Reposted from the Cliff Mass Weather and Climate Blog
The real climate debate is not between “believers” and “deniers”.
And not between Republicans and Democrats.
The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.
The real rebate is between two groups:
1. A confident, non-political group that believes technology, informed investments, rational decision making, and the use of the best scientific information will lead to a solution of the global warming issue. An optimistic group that sees global warming as a technical problem with technical solutions. I will refer to these folks as the ACT group (Apolitical/Confident/Technical)
2. A group, mainly on the political left, that is highly partisan, anxious and often despairing, self-righteous, big on blame and social justice, and willing to attack those that disagree with them. They often distort the truth when it serves their interests. They also see social change as necessary for dealing with global warming, requiring the very reorganization of society. I call these folks the ASP group (Anxious, Social-Justice, Partisan).
There is no better way to see the profound difference between these two groups than to watch a video of the testimony of young activists at the recent House Hearing on Climate Change, which included Greta Thunberg, Jamie Margolin, Vic Barrett, and Benji Backer.
Jamie Margolin of Seattle talked about an apocalyptic future, with “corporations making billions” while they destroy the future of her generation. Of feeling fear and despair. Of a planet where the natural environment is undergoing collapse, where only a few years are left before we pass the point of no return, and where only a massive political shift can fix things, including the Green New Deal. Watch her testimony to see what I mean.
Compare Ms. Margolin’s testimony to that of University of Washington senior Benji Backer.
Mr. Backer, leader of the American Conservation Coalition, a conservative/moderate group of young people supporting action to protect the environment, approaches the problem in a radically different way. Instead of despair, there is optimism, recommending more scientific and technical research, a bipartisan attack on the problem, a rejection of an apocalyptic future, the building of new energy industries with potential benefits for the American economy, and a dedication to follow the science and not political expediency. His testimony is here.
Both Ms. Margolin and Mr. Backer care deeply about the environment and want effective measures to deal with global warming. Both their approaches and attitudes could not be more different.
We see the difference between the optimistic ACT group and the despairing ASP folks here in Seattle.
On one hand, there is the Clean Tech Alliance, which brings together technology companies, university researchers, and the business community to develop and apply the technologies that will produce the carbon-free future we look for. Headed by Tom Ranken, the Alliance does a lot, including a highly informative breakfast series where you can learn about fusion power, new battery technologies, the future of solid waste recycling, and much more. Non-political, optimistic, and exciting. These are clearly members of the ACT group.
In contrast, there is Seattle’s 350.org group. They are into climate strikes, staging protests (like their recent blockade of a branch of Seattle Chase Bank), trying to muzzle climate scientists they don’t like, advocating political solutions to greenhouse warming (Green New Deal), pushing divestment of energy companies, and even a Pledge of Resistance to stop energy exports by whatever means necessary. Their “science” page has all kinds of extreme (and unfounded) claims regarding global warming impacts, like a sea level rise of 10 feet in as little as 50 years. ASP group all the way.
I should note that the Seattle 350.org group and their “allies” oppose the Tacoma Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) Facility that will help replace the extraordinarily dirty “bunker fuel” used in ships traversing Puget Sound. LNG will also reduce carbon emissions. Scientists and regulators at the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency support the LNG facility. But facts and protection of the health of Puget Sound residents are not priorities for highly politicized groups like 350.org.
A good example of the differences between the ACT and ASP folks is found in Washington State’s recent carbon initiatives.
Initiative 732 was backed by Carbon Washington, a non-political group whose bi-partisan proposal would have increased the price of carbon fuels but was revenue neutral, giving all the funds collected back to the citizens of the State. Carefully designed and impactful. The work of the ACT group all the way.
But the ASP folks were unhappy. There was no money for their climate justice and political initiatives, so they opposed it, and were joined by Governor Inslee and the environmental left. Unforgivable, nasty attacks were made on Carbon Washington leadership by the ASP folks. 732 lost.
The ASP collective decided it was their turn, so they created a Frankenstein carbon initiative (1631), with a lowered (less effective) carbon fee, but one in which climate justice groups and political allies on the left would have control, and were hardwired for much of the funds. The main advertising line of the 1631 ads: catastrophe was around the corner and the big oil companies were to blame. 1631 was an election day disaster, losing by 13 points, and the ASP folks have probably killed any hope for an effective carbon tax/fee in our state.
What about the media? Which side are they on? ASP or ACT or neither?
Much of the “mainstream” media parrots the message of the ASP side. The Seattle Times is a great case in point, with headlines of massive heat related deaths (750 die per event!) and catastrophic wildfire seasons that have no basis in good science. But there are plenty of others, such as the LA Times and the NY Times. There are some major media outlets that are more balanced (such as the Wall Street Journal). A major issue for the media is the hollowing out of science reporting, with most climate stories being handled by general reporters with neither the time, background, or inclination to get beyond parroting the press releases of activist groups or evaluating the claims of speculative research papers. It has gotten so bad that a recent headline story in the Seattle Times kept on talking about the WRONG GAS (carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide).
A Religious Movement
In many ways, the ASP group appears to be a religious movement, not unlike the many millennialist movements of the past. As other groups in the past, they predict an apocalyptic future (including fire and brimstone!) and that one must “believe” in their viewpoint or be rejected as a “denier.” The ASP folks have a holy viewpoint that comes from authority (they claim based on the views of 97% of scientists). There is no debate allowed, the science is “settled.” Sounds like religious dogma.
The ASP movement describes a world that is teetering on the edge, with mankind’s days numbers (10 or 12 years according to several of their leading prophets) unless immediate steps are taken. They constantly repeat that the threat is existential.
They believe it is ok to distort the truth to get folks “to do the right thing.” The ASP group has well defined “enemies” that represent true evil (Trump, Republicans, Big Oil, Koch Brothers) and they support attacking and silencing those they disagree with (my past blog gives you some documented examples of such behavior). ASP has their priests (Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Michael Mann) and even young saints (Greta Thunberg). As in many such movements, members are guided to act in approved and enlightened ways, but the leadership does not need to follow the rules (e.g., many ASP “leaders” have huge carbon footprints from flying). Importantly, ASP sees their work going much further than a technical fix for technical problem, but as a “social justice” movement that will change the very organization of society.
Disturbingly, the ASP folks are against key technologies that could really make a difference, such as nuclear power, and are relatively uninterested in working on adaptation and resilience to climate change. Many do not support dealing with our forests in a rational way (e.g., restoration with thinning and prescribed burning) but would rather blame it all on global warming.
By pushing a highly political agenda the ASP movement is undermining bipartisan efforts–and nothing important will be done unless both sides of the aisle are involved. ASP folks love to say that the Republicans are unwilling to deal with climate change, a totally unfair claim. I have talked personally to leading WA Republicans, like Bill Bryant and Rob McKenna. They acknowledge the seriousness of global warming and the need to act. In my talks in highly Republican eastern Washington, growers and others accept the problem and want to work on solutions. Under a Republican U.S. Congress, funding for climate research has been protected and increased. But partisan attacks by the ASP group is seen as a way to promote group cohesion and the “evil” of the other side. Calling others names is not an effective way to secure their cooperation.
A problem for the ASP group is that their message is so dark, pessimistic and depressing that it tends to turn others off. And it has a terrible psychological effects on its adherents and those that listen. Fear, anxiety, feelings of hopelessness, despair, and rage. There are even classes on dealing with eco-anxiety and climate grief. Greta Thunberg said that the worry ruined her childhood.
And yes, there is President Trump. Much of what he says on climate change is simply nonsensical, and quite frankly he is not part of the debate. Republicans in Congress do not follow his lead. But he is a convenient foil for the ASP folks, who use him for their own purposes.
The Bottom Line
Progress on climate change is being undermined by the efforts of the highly vocal, partisan, and ineffective ASP group. They are standing in the way of bipartisan action on climate change, efforts to fix our forests, and the use of essential technologies. They are a big part of the problem, not the solution.
In contrast to the ASP folks, the ACT group generally tries to stay out of the public eye, quietly completing the work needed to develop the technologies and infrastructure that will allow us to mitigate and adapt to climate change. In the end, they will save us. That is, if the ASP folks don’t get in their way.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have read every comment but still want to know where this denier can get his money from big oil? Did they misplace my address or what?
I think they mixed up our addresses.
I’ll send you your’s (as soon as I get it) and you send me mine (as soon as you get it).
Deal?
Thanks to Cliff Mass for commenting here, for jumping into the lion’s den.
For all you lions out there, relax. Cliff is not a threat. Don’t worry, he probably won’t convince you.
You don’t need to call him names.
BUT, name any other climate scientist who speaks out against the alarmists. Granted there are a few, but not many. If anybody on “the other side” is willing to engage in the debate or in a conversation, he might be your best chance. Make friends with him. Ask him scientific questions. Cliff is not the enemy here.
It’s time we did have a real scientific debate.
Toto,
We climate realists have wanted a “real scientific debate” for decades but so-called ‘climate scientists’ always run away from any such debate.
If you want to know why they run then read my post in this thread at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/20/the-real-climate-debate/#comment-2827398
Richard
Yeah, such as where in the hell is the Troposphere “hot spot”? The overrated climate models predicted/projected it over 15 years ago, where is it……., in hiding behind warmist cloaks or eaten by hungry dogs?
Where is it Dr. Mass?
Where is it!!!
Hiding in the ocean?
Cliff isn’t speaking out against the alarmists, he’s one of them.
Anyone who believes that we have to eliminate CO2 emissions is by definition an alarmist who wants billions to die.
PS: Where is this debate?
All I’ve seen is Cliff posting 2 or 3 times in order to insult those who don’t agree with his central premise that CO2 is a huge problem that has to be dealt with. (Which by the way is the core of the alarmist position.)
An oxymoron if I ever saw one, at least as it relates to climate. Now if the goal is to massively increase government even beyond its already bloated state, and increase temperature related deaths due to energy poverty, at those things a carbon tax is pretty effective.
The Real climate debate should be between the results from empirical data and the fiction generated by ignorance of that data.
1. Analysis of lower tropospheric temperature and CO2 concentration shows that temperature is independent of CO2 concentration, ie CO2 has not caused global warming.
2. Analysis shows that temperature determines the rate of generation of CO2 whence it is impossible for CO2 to be causing temperature change.
3. The mechanism for the Greenhouse Effect does not produce enough energy to create the imaginary 33 degree Effect.
4. The model used to determine the base temperature of -15 deg.C for an Earth without greenhouse gases is a totally implausible attempt at calculating the Greenhouse Effect.
5. If there was a Greenhouse Effect, the Earth would have cooled because of back-radiation of the Sun’s incoming infrared out into space.
6. The UN IPCC deviously created the false notion of ‘short wavelength in, long wavelength out’. In fact 51% of the Sun’s irradiance falls within the infrared range and it is twice the amount of energy emitted by the Earth’s surface.
7. Temperature change always precedes CO2 change so it is impossible for the latter to cause the former.
8. The Fourier spectrum for CO2 rate of change and temperature are practically identical confirming the causal relationship between the two and the resultant periodicities indicate that temporal variation may be driven by the ever-changing configuration within the Solar System. Even the periodicity of the Moon can be detected.
9. The seasonal variation for the temperature and the CO2 concentration move in opposite directions to that proposed by the global warming proposition. As CO2 increases, temperature falls and as CO2 decreases, temperature rises as a result of the seasonal variation of life.
10. At Cape Grim, Tasmania, the rate of change of CO2 correlates with the Pacific Ocean El Nino Index, showing that climate drives CO2 generation not the reverse.
@cliff maas @Toto
The science of CO2 was noted by Arrhenius, with an exponential decline in the GHG effect of CO2. That is: 50% in the first 20 ppm with an exponential decay thereafter. We are in the fifth half-life of that decline. That means that when/if CO2 doubles to 800 ppm, its GHG effect will increase by less that 2%.
Are there any actual scientists here?
Group think is nothing new
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191017114948.htm
So Jordan Peterson is right. We’re lobsters.
Actually no, with all due respect to the great man. 480 million years ago arthropods (including lobsters) had already diverged from the lineage leading to chordates and eventually us. I think our body plan is upside down relative to the arthropods. But communal behaviour appears spontaneously in all animals of whatever type. No surprises there.
You’re taking all the fun out of it.
I’m not at all convinced any warming and increased CO2 wont turn out to be a net positive for the planet. All indications so far suggest its being good for the planet. If the alarmists were being honest, we’d be hearing a lot more about the greening of the planet but instead any hint of greening is always followed up by “lower nutrition” and “will be worse in the future”.
Cliff M
Thanks for commenting here.
Your description of the ACT and ASP groups is accurate and helpful.
To be honest though – I’m not sure 🤔 which side I would want to win.
Yes the ASP side are irrational and have the potential – and desire – do do great damage to the economy and to frustrate sensible policies.
Because of their actions real people will lose their jobs.
Real children will be pushed into poverty and social marginalisation. Real people will commit suicide. They themselves are generally privileged so will only laugh at all this.
But bad as this is, there is an even worse threat on the ACT side. That is the threat of geo-engineering. If in a mood of technically confident yes-we-can, a grandiose geo-engineering scheme is agreed globally, then the potential will be created to cause massive damage both to the environment and to the economy, beyond the dreams or capabilities of the ASP group.
So with ACT and ASP going at it inside the wire cage – I’m rooting for ASP.
I don’t want either side to win. If either wins energy costs are going to skyrocket and billions will die.
All to solve a problem that never existed in the first place.
Mark
You’re right, that’s the point.
Both of those groups propose “cures” many times worse than the disease.
But the most frightening error of hubris would be geo-engineering.
global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.
Bull. Utter Bull
“The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.”
I stopped reading after that.
Indeed, if the premise is wrong everything that follows from it isn’t worth bothering with.
That’s what I keep telling people, as well as asking them to identify their basic premise(s).
Acknowledgement of any other viewpoint means funding ceases.
It’s like a battle between the “science” inspired nasties, and the “Pol Pot” inspired Khmer Rouge. Maybe we should just build a wall round then
Lot of opinion without hard verifiable facts here. In particular the assertion of what a real climate debate is that tis whole wibble is based on. I challenge the fundamental premise of the post about what is a real debate.
For me that would be the one where theory matches observation, which in fact the modeller’s theories do not. Empirical analysis has also provided a much closer match with the reality we observe. Its results predict a forecast of declining temperatures, following a perfectly normal rise in temperature consistent with the record of multi centenial variation over 10Ka, a rise over 300 years since the Little Ice Age, which followed a similar few hundred year fall from c.1Ka BP. Check out the record, it goes up and down all the time, is our rise different from all the others, its certainly not as high. Fact.
That’s the observation based empirical approach, not theoretical computer models that have wrongly amplified a tiny AGW effect by assuming positive feedback from water vapour while underestimating clouds, and ignored the lithosphere. And are wrong, in the fact of “real” observation.
1. All of the models, except the Russian model, are wrong in fact. By a factor of 3 on average. As proved by the NASA observations of the GHE. This is the hard satellite and balloon evidence from the NASA scientists who set up the recording and were part of the IPCC until they pointed out the inconvenient truth – the observational science facts. One member now run the University of Alabama at Huntsville’s Climate Science Faculty.
The models are wrong, in fact, not opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Prove me wrong.
Where are the observational facts that prove the models correct? BTW Experts agreeing with each other is not scientific proof. Only theories agreeing with observations, for all observers, every time, is.
2. Also, the recent change we observe, when analysed in 2016 using well established and prudently applied Fourier analytical techniques, shows all recent change – recent being the tiny period of 2Ka within the short 10Ka interglacial warm spell of the current ice age – is dominantly accounted for by 3 well defined cycles.
These directly correspond with known solar cycles, and the results also show no signal as would be expected from recent human activity – monatonic signals from CO2, Methane, Heat or whatever. “All we see is cycles”.
The paper is easy to find, this short presentation gives the insight from it.
One of the best videos I have seen for quite a while. It elegantly shows just how feeble the co2 argument is. Everyone should watch it. Thanks for posting!
Brad Keyes said, “So I did what scientists do. I went to SkepicalScience. It’s a blog you’ve probably never heard of ever (hence your denihilism), but the great thing is it’s fully science-based, and if I thought the facts were welcome at WUWT I’d paste my 15 or 20 favorite slabs of information below, to help broaden your horizons. But you and I both know such an antidote to anti-scienec would “conveniently” get lost in moderation.”
So, Brad, why don’t you present these scientific “facts” from Skeptical Science so they can be evaluated instead of just saying you have them. They will undoubtedly be debunked.
Lynne, Brad doesn’t have any such “facts” because Brad was taking the mickey, and was not at all serious. One clue would be referring to SkepicalScience as a blog no one here probably ever heard of (it and Cook have been the subject of numerous posts and comments here at WUWT) another clue should have been the asking for “a photocopy of your parents’ marriage license” as a form of proof of someone’s scientific credentials. Another big red flag pf a clue, of course, being the claim that “skepticism means following the authoritative view wherever it leads” which is the exact opposite of skepticism.
Absolutely right, Lynn. I’ll go with Trenberth’s contribution: “There is an absence of warming,and it’s a travesty we can’t explain it.” But you shouldn’t have to, should you? All you need do is point to the data for the last 600 million years and show that when CO2 goes up, temp then goes up, and when it goes down, temperature follows. But the reverse is what happens. Temperature and CO2 are correlated without causality, like sex and marriage.
I’ll go with the 80-20 rule:
80% of the climate warming is due to natural Earth cycles.
80% of the remaining 20% (16%) is due to Solar Cycles.
80% of the remaining 4% (3.2%) is due to Anthropogenic activity, including CO2 production.
1.8% is pure chaos.
What they want us to believe is that the top 80% is Anthropogenic (give us all your money now) and the 3rd cut was natural Earth cycles.
So:
1/ Is global warming happening?
2/ Is it a bad thing?
3/ Are we causing it?
4/ Is there anything we can do about it?
Answers seem to be:
1/ A little bit, still.
2/ Not necessarily – there are real benefits as well as potential problems.
3/ Doesn’t seem so – CO2 is not a major factor, and even if it is, mankind is a very small contributor to CO2.
4/ Because we are a small contributor to CO2, which is at these levels and at this rate of rise a very tiny contributor to GW, then our actions to reduce this will have virtually no effect, except to impair our economies.
The comments on this article are what I come to WUWT for: the reasoned destruction of the alarmist religion. Bravo!
“The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.”
I think the two sides even agree on THIS! Clive Best argued that all we have to do is stabilize CO2 output by humans, and atmospheric CO2 will quickly reach a balance.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/15/a-hiding-to-nothing/
Some might argue that stabilizing human CO2 emissions may not stabilize the fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere, because it might be the oceans rather than human emissions that are the controlling factor:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/
Sorry, second paragraph should start “I DON’T think the two sides even agree on THIS! “
The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.
Since everyone agrees, in your opinion Cliff Mass, then perhaps you can answer one simple question: what is the optimal climate/temperature? Because for “global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem” to be true that means we’ve strayed from the optimal climate/temperature and need to return to it and order for us to know that and do that we must know what the optimal climate/temperature is. so what is it Cliff Mass? and when was the climate at that optimal climate/temperature?
John….I have no idea of the ideal temperature. But rapid change of temperature is obviously a problem for society and the ecosyste,. That is the immediate problem..cliff
That’s a fairly unusual view IMHO, is there a scientific consensus on the derivative of temperature being the problem?
And to differentiate the question John asked also: How large must the rate of change of temperature be to cause an immediate problem*?
*I would define problem as immediate enough to require catastrophic anthropogenic global mitigation.
Cliff Mass, if you don’t know what the ideal temperature is then you don’t know that any change is good (bring us closer to the ideal) or bad (taking us further away from it). Your feelings don’t make it one or the other.
And what rapid change? 1 degree since the little ice age is hardly rapid, and not a problem for either society or the ecosystem. Both have survived such changes (and even greater) in the past (from the MWP on the warm end to the LIA on the cold). So your “immediate problem” is a non-scientific feeling not a scientific fact and is ignorant of the history of climate on our humble little planet.
No answer to the question “what rapid change” cliff?
Good thing there has been no rapid change of temperature. Nor is there any evidence that more CO2 can cause such a thing.
To put it into perspective, there’s an image I’ve seen before that overlays the temperature trend onto a thermometer to put the “rapid change” into context. I haven’t been able to find the image but this one from suyts (from an article titled: how global warming looks on your thermometer) makes the same point:
Again I ask: what rapid change?
The DO events (Dansgaard Oesger) take place during glacial intervals – there were about 20 of these in the last glacial between the Eemian and the Holocene.
DO events are “micro-interglacials” in which temperature of the NH at least spikes upwards – and then quickly back down again – over a range of 10 degrees or more.
Ten degrees. In a few centuries only.
If 20 fast excursions of 10 degrees within the last glacial interval did not cause a mass extinction, then why would a 2 degree excursion now cause one?
Cliff Mass wrote ” But rapid change of temperature is obviously a problem for society and the ecosyste,”
But CET shows MORE RAPID changes in the past. Looking at peak temperature to the next peak:
1692 to 1733 was from 7.73 to 10.5 for 2.77 degree in 41 years, or 0.068 /yr
1784 to 1828 was from 7.85 to 10.32 for 2.47 degree in 44 years, or 0.056 /yr
1879 to 1921 was from 7.44 to 10.51 for 3.07 degree in 42 years, or 0.073 /yr
1963 to 2014 was from 8.52 to 10.95 for 2.43 degree in 51 years, or 0.048 /yr
All faster than now, without man’s CO2.
Data from CET
Why my above comment get put in moderation – there are no links in it?
Was it because of including a person’s name before a quote?
(First comment requires Moderator approval) SUNMOD
Sorry, I added a last initial to my usual posting name.
Yes, the most rapid temperature rise in the historical record (CET and Armagh) was 1680-1720.
And yet “society and the ecosystem” survived just fine.
It hardly makes sense when we have humans living on the planets surface with a temperature range of 100 degrees F.
We can live where the average high is near freezing to other areas where the average high is nearly 100 F in July.
Yet some people are terrified of a 1 C warmer temperature in the next few decades……., when it was about THAT warm at the Climate Optimism (that word!) around 6-8,000 years ago……..
We live in a CO2 starved world, yet some are scared of it, must be the munchies?
It’s not like we have any actual influence over climate change. All we’ve ever done is adapt, and that quite successfully.
There is no evidence ever produced for control of climate by CO2, and we are not in control of CO2.
This is GREAT news. They’re eating each other. I predicted it, but only in private conversations, so I can’t really prove it. Kind of like AGW that way.
With all due respect I think it is imperative for Cliff to respond to the highly germane post by Richard.
Cliff’s feedback can only be more enlightening.
Richard S Courtney October 21, 2019 at 2:38 am
Cliff Mass,
You assert,
“The best physical understanding we have, from both theory to modeling, is pretty unequivocal that more CO2 will result in warming.”
So what? That is political posturing and not reality.
“Theory” and “modelling” govern political ideology.
In science, empirical observation trumps any “understanding” from “theory” and/or “modelling”.
There is no observational data that indicates the existence or possibility of a climate emergency; n.b. no evidence, none, zilch, nada. Indeed, if one were to accept your “understanding” that “more CO2 will result in warming” then the existing observational data shows no potential for any problematic warming.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent.
This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
I especially commend the suite of 8 (yes, eight) “natural experiments” reported by Idso.
A climate sensitivity of 1.0deg.C or less for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent means that any possible global warming from human activities can only be too small for it to be observed.
Richard
He will avoid this completely, it is why so many warmist scientists have so little credibility, when they overlook or bypass the EMPIRICAL research method, in favor of far into the future climate modeling fantasies, that lacks forecast skill and fails the Falsification criteria.
They have fallen too deep into the ever changing modeling games, it is a serious detriment to good science research that normally runs on Reproducibility, that enhances future science research. A bunch of new climate models published every 5 years using the same end year 2100, with the now well known cascading failures of previous climate models, is a perfect example of pseudoscience that now runs as an industry for a living. It is no surprise why climate modeling science by a small group of people has been able to hijack the overwhelming number of published research that doesn’t agree with the AGW conjecture.
This is where the problem lies in.
Sunsettommy,
You say of my post copied by Steve Oregon, “He (i.e. Cliff Mass) will avoid this completely” etc.
It seems you are correct because Cliff Mass has subsequently made replies in this thread (e.g. at October 21, 2019 at 12:10 pm) but not to my post nor to the repetition of my post by Steve Oregon.
This is disappointing because when Cliff Mass was recently complaining at his views being censored by his university I posted on his blog to proclaim I would do all I could to defend his right and his ability to oppose my views.
Richard
It was not a difficult prediction because most of them do that, they ignore contrary arguments everywhere I have visited.
They are soooo deeply in love with Modeling constructs, that empirical evidence is like a virus to them. They avoid it by trying to ignore it, which is why they either ignore YOU or violently react with a nasty reply and a block or ban on you if they could.
Dr. Mass has a lot of education and experience, but lets many down because he is on the AGW Modeling construct bandwagon.
Steve… I am NOT saying there is a climate emergency. Never have. Regarding theory and modeling, do you want the names of some good atmospheric radiation texts? Here is one:
https://www.elsevier.com/books/an-introduction-to-atmospheric-radiation/liou/978-0-12-451451-5
No political posturing. ..cliff
Cliff Mass,
Your attempted deflection fails.
I commented that there is no evidence for a climate emergency, but I did NOT say you were claiming there is a climate emergency. I said to you,
“Indeed, if one were to accept your “understanding” that “more CO2 will result in warming” then the existing observational data shows no potential for any problematic warming.”
And I cited and linked to three completely independent analyses which demonstrate that.
Also, your assertion of “No political posturing” is factually incorrect. You may not have intended to do it, but I explained that you did do it when I wrote to you,
“You assert,
“The best physical understanding we have, from both theory to modeling, is pretty unequivocal that more CO2 will result in warming.”
So what? That is political posturing and not reality.
“Theory” and “modelling” govern political ideology.
In science, empirical observation trumps any “understanding” from “theory” and/or “modelling”.”
Having said that, I am grateful that you have responded to what I wrote but I regret that you have not attempted to answer any part of what I wrote.
Richard
I’m sorry Dr. Cliff Mass, but I disagree with your silly assertion that all reasonable experts are in lockstep on the function of so-called greenhouse gasses driving climate change. The GHG effect is real, I agree. But as for small increases in CO2 driving the bus, you simply have not made your case. In fact, the long ice core measurements rather refute this hypothesis. How could the world possibly cool into subsequent periods of glaciation, when the CO2 levels where at their peaks during the inter-glacial periods? According to your hypothesis, and according to the mathematics built into CMIP computer models, this is impossible. Yet it happened in every dip seen in the long ice cores. This suggests that CO2 was an effect of climate warming, not a cause.
Where is the CMIP computer model that examines THAT hypothesis? Where is the CMIP computer model that properly models the water cycle and captures the real facts of cloud based albedo changes? I’ll tell you where. In the same place where the magical invisible unicorns are hiding.
I’ll think any “expert” who’s definitively saying NO to idea that the water cycle is primary and that CO2 is secondary in the variability of climate, or who thinks current CMIP non-scientific computer models are properly capturing the water cycle, or that I must accept his word without him showing his work, is a self-serving, pompous, unscientific bag of wind. This is not directed personally at you, mind you. I think you’re trying to be fair, and that you want to do good science. But ask yourself if the water cycle been given a fair hearing by the CO2 zealots and CMIP climate modelers? If so, you need only show where this has happened, and how the conclusion of CO2 being primary and the water cycle secondary, was made, and why this decision is so persuasive to you. If you show me that, and you’ve been thinking about this properly, then your conclusion will probably be persuasive to me, too. So, show me. If you can’t, then I think you owe the skeptics of CO2 catastrophe a huge apology.
ASP — The cure is worse than the disease. We must destroy western civilization and the economy NOW in order to save it. (politics)
ACT — “the best scientific information will lead to a solution of the global warming issue”. Including the determination that there is no need to panic? In fact, that there might not be an issue? (science)
Dr. Mass is an expert in weather modelling. He knows how many days in the future can be accurately forecast. I am not clear how much he knows about climate modelling. I doubt that his own weather models use any CO2 information. I would like Dr. Mass to explain why he believes CO2 to be an issue. Or is it an “everybody knows” thing?
I invite Dr. Mass to a real climate debate. Here.
PS. nuclear power. If fossil fuels are bad, the only viable alternative is nuclear. Therefore anybody who is CAGW and rejects nuclear has some other motive, not saving the climate. As if. CAGW is the new rain dance.
Toto….thanks for asking. I do climate modeling too. Weather models do have CO2 in there and when I run them for 130 years, greenhouse gas concentrations change in time. CO2 is an issue because it changes the radiative balance and the atmosphere warms up during the upcoming century. Radiation codes are quite solid…..I know that from the excellent results using them over contemporary periods. So we have a clear radiative forcing, but climate models with known deficiencies–which I will not hide. So there is going to be warming, but the uncertainty is large….cliff
Cliff Maas: “clear radiative forcing”
Why don’t we have charts allowing us to compare the ‘clear radiative forcing’ by altitude, by humidity, by atmospheric tides, etc. Why aren’t we measuring it at all?
How does this “clear radiative forcing” manifest itself on Mars with an atmosphere of 95% CO2? Why aren’t we measuring it on Mars?
What other physical properties are there that can’t be measured?
“CO2 is an issue because it changes the radiative balance and the atmosphere warms up during the upcoming century. ”
Where is your evidence that CO2 warms up the atmosphere by radiation? Currently there are 2,500 air molecules for every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere. How does one CO2 molecule raise the energy levels of 2,500 other air molecules? How does adding a few more anthropogenic CO2 molecules make this negligible situation worse?
The atmosphere is warmed by conduction at the earth’s surface aided by convection not by the radiative properties of atmospheric CO2 that is transparent to 92% of the earth’s emission spectrum for longwave radiation and absorbs that radiation in the 15 micron band only.
Cargo cult science is alive and well.
“Cliff Mass October 21, 2019 at 12:10 pm
So there is going to be warming, but the uncertainty is large….cliff”
The uncertainty is so large as to make any possible reaction and/or mitigation impossible to determine.
Welcome to the “third group” Cliff.
Thanks for replying. Radiation is pretty well known (although there seems to be some disagreement with those numbers in climate science). This is where some would pop in and say “it’s all basic physics” and consider that the winning zinger. More heat retained, temperature goes up. But we know it’s more complicated than that. The oceans also store heat and move it around. Is that in your climate models? We know that The Blob has a huge effect on the Pacific Northwest weather. What I am asking is how can you be sure there are not higher order processes which respond to or even regulate temperatures after whatever perturbations happen (CO2)?
Cliff Mass, speaking of modeling, please explain a) hy your crowd’s apocalyptic predictions have been such dismal failures, and b) why you and your allies have ignored the scientific method and clung to your invalidated models. You are not scientists. You are part priests and part politicians. Anything to be a guess on CNN.
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
Cliff Mass: “Radiation codes are quite solid…..I know that from the excellent results using them over contemporary periods. So we have a clear radiative forcing.”
Me: No we don’t, Cliff. The so called “forcing” you reference is a fixed computation that can only be done in clear sky conditions with a fixed amount of water vapor. When that is always in change on a global scale along with changing cloud fractions including a height dimension, the “radiative forcing” you are talking about becomes a physically meaningless number that has no relevance to any climatic effect without knowing how the hydrological cycle responds to any increase in radiative absorption in the narrow CO2 window.
The radiative flux must be integrated across all wavelengths in the IR and the inability for any of these heaps of junk you call climate models to accurately place cloud fraction and cloud fraction depth in the correct spacial coordinates along with the changing water vapor flux makes the task virtually impossible to do. And because the current limitations of these “climate models’ have no hope in coming close to a correctly integrated answer that can project these variables to space and depth requirements to get an accurate integrated flux, these failed models have no possibility of getting any future prediction correct and the actual climate record proves this out.
It appears that the founding principles from atmospheric science and expectations about the hydrological cycle totally dominating atmospheric CO2 are correct, and on the face of it, anyone who believed otherwise was and is staring in the face of overwhelming evidence just by inspection that climate model output that has been giving rapid and spurious temperature changes cannot be correct. The water vapor feedback must be negative and if it were the other way around, I never get a satisfactory answer from those that believe this modeling flaw of positive water vapor feedback as to why under that premise there would not be a runaway and unstoppable climate warming from increasing atmospheric CO2.
You are behaving like every warmer I know. Complete faith in your failed models over actual measurements along with an unfounded and unrealistic belief in your ability to model the climate with the presently known mathematical limitations that no modeler has broken through and defeated.
It’s just like the real space alien debate is between those who claim they’re already here, ready to destroy humanity, and those who calmly, rationally say no, they aren’t here yet, and if we put our heads together and buckle down we can come up with the technology to defeat them when they do come. That is the essence of debate, is it not? One side is irrational, and the other is rational. It is up to the rational ones to show the irrational ones how wrong they are. Socratic method. /sarc
Late to the conversation, but thank you so much for posting this. I’ve been thinking the same thing for some time. Look, whether you believe in climate change or not is somewhat irrelevant at this point. Getting rid of carbon based fuels has additional benefits above and beyond climate change that make that make such a goal worth pursuing. Such as:
Less dependence on foreign energy sources
Less air pollution
Lower potential for soil and water pollution
Greater resource efficiency
If I could create a energy system overnight that would replace fossil fuels it would certainly be a subject worth pursuing, climate change notwithstanding. So there is nothing innately wrong with pursuing solutions that reduce dependence on fossil fuels. In fact we have pursued such solutions for decades before climate change was glimmer in Jim Hanson’s eye, if only to reduce dependence on middle eastern oil, and lower energy prices.
So the goal is perfectly rational. What we are arguing over is the urgency that goal must be achieved, and the best method for doing it.
The problem I see is that the ASP group is entirely and wholly innumerate regarding energy sources, costs, needs, distribution, etc. Nothing they propose as a solution will work. At all. In fact much of it is counterproductive to our mutually agreed on goals and objectives. They contribute nothing worthwhile to the conversation, but continue to wreck havoc with the process of moving forward toward a carbon-lite future.
A rational plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions would involve rapid license renewal and upgrades to hydro power plants, rapid deployment of small nuclear power plants with minimal delay and protest, extension of licenses for existing nuclear power plants, rapid pursuit of molten salt power plants to burn existing stockpiles of nuclear waste, more geothermal power, improvements to existing thermal power plants using supercritical carbon dioxide generators, capping solar and wind at 20% of the total energy mix, etc. there is a definite mix of technologies that will get us a long way toward our goal at minimal cost and disruption. Maybe not to 100%. But 50%, or 75% is well within our reach if we are just smart about it.
The main problem with the ASP group is they seem to want to…punish us. Solutions that don’t hurt, or cause pain, or bankrupt major corporations are ignored or dismissed.
As an example, take compact fluorescent light bulbs. I was perfectly happy with Edison’s old invention until it was declared pear-shaped and mostly removed from the market. So we were offered CFLs. I detested them at the time, I still do. Now we have LED available. Why didn’t we wait a bit longer and avoid going through that dark CFL period? It’s often a mistake to rush in. Too many fools…
Same for electric cars. They show promise, maybe someday they will be great and affordable. Meanwhile, it is too soon to even think of banning fossil-fuel vehicles. We are not there yet.
Some would ban ICE cars anyway and tell us to ride the bus or bicycle. Those people have some green blinders on. Most people would rather drive than ride. Just because it is greener does not make it more pleasant. Not to mention that to replace all those cars, the current mass transit systems wouldn’t be able to handle the increased load.
It’s all find and dandy to say ride a bike when you live in a big city where the distance between biking destinations can be measures in a few city blocks. Not so much when you live in the rural heartland and the distance between destination is measured in the 10s or even 100s of miles.
And that Mass transit (Buses & trains) is mainly only viable in big, overcrowded cities. Out in the vast rural areas, mass transit is mostly non-existent and certainly not convenient (where it does exist) for most rural citizens needs (which is why there is so few mass transit options).
It’s not “just fine and dandy to say ride a bike,” even in Seattle. As someone with multiple sclerosis who cannot use a two-wheeled vehicle in good weather let alone during a Seattle winter, I find the utter heartlessness of the “progressives” toward the disabled, the elderly, and others who cannot just climb on a bicycle to be one of their very worst attributes.
Good point, there are those for whom riding a bike is a physical impossibility.
Cliff,
Thanks for posting here. You’ll get a lot of comments from people like me, attempts at humor, insults, etc., but you’ll also get comments from competent people outside your “consensus box”.
“Blog review” rather than “pal review”.
Smile or grimace at comments from people like me, but please address the others, with data and evidence that “Man’s CO2” is the verified and only cause of “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” that is claimed will lead to “Catastrophic” Man caused anything that requires a Man caused catastrophic political/economic response?
Thanks for posting this, CTM! It was revelatory!
I post on Cliff’s blog under the name “Placeholder.” Me, of so many pseudonyms I have trouble keeping track.
——-
The “debate” reminds me of Reagan’s famous quip that “sometimes the right hand doesn’t know what the far-right hand is doing.” In substance, I see little underlying difference between the leftists “solutions” proposed by Cliff and those proposed by his far-left opponents: They both want to raise the cost of energy, and the working middle class be damned.
The difference is stylistic. Like Reagan, Cliff wants to slap a smiley-face sticker on the agenda. His far-left hand wants to do it with a puritanical scowl. But the goals are the same.
If the scientific method were at play, the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis would have been discarded a long time ago for failure to meet its own predictive tests about the effect of rising CO2 levels on global temperatures. Instead, we see an increasingly desperate clinging to the favored hypothesis, even though it’s not valid on its face.
The Original Sin here was to disregard T.C. Chamberlin’s Masterwork, “A Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses.” The academic establishment coalesced around AGW too quickly, and has backed itself into a corner in its defense. Research grants and academic sinecures are at stake; the consequences of an admission of error would be too great.
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/railsback_chamberlin.html
The statistical basis for the IPCC’s reports was utterly demolished several years back by Douglas Keenan, the prominent and peer-reviewed statistician who, among other things, blew the whistle on the conspiracy to manipulate the world’s benchmark interest rate, the London Interbank Offering Rate. As a consequence, banks had to cough up billions in ill-gotten gains, and executives went to prison.
https://www.informath.org/AR5stat.pdf
The AGW “consensus” of 97%? Disproven a long time ago, yet still repeated.
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/07/29/new-study-undercuts-ipcc-keynote-finding-87796/
And what about “consensus” anyway? Right here in Washington State, we have the answer in the form of Harlan Bretz, the lone geologist who shattered the prior consensus behind “uniformitarianism,” the idea that all major geological features on the planet were formed over millions of years. Bretz, fighting a lonely battle for decades, eventually prevailed in his belief that the scablands of Eastern Washington were formed by a series of catastrophic floods at the end of the last Ice Age.
Bretz’s struggle should be a cautionary example that a “consensus” is not infallible, and that academia has a strong pull toward groupthink. It’s not the only example. Others would include the fallacy that dietary fat causes obesity and heart disease, and that ocean waves taller than 65 feet occur only once every 10,000 years. Those beliefs, the former which is still widespread, have been responsible for all kinds of mayhem and loss.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/harlenbretz.html
I have vociferously defended Cliff Mass in his battle against the Red Guard at his university, but not his adherence to the invalid AGW hypothesis. Because he’s not a drooling nutcase, and out of respect for his preeminence in his chosen field, I’d be interested in any book he’d write about AGW. I would expect it to display the same combination of rigor and readability that made his masterwork, “The Weather of the Pacific Northwest,” the UW’s best-selling book of any kind.
What will it take for Cliff and others to re-examine the basis of the failed AGW hypothesis? I give him credit for refraining from the insults flung by that far left-hand, but that credit only goes so far. He needs to forthrightly, and in detail, take a fresh look at the AGW hypothesis that holds him and the academic, media, and political establishment in thrall to a failed idea.