrial conditions, for example). One can also remove one parameter at a time, and see whether the model continues to reflect trends from a known time period.

            Many claims made on WUWT are false. You can ask for evidence, but there is no guarantee that the evidence you are given will be any more dependable than the claim. That’s why it’s always best to check for yourself, from a variety of sources (ideally, original peer reviewed research). The same goes for what I’ve stated here.

          • This is the core problem: defining science as dependent upon consensus. This is a way to subvert the traditional scientific method, which is hypothesis confirmed by experiment.

            Naomi Oreskes gave a TED talk in which she attempted to redefine science as consensus. She gave three reasons why the scientific method could be wrong and why we should be suspicious of it. But Oreskes failed to notice that all three of these “fallacies” applied to the definition of science as consensus as well. In addition, science as consensus invites more room for errors than science as experimental confirmation: the substitution of consensus for experimental evidence, the psychological tendency toward groupthink, and even the active strong-arming of the consensus, to name but a few. So consensus is surely a weaker, not stronger, criteria for scientific truth than is the simple reliance on experimental confirmation of theory.

            The core claim of alarmist scientists is that CO2 will warm the atmosphere, yet balloon and satellite evidence show that this claim is weak and that what warming we have is entirely within natural variability. In addition, the Connollys have shown that the infrared cooling models used in GCMs are just plain wrong: there’s no distortion of the atmospheric temperature profile by greenhouse gases, as predicted by the infrared cooling models. None. CO2 isn’t acting as predicted, period.

            First step for alarmists: using easily-available balloon data, prove that the infrared cooling models are correct.

            If we rely on science as “consensus” then we can dispense with experimental proofs, can’t we? This can only lead to junk science. Is that the point of science as consensus?

            Science is not based on this dubious and slippery concept of “consensus.” It is based on experimental confirmation.

            Don132

          • Don132,
            You’ve got it right. Your advocacy for experimental confirmation (and independent replication) makes you are a better scientist than 97% of the ‘consensus’ advocates!

          • Don,

            Science is not dependent on consensus. A consensus is dependent on science, and lots of it. It is something that evolves over time, as more and more people become convinced. Good scientists are skeptical, both by nature and by training. “Groupthink” is an issue, but it’s not likely to be a deciding factor, otherwise you wouldn’t see the kind of active debate that so often characterizes science (the effect of clouds is a good example; if groupthink were prevalent and geared toward CAGW, scientists would all try to show that it’s a big positive feedback).

            It seems to me significant that the Connollys’ paper is published on a site that allows anyone to post a paper. This is not the way to demonstrate scientific credibility.

        • Andy,

          Nonsense. There are climate scientists with whom I don’t agree – even ones whose research I respect, such as Judith Curry. Happer is not a climate scientist. Climate scientists spend their careers studying climate. He may still know a lot about climate and climate change, but I doubt he has the depth of knowledge of the literature that someone like Karoly does. There is simply too much out there to keep up with when one’s specialization is unrelated.

          I despise Al Gore.

          Just because Happer helped develop the sodium guide star doesn’t make him an atmospheric physicist. He is described as an atomic, molecular and optical scientist, and his publications support that.

          I guess “providing your thoughts” is a statement that you are giving an opinion. Fair enough. It’s your opinion that the Hockey Stick is nonsense. Fine. I just think it’s not very good reporting of a debate if the person doing the reporting is so obviously biased – no one gets a good idea of the merits of both sides of the argument.

          You gave no evidence that you understood the point of Tamblyn’s argument, so how was I to know? (I’m skeptical of Frank’s version of things, but will follow up.)

          Other points are the results of misunderstandings, evidently. My apologies.

          It would have been much clearer if you had noted what was your argument, and what was Happer’s. But what’s done is done.

          • Kristi,
            I will quote the following from Happer’s interview, it applies to you:
            “I often hear that since I am not a card-carrying climate scientist — that I, and many other scientists with views similar to mine, have no right to criticize the climate establishment. But as I have outlined above, few have a deeper understanding of the basic science of climate than I. Almost all big modern telescopes use my sodium guide star to correct for atmospheric turbulence. It works. As we will see below, most climate models do not work. The history of science shows many examples of fields that needed outside criticism.”

            In my opinion, I was very clear about what was Happer and Karoly – and what materials were from someone else (including Tamblyn) or me. So far you seem to be the only one confused. A lot of Happer’s work on atmospheric science was classified in the early days and he couldn’t publish it. It didn’t become unclassified until the 1980’s.

          • Andy,
            “But as I have outlined above, few have a deeper understanding of the basic science of climate than I. Almost all big modern telescopes use my sodium guide star to correct for atmospheric turbulence.”

            I fail to see anywhere “outlined above” in his comments that remotely suggests he has the “deeper understanding” he claims. To follow such an audacious statement with a comment about “my sodium guide star” is just weird. He could have the deepest understanding of atmospheric turbulence of any man alive or dead and still not have a deep understanding of climate. His simplistic ideas about CO2 and plant growth are just one indication that he thinks he knows more than he does.

            The endless references to the Soviets (and particularly Lysenko), philosophers, etc. are just odd, as if he needs to fill his remarks with something that will make him look learned and can’t think of anything scientific to say. Clever propagandist tactic to make use of and reinforce the common skeptic idea that mainstream climate science is little more than socialist ideology – or that’s the driver, anyway.

            Funny that he reached such a prominent position in such an esteemed university when skeptics claim that their brethren are routinely fired for their views.

    • “Me thinks she doth protest too much!” — as usual!

      Andy stated very clearly in the introduction to part D, “In this final part of the series I will summarize the debate AND PROVIDE MY THOUGHTS.” Are you suggesting that because he took on the task of summarizing the debate that he is forbidden from providing his take away from it? Who better to provide insight than the person who took time to read, understand, and summarize the debate?

      There are very few things I read today in the MSM that are an objective reporting without spin.

      You said, “This is the problem with public climate change debates: people can say whatever they want and make it sound believable, when the details and evidence will prove them wrong…” I couldn’t agree with you more! You demonstrate that clearly by also saying “The sun wasn’t as strong 450 mya.” What is important is how much weaker it was, not that it was weaker. Yet, you leave out that detail!

    • Kristi,

      You said, “Perhaps it’s true in the fields of atomic, molecular and optical physics …, but that doesn’t make him an expert on climate change.”

      From what I have read, most who call themselves ‘climate scientists,’ have academic backgrounds in tangentially related fields like mathematics or geophysics. They may or may not have sufficient breadth to really master the subject of climatology. However, to deal with the issues of atmospheric physics, one does need a strong background in general physics, and for questions of the forcing issue, a strong background in optical and spectroscopic physics would be essential. I can’t help but wonder how someone who calls himself a “climate scientist” feels to be on an equal footing with a physicist with Happer’s credentials.

      • Since most proxies are quite noisy, it is also vital to have a strong background in statistics, since statistics are used heavily in every “climate science” paper.

        One thing I have noticed is that there are no “climate scientists” with more than a passing familiarity with statistics.

  21. What about some calculations from say 1066 to 2000. Its a very short period geologically, so one would expect the temperatu res before the LIA to be about the same as after the LIA.

    Also the whole vast Green blob, plus the thousands of publiciations all r eswt on one mnor trace gas. Take that harmless gas away and the whole house of cards will collapse.

    So prove that CO2 does not retain any heat, simply passes it on, and the game is over.

    MJE

    • Michael, there are some paleotemperature estimates of CS. The problem is the paleo estimates of CO2 and temperature are not very accurate and the number being calculated is very small. There are rferences to some in Tamblyn’s replies if you want to read them. Better historical estimates are made in the instrumental period by Lewis and Curry, see the references in my bibliographies.

    • Michael, we have proven that CO2 is not a heat battery any more than the other gases (eg Berthold Klein, Hartmann, Maxwell, Poisson, etc) time and again. But the warmista are just lying like the lizard marxists they represent. I can see most folk do not care what they say, but they have the ears of many in power. Therein lies the rub; it is changing eg Trump and Morrison in Aussie etc., not to mention Paris accord breakdown, but they seek power over us. That is what it is all about and anything goes.

  22. ECS is the only question of importance. It was first calculated around 50 years ago (I think) to be 1.5 to 4.5 deg C per doubling of CO2. The last IPCC report made the exact same estimation.

    So, how exactly can we have increasing confidence in the scientific community when we have not made any progress of the determination of ECS.

    I might remind people that the unknown portion of ECS is 0.4 to 3.4. Thus the high end is over 800% higher than the low end.

    That my friend is how confident we are about climate science.

  23. “Tamblyn, Karoly and Happer agree that the contribution of human emissions to modern warming cannot be measured and must be computed with climate models. Tablyn and Karoly think the models are accurate and use the model results to predict dangers to mankind and the planet. “

    Contribution of human emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere is NOT known, it may be very, very little with natural processes controlling the vast majority, or it may be (as unlikely as it is) the other way about. There are only estimates — guesses.
    Considering how nature has always controlled the chemical balance of the atmosphere, it would be a major change in the way the world works that it now does not. Yes we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere but we are not in charge of how much stays there — nature controls that. Why would the natural processes now decide not to control the atmospheric CO2 levels now, or maybe (despite of evidence to the contrary) nature can not control the atmosphere any more(?). Just look-up the data on CO2 levels over the past millions of years and see how NATURE (not humans) has radically varied CO2 levels.

    We are NOT in charge of atmospheric CO2 levels.

    PS
    Probably this comment will be removed just like the time I commented, IMO this is the very heart of the debate and as such is too difficult for some to face.

    • Please ignore the PS.
      My error in not finding my previous comment.
      My err is human, to really (f)muck-up take at least a government.

  24. off topic – some who shall remain nameless contend that it is ‘goofy’ physics to use an ‘average’ insolation in modeling climate effects. One might suggest that the average insolation would be the same if an earth rotation was 48 hours instead of 24. One might conclude the climate would be drastically different then – giving credence to the original contention. A physicist of Dr. Happer’s stature would agree?

Comments are closed.