Global Warming “Accelerating”

I have written a number of times about the “global warming accelerating” meme.  The evidence is nearly irrefutable that over the last 10 years, for whatever reason, the pace of global warming has decelerated (click below to enlarge)

hansenjan20091

This is simply a fact, though of course it does not necessarily “prove” that the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is incorrect.  Current results continue to be fairly consistent with my personal theory, that man-made CO2 may add 0.5-1C to global temperatures over the next century (below alarmist estimates), but that this warming may be swamped at times by natural climactic fluctuations that alarmists tend to under-estimate.

Anyway, in this context, I keep seeing stuff like this headline in the WaPo

Scientists:  Pace of Climate change Exceeds Estimates

This headline seems to clearly imply that the measured pace of actual climate change is exceeding previous predictions and forecasts.   This seems odd since we know that temperatures have flattened recently.  Well, here is the actual text:

The pace of global warming is likely to be much faster than recent predictions, because industrial greenhouse gas emissions have increased more quickly than expected and higher temperatures are triggering self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms in global ecosystems, scientists said Saturday.

“We are basically looking now at a future climate that’s beyond anything we’ve considered seriously in climate model simulations,” Christopher Field, founding director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

So in fact, based on the first two paragraphs, in true major media tradition, the headline is a total lie.  In fact, the correct headline is:

“Scientists Have Raised Their Forecasts for Future Warming”

Right?  I mean, this is all the story is saying, is that based on increased CO2 production, climate scientists think their forecasts of warming should be raised.  This is not surprising, because their models assume a direct positive relationship between CO2 and temperature.

The other half of the statement, that “higher temperatures are triggering self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms in global ecosystems” is a gross exaggeration of the state of scientific knowledge.  In fact, there is very little good understanding of climate feedback as a whole.  While we may understand individual pieces – ie this particular piece is a positive feedback – we have no clue as to how the whole thing adds up.  (see my video here for more discussion of feedback)

In fact, I have always argued that the climate models’ assumptions of strong positive feedback (they assume really, really high levels) is totally unrealistic for a long-term stable system.  In fact, if we are really seeing runaway feedbacks triggered after the less than one degree of warming we have had over the last century, it boggles the mind how the Earth has staggered through the last 5 billion years without a climate runaway.

All this article is saying is “we are raising our feedback assumptions higher than even the ridiculously high assumptions we were already using.”  There is absolutely no new confirmatory evidence here.

But this creates a problem for alarmists

For you see, their forecasts have consistently demonstrated themselves to be too high.  You can see above how Hansen’s forecast to Congress 20 years ago has played out (and the Hansen A case was actually based on a CO2 growth forecast that has turned out to be too low).  Lucia, who tends to be scrupulously fair about such things, shows the more recent IPCC models just dancing on the edge of being more than 2 standard deviations higher than actual measured results.

But here is the problem:  The creators of these models are now saying that actual CO2 production, which is the key input to their model, is far exceeding their predictions.  So, presumably, if they re-ran their predictions using actual CO2 data, they would get even higher temperature forecasts. Further, they are saying that the feedback multiplier in their models should be higher as well.  But the forecasts of their models are already high vs. observations — this will even cause them to diverge further from actual measurements.

So here is the real disconnect of the model:  If you tell me that modelers underestimated the key input (CO2) in their models,  and have so far overestimated the key output (Temperature), I would have said the conclusion to this article is that climate sensitivity must be lower than what was embedded in the models.  But they are saying exactly the opposite.  How is this possible?

Postscript: I hope readers understand this, but it is worth saying because clearly reporters do not understand this:  There is no way that climate change from CO2 can be accelerating if global warming is not accelerating.  There is no mechanism I have ever heard by which CO2 can change the climate without the intermediate step of raising temperatures.  Co2–>temperature increase–>changes in the climate.

Update: Chart originally said 1998 forecast.  Has been corrected to 1988.

Update#2: I am really tired of having to re-explain the choice of using Hansen’s “A” forecast, but I will do it again.  Hansen had forecasts A, B, C, with A being based on more CO2 than B, and B with more CO2 than C.  At the time, Hansen said he thought the A case was extreme.  This is then used by his apologists to say that I am somehow corrupting Hansen’s intent or taking him out of context by using the A case, because Hansen himself at the time said the A case was probably high.

But the only difference between A, B, and C were not the model assumptions of climate sensitivity or any other variable — they only differed in the amount of Co2 growth and the number of volcano eruptions (which have a cooling effect via aerosols).  We can go back and decide for ourselves which case turned out to be the most or least conservative.   As it turns out, all three cases UNDERESTIMATED the amount of CO2 man produced in the last 20 years.  So, we should not really use any of these lines as representative, but Scenario A is by far the closest.  The other two are way, way below our actual CO2 history.

The people arguing to use, say, the C scenario for comparison are being disingenuous.  The C scenario, while closer to reality in its temperature forecast, was based on an assumption of a freeze in Co2 production levels, something that obviously did not occur.

  • hunter

    How unfair of you to actually quote what Hansen said then vs. what he says now.
    AGW is at a point where critical thinking is not only uncalled for, but is actively discouraged.
    Hansen & co. keep bringing up Venus, non-existant temperature increases, non-existant ocean temp increases, and calls for moderation and then raising the hysteria level, instead of reconsidering their stands.
    Remember that the real lesson of the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ was that the Emperor and his posse ignored the inconvenient facts about his attire.
    AGW beleivers are not capable, for the most part, of seeing the plain truth that there is no catastrophe- much less apocalypse- at hand.

  • ErikTheRed

    I can’t wait for the Official 20th anniversary Hansen-Charts versus Reality love-fest!

  • George

    “in true major media tradition, the headline is a total lie.”

    Typically:
    * the headline is not written by the author of the article
    * the author knows next to nothing about the technical aspects of the subject
    * the headline writer knows even less

    That’s why I follow blogs by the technically oriented.

  • Will Nitschke

    As usual, you show that you have no qualms about blatant dishonesty. Even your average right-wing moron in a hurry knows that there were three scenarios in the 1988 paper, and that observed forcings have been closest to scenario B, not A. In particular, in A there was no volcanic eruption, and lots of CFCs. Do you remember a thing called Pinatubo? Have you heard of a thing called the Montreal Protocol?

    As usual, you don’t understand the difference between climate and weather. Ten years is not long enough to determine a climate trend. Comparing ten years of data with a model with inputs that didn’t match reality cannot tell us that anything is decelerating. Trends over periods long enough to measure climate change show us that indeed, it is getting faster.

    And as usual, you don’t understand feedback. The Earth’s climate is not stable – heard of ice ages? – and runaway climate change is not just possible but is the defining feature of the geologic climate record.

    In short, as usual you give us a noxious mix of dishonesty and stupidity. And as usual you will ignore the simple facts that contradict you.

  • hunter

    The AGW cult depends on moving the goal posts. In 2005, that hurricane season alone was *proof* of AGW. But 2006 and 2007 hurricane seasons were just weather.
    1998’s warm year is *proof* of AGW, but little to no warming since is too short a period to call it climate.
    Hansen’s scenario A was based on CO2 levels lower than today, yet with higher temps.
    He was wrong.
    Until his latest prophecies, Hansen dismissed solar and ocean activity…unless of course things got warmer.
    Creating confusion between climate and weather is one of the most important parts of AGW. And now our AGW friends are trying to say that a climate system that is by any actual measurement doing nothing special is actually running out of control. Out of control! Now we even here the idea that runaway climate change is the norm….yet we are supposed to destroy our industrial civilization and stop using cheap energy sources for exactly what reason?

  • Doug

    Will: I will avoid the strong temptation to stoop to your childish level of name calling. Such outbursts only reinforce your side’s boorish view of science.

    If your computer models are so accurate, then how come your guys didn’t see Pinatubo coming? Your models MUST be capable of seeing such cataclysmic events, given their great influence on climate. Lord knows your models are infallible, so when’s the next hiccup gonna hit us? When’s the next solar flare? When’s the next El Niño? Can you tell me earth’s 2008 “average temperature,” and what will 2009’s be?

    This whole “warming” crap is a mental exercise attempting to measure the unmeasurable. Give 100 “scientists” (whatever that means) the same set of data and ask them to compute the average of that data set, and I’ll bet you get 100 different answers. There are no standards for such measurements, as Mann’s flailings have demonstrated. The guy whose math is least comprehensible is declared the winner. It’s all about complex math manipulations which have no physical meaning to anyone or anything, and nothing more.

    We may as well be trying to calculate earth’s average color.

  • Will Nitschke

    I’m not on a ‘side’, Doug. This is not tribal warfare. Your lack of intellect is staggering: slating climate scientists for not predicting volcanic eruptions is one of the most utterly retarded things I’ve ever seen written down, and even creationist climate deniers John Christy and Roy Spencer understand the very very simple concept of a global average temperature.

  • An Inquirer

    As regular readers to this blog will remember, I have chastised Warren in the past for presenting Hansen’s Scenario A only. However, in this post, I believe that Warren is justified. (Quick Summary: Hansen called Scenario A the Business-As-Usual scenario, and it was the only scenario that he carried out far into the future. However, elsewhere he said that Scenario B was the most likely. Also, Scenario B features CFC input assumptions that are closer to observed levels as opposed to Scenario A. Nevertheless, Hansen’s 1988 presentations came after the Montreal Protocol. Years later, Schmidt posted input assumptions for Hansen’s 1988 model, and although I do not have that post handy, I believe that the assumed CO2 level for Scenario A was 387 ppm in 2008. By comparison, there have some reports of 388 ppm for 2008, but the most common number cited is 385. In a somewhat contradictory – but reconcilable – 1988 statement, Hansen pointed out that Scenario A had a growth rate of 1.5% of CO2 emissions which has subsequently been exceeded in the real world.) Okay, now after that quick summary, I believe that Warren is justified by using Scenario A for this post because this post is about the accelerating and alarming MSM articles. We see continued stories that things are worse, that emissions are more than earlier assumed, and that the models do not capture how bad things are going to be. If Global Warming pessimists had a sense of ethics, I believe that they would correct these articles. However, they accept them – sometimes in silence, but more often they even contribute to them, creating the impression that things are worse than Scenario A.
    BTW, you can not excuse excessively high projections in 2008 on volcanoes. Pinatubo had an impact limited duration, not a multi-decadal impact. Overall, lately we have had a low number of volcanoes with stratospheric consequences.

    And a post script, it is sad to see the stealing of monikers from other people. We know that Warren does not police comments, but it be great if he could verify monikers by e-mail address.

  • Will Nitschke

    “Pinatubo had an impact limited duration, not a multi-decadal impact” – incorrect. If a volcano causes global cooling of 0.1°C, then greenhouse gas forcing does not rise to compensate. The world remains 0.1°C cooler than it would have been, and scenario A, which did not include any volcanic eruptions at all will automatically be too high after a volcanic eruption, even if its greenhouse gas inputs were exactly as observed.

    We know that not only does ‘warren’ not police comments, but he doesn’t read them, understand them or respond to them either. It makes having a blog utterly pointless. Better to publish your bullshit thoughts as static pages.

  • cfdman

    Will,

    Come on now, you completely mis-characterized Hansen’s scenerios. Do you even understand them? Scenerio A is the correct one to reference, and it was referenced properly here.

    Volcanoes have nothing to do with the fact that scenerio A was considered the most likely by Hansen at the time, he said so. Scenerio A was an gross over prediction of global temp rise, and gets worse every year. The AGW crown needs to admit that scenerio A was complete hogwash before any critical thinking person takes anything else they say seriously. Moving on like nothing is wrong just focuses attention on the fact that ALL predictions of catastrophic global wearming have been proven to be completely false when compared to actual temperature increase (which may not exist at all over any useful time period). And don’t hide behind scenerio B, which was not much better.

  • Andrew Yoder

    Will, methinks you are buying too much into the hype. You’re wrong on Pinatubo as those particles eventually settle back to Earth thus removing their negative feedback. So once they’re out all of the atmosphere, the trend should have corrected itself. And let me ask you this…if you could go back and account for Pinatubo, would those 1988 models actually work? My guess is probably not as they have yet to be able to actually simulate a time period where the data are known. Nor can they go backwards in time…the forcing function seems to be incorrect.

  • hunter

    Hiding behind the short term changes linked to Pinatubo only makes the point more stark:
    The CO2 is not driving, nor has it driven, the climate.

  • hunter

    cfdman – does cfd stand for completely fucking dense? Scenario B was described as the most plausible, you lying little shit.

    Andrew Yoder – you don’t have a clue what volcanoes are, it seems. The aerosols are not a negative feedback, they’re a negative forcing. Please explain why greenhouse gases would get more efficient at heating the atmosphere after a volcanic eruption.

    hunter (the twatty one) – please explain how you can increase the concentration of a strong infrared absorber by 40%, and not affect the climate.

  • georgesdelatour

    Hi

    There must be an easy way to settle this.

    Surely someone somewhere has investigated the effects of volcanic eruptions on the climate system. If someone who has can suggest a likely climatic cooling effect of the volcano – not one invented simply to make the other figures come out right, but based on the best current scientific understanding of volcanos, and the known facts about this one – we can make some kind of assessment.

  • joshv

    So, let me get this straight, our current climate is 0.1degC cooler, for every volcano that’s ever erupted any time in the past? Fascinating.

  • Andrew Yoder

    Hunter..you are right, I meant forcing not feedback as they block incoming radiation. It was late and I was tired. Anyway, you obviously didn’t read correctly what I wrote. Those aerosols eventually settle back out within a few years, they aren’t there forever. So once you allow more radiation back in, the CO2 should theoretically absorb more right? So if CO2 has been increasing the whole time those aerosols were in the air, once they’re gone the march back up should happen quicker as you’ve removed a negative forcing but added additional positive right?

    And by the way, do you really think CO2 is that strong of an infrared absorber? There are only a few wavelengths it can really absorb and once they’re saturated that’s it until they “relax”. Additionally, as absorption is a logarithmic function it takes more and more CO2 to get the same effect and eventually it asymptotes. So while it can have an effect, it can’t be nearly as drastic as alarmists like you to believe.

  • hunter

    Jennifer,
    You are acting like a desperate fundie running out of verses to quote, and falling back on your subnormal communication skills instead.
    Scenario A was based on CO2 being *less* than it is today, and the *temp* being much warmer.
    The CO2 is heigher than scenario A, and the temps are less.
    Hansen was wrong.
    Why is that so difficult for an AGW fundie to follow?
    Additionally, it looks like Hansen’s guestimates about energy increases due to CO2 were way off, based on ocean heat content.
    This will be my only troll feeding for today, so don’t waste it.

  • hunter

    joshv – the self-lobotomisation of deniers is amusing. You just can’t make sense of anything that doesn’t fit in with your preconceived notions, can you? If all volcanic activity on Earth were to stop tomorrow, then extra warming would result. Pretty simple, really.

    Andrew Yoder – come one now. The infrared absorbtivity of CO2 was first described by Tyndall 150 years ago. If you’re ignorant of developments that far back, you’ve got some serious reading to do!

    What you should do to answer the questions about the effect of volcanoes on a warming trend is run a climate model yourself. Set a control going, with rising CO2 and other greenhouse gases but no volcanoes. Then set one going with rising greenhouse gases and volcanoes as well. Tell us what you find.

  • hunter

    Of course the problem is that it is all models. Reality does not really give a hoot about models.

  • Lance

    Jennifer-Scientist-Hunter or whatever name you are stealing at the moment,

    JoshV nailed your ass with his witty volcano remark. Your lame rebuttal only underscores your reliance on ad-hom bluster.

    Once the volcanic ash and other particulates settle there is no longer a negative forcing and there is even more CO2 in the atmosphere, due to the CO2 released by the volcano, than there was before the volcano. Therefore Pinatubo should only exert a short term negative forcing and then result in a positive forcing from the additional CO2.

    Hansen’s A is the closest match to current conditions, but even scenario’s B and C are higher than current temps and those predictions were based on much less CO2 than is present currently in the atmosphere.

    Pinatubo was at best a short term fig leaf for Hansen and time just keeps making his “scenarios” look more and more foolish.

    Try to respond with an intelligent remark although based on your past posts I have little reason to expect one.

  • Andrew Yoder

    Hunter, the condescending dumbass one, I know about IR absorption. Do you? Did I say that CO2 didn’t absorb IR? Ummm..no..but that is your defense? What I said is that it isn’t nearly as significant as you try to make it out to be. It absorbs IR in about 3 bands and 2 of those overlap with water vapor.
    It cannot absorb nearly enough IR to make the change the IPCC is claiming. And I also said once a CO2 molecule absorbs all that you can absorb, that’s it, no more. And once all of the emitted surface radiation is absorbed, that’s it…and studies have shown that that is all done within the first 100 m or so of atmosphere. Adding more CO2 to the upper layers isn’t going to change that fact either as the density keeps getting smaller.

    And really in your reply to Josh, you make our points and contradict yourself. you state in your latest post that stopping volcanic activity results in extra warming. So you agree with Lance and I that volcanoes only have a short term effect..i.e. a few years not centuries?

  • An Inquirer

    There was an interesting scientific question raised in this discussion which I would like to explore. Essentially it was alleged that we continue to have a cooler world today because of Pinatubo in 1991. Also, georgesdelatour asked about scientific understanding of volcanoes & climate and I will address that first. It is well understood that intense volcanic eruptions can lower global temperatures for two or three years because of the aerosols that reach the stratosphere. It is also well understood that this impact pertains much more to large eruptions near the equator than smaller ones in higher latitudes. The smaller ones in the higher latitudes that we have been experiencing in recent years may have somewhat of a warming effect because their ash melts snow or ice which reduces albedo. (This warming effect tmay be negligible.) Now, to return to the allegation that we continue to have a cooler world today because of Pinatubo in 1991: there could be a rational basis for this conjecture. Consider the analogy of a bank account where withdrawals from the account equal the interest earned. Now imagine that there is a abnormally large withdrawal from the account; then the interest earned will in the future always be less than former levels of interest earned. You may wonder if this analogy is relevant to climate? Well, in a sense, heat is stored in the earth — more efficiently in the ocean than on land, and this bank of heat is both withdrawn and replenished through time. On the other hand, a different analogy would be the beating of a heart. It has a normal heart rate which does increase during exercise, but does eventually return to essentially the same rate a short time after exercise.

    So which analogy is better? I reread a few scientific articles and papers, including ones by GW pessimists such as Jones from HadCru and Hansen himself, and my impression is the latter analogy. (Yes, negative forcings are detailed in these papers.) These references discussed the two to three year impact (maybe four) until the aerosols dropped out of the stratosphere. Hansen points out that his forecast were high in the early to mid 1990s because of the volcano, but I doubt that he would say that his forecast is 0.6 C degrees excessively high in 2008 because of Pinatubo. Undoubtedly,he would blame the CFCs for the divergence from Scenario A. (I will refrain from discussing Scenarios B & C in this post.)

    As Josh V pointed out, it is difficult to imagine that every volcano in history has had a permanent effect on climate. Of course, a model forecasting Pinatubo-type volcanoes will have years where the GMT is lower; such an argument is a red herring to the allegation.

    I would caution those who say that actual CO2 exceeds what Hansen used as inputs for his 1988 forecasts. CO2 emissions have exceeded the growth for what Hanson stated in 1988 to be his assumption. However, CO2 levels in terms of ppm are in line with for what Schmidt posted years later for Scenario A assumptions. Why the discrepancy? Assuming that Schmidt’s posting is consistent with the 1988 actual inputs, perhaps Hansen missed what increasing CO2 does to plants. We have better plant growth in the last twenty years which has somewhat offset CO2 emissions. Also a cooler ocean can hold more CO2, and that would be an interesting and controversial discussion!

    This subject gets so much heat and conjecture because Hansen 1988 is neither verifiable nor reproducible. Hansen has pointed out that the code for his 1988 projections no longer works. We have the graphs, his paper, his testimony, and Schmidt’s later posting, but apparently we cannot verify what was actually was used nor can we reproduce it.

  • markm

    I assume that means also that Hansen never published his code, to be reproduced at the time?

    At least, I know Hansen has often refused to publish his code since – which means he’s not a practicing scientist.

  • Dave

    It´s Orwellian: if the world hasn´t warmed in the last 10 years but CO2 has increased more than expected then CO2 must have less an effect on warming than predicted, but instead we are told that the “warming”, though non-existent has got worse. It could be that there are other (natural?) factors involved (I´m sure there are) but since they tried to sell us the story that the temp. had been constant for the last 1000 yrs and all the warming was anthr. if they now claim the cooling is natural, what part of the previous warming could have been natural too? Lies have short legs – if they accept there are natural variations then they are caught in their own lies.
    10 yrs ago I thought their claims were plausible but greatly exagerated, time would prove whether they were correct and we had plenty of time to adapt. Today the more the world cools the more hysterical they get. My favourite argument against greenies is the following: well 5 yrs ago you said we had to act NOW or it would be too late. If it´s too late there´s no point worrying about it. If it´s not too late then you were lying: so why should I believe you know?

  • hunter

    Andrew Yoder – evidently you know nothing about IR absorption – nothing at all. And you’re happy to expose the depths of your ignorance to the world. It’s curious to say the least. Look up MODTRAN, and play with it. Look particularly at the ‘Iout’ values it gives you.

    An Inquirer – I suggest you download and run a climate model yourself, setting up runs both with and without volcanic eruptions during a rise in greenhouse gases, and see what happens.

    Your comments about Hansen 1988 are not supported by the evidence. The GISS webpage allows you to download “FORTRAN source and documentation for the 1980s version of the GISS global climate model, used in the original NASA GISS global warming simulations described in Hansen et al. 1988”. I think you have been duped by someone, and I can probably guess who.

  • An Inquirer

    Also from the GISS website:
    “Historical versions of Model II (e.g., the computer code used in the 1988 simulation runs) are not currently available. Please address all inquiries about the EdGCM project and about implementing Model II on modern personal computers to Dr. Mark Chandler.”

    In various forums, GISS personnel have not challenged the statement that “The GISS website says that the code used in 1988 simulation runs are not available.”

    Can we reconcile what the [February 19, 2009, 4:39 pm] quoted and other quotes from GISS. Perhaps they can be reconciled; perhaps different points in time?

    It would be foolish of me to say that I cannot have periods of gullibility; however, the time that I felt that I was duped the most was by James Hansen and company in the 1980s. Back then, I accepted the arguments of AGW. However, then I started checking out the logic, the models, the assumptions – and then I saw the preposterous defense used GW pessimists – and then I was insulted by the methods used by RealClimate – and that used to be my primary site for AGW information. I believe that I keep a more open mind than many on both sides of this argument, and I know that the skeptics also have their fringe elements, but I have seen much more effort to dupe the public by mainstream AGW pessimists than by mainstream GW skeptics.

  • hunter

    Dave and Inquirer,
    And the defense of AGW, as we see here, has nothing to do with actually addressing issues but is all about dissembling, defensiveness, and derogatory treatment of skeptics. And when, once again, the blogosphere points out that AGW promoters are using bad data, it is cler that skeptics are the ones bringing credibility and integrity to the table.

  • Andrew Yoder

    Hunter, the arrogant douche one, HOW does a computer program prove that I am wrong? I’m talking basic fundamental physics here. CO2 absorbs primarily in 3 wavelengths that can be broadened a little BUT the net absorption is still pretty much the same. Once a molecule of CO2 has absorbed those wavelengths, it CANNOT absorb more as it’s already in an excited state. How is that even disputable? Additionally, once you have a large enough path length (in this case the atmosphere) to completely absorb ALL of the radiation in that wavelength, how is adding increasing the path length going to allow it to absorb more than is ALREADY going through it? Again, how is that disputable?

    The fact that you continually tell people to run a computer program, really shows you that you absolutely don’t have an understanding of the physics. Please tell me using PHYSICS where I am mistaken. Tell me how absorption is not path length dependent. Tell me how individual molecules that absorb IR can magically absorb more IR by simply having another of the same molecule next to it. Again don’t refer me to a stupid FORTRAN computer program. USE PHYSICS.

  • hunter

    Yoder – The computer program is the physics, you dickhead. Your irrelevant waffle is not physics. If you want to solve the radiative transfer by hand, go ahead and do it. Otherwise, use a code that does it for you. Either way, if you actually do the calculation, you’ll find that what you’ve said here is simply wrong.

    An Inquirer – so, you felt duped in the 1980s? Please, tell us exactly what you found out at that very early stage in the debate that convinced you that it was all a lie? Given that 1988 was the warmest year in the instrumental record at the time, but that 15 of the subsequent 20 years have been hotter, don’t you think you look rather stupid?

  • Andrew Yoder

    The bad hunter: Since when is a computer program physics? The fact that you keep telling me to run a computer program proves you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about because you simply don’t UNDERSTAND what I am saying.

    Everything I have written can be found in pretty much any organic chemistry book and every spectroscopy or instrumental analysis book. Hell you can even find it ON THIS SITE! The fact that you’re too damn stupid to even know this proves you have absolutely zero science background other than maybe computers. I don’t know about you but chemists, biochemists, chemical engineers, biologists, physicists, are all taught this stuff very early on in their studies. So again, I have not said anything wrong. CO2 absorbs infrared in specific wavelengths. They DON’T absorb the entire infrared spectrum. This is accepted by EVERYONE, even your damn computer model has this built in! And once they’ve absorbed those wavelengths, they CANNOT magically start absorbing different wavelengths. This violates a few fundamental laws. Again if you had even basic organic chemistry you would know this. And if there is a certain total radiation coming off, once all of that is absorbed by the layer of CO2 there’s nothing left to absorb (i.e. there is ZERO transmittance of those wavelengths). Adding more CO2 CANNOT make it absorb more if it’s already been completely absorbed before the addition. Again basic spectroscopy can tell you this. (Do you even know what Beer’s Law is?) I’ve spent a long time studying IR. My MS thesis involved FTIR studies, my current job requires me to do a lot of FTIR analysis.

    Either way, I’m done arguing with you. You know nothing and when I ask for actual proof to show me how I’m wrong, you only refer me to a FORTRAN program. If you had any science background at all, you should easily be able to explain to me how I am wrong without resorting to some program. But alas, you just turn to more or more name calling and worse and worse language.

  • hunter

    Irrelevant waffle. Show us calculations or papers that demonstrate the small effect of CO2 that you are claiming, or shut up and fuck off, you little cunt.

  • An Inquirer

    “Given that 1988 was the warmest year in the instrumental record at the time, but that 15 of the subsequent 20 years have been hotter, don’t you think you look rather stupid?”

    Actually, I would feel stupid if I had written that statement and displayed such abysmal lack of understanding about the PDO, AMO, ENSO, etc. Of course, these years would be hotter given the oscillations! Also, that statement suggests little under understanding of issues such as surface station bias, inconsistent SST methodologies, and other measurement problems. It is possible that the current climate is hotter now than the 1930s worldwide, but such a statement is more speculation than scientific. State and continental temperatures reach records in the 1930s rather than today, societal harm from climatic trends was much more severe in the 30s, and the methodologies to homogenize temperatures across decades are not reliable and have not been shown to be robust. Still, most people accept that we are now warmer, and that is not implausible given the emergence from the Little Ice Age. (And I would feel doubly foolish if I made a statement like “there could be no emergence from the LIA because there was no LIA.”)

    Okay, here is a short AGW list when I have felt stupid: (1) when I assumed that Hansen was providing a reliable temperature record via GISS. (2) when I accepted Parker’s analysis that even when present, UHI was negligible. (3) when I believed an IPCC spokesman that the UHI effect has been rigorously removed from the temperature data sets. (4) when I accepted Mann’s hockey stick. (5) when I accepted Gore’s statement that Lonnie Thompson’s graph supports Mann’s conclusion – actually the graph was not Thompson’s work but rather a regurgitation of Mann. (6) when I had the impression that glaciers started shrinking upon the onset of AGW. (7) when I believed that the science had been settled. (8) when I did not realize that corporate interest would love to have AGW legislation. And the list could go on. One time that I did not feel stupid is when Gore did his “son of AIT” film when he claimed that the Arctic coastline was collapsing under AGW-induced ice melt and showed a house collapsing into the ocean. On this film, I did a little checking – turns out that that the house was on Newfoundland coast and collapsed due to building error. In this film, Gore stated that we needed to have the courage and will to change laws so that government will decide energy use rather than individuals. I am not so stupid as to fail to recognize what he is advocating.

  • hunter

    Oh yes, it’s all oscillations, isn’t it! How about a link to some papers showing that increasing IR absorption doesn’t make it hotter but the oceans do everything? Oh – you can’t provide any because there aren’t any papers like that.

    With your comments about the 1930s, you seem to be confusing ‘The United States’ with ‘The World’. Get hold of an atlas or a globe and have a good hard look at it.

    “most people accept that we are now warmer, and that is not implausible given the emergence from the Little Ice Age” – what you’re saying is that global warming caused global warming. In science, we look for slightly better explanations than simple tautology.

    1) you should feel stupid believing what bloggers with grudges tell you, instead of noticing that GISS, Hadcrut and the satellites all give essentially identical results.
    2) you should feel stupid if you ‘accept’ any scientific result without thinking about it, whether it turns out to be right or wrong.
    3) you should feel stupid not to have noticed that the greatest warming is seen in the Arctic, and the Antarctic peninsula, where urban heat islands do not exist.
    4 and 5) given that you claimed to have stopped believing climate science in the 1980s, you should feel stupid to have still been believing in the late 1990s.
    6) you should feel stupid if you thought that there was some particular date that humanity started affecting the climate.
    7) you should feel stupid if you think that the science has been settled. If it had, there would be no climate scientists. You should feel stupid if you didn’t realise the question that was settled was ‘are we affecting the climate’, and the question still being asked is ‘how large will the effect be’.
    8) you should feel stupid if you think ‘corporate interests’ have anything to do with climate science.

    No idea what Gore film you are talking about. Did you make it up?

    Do you not feel stupid now? You should, because you certainly look it.

  • An Inquirer

    In your comments, you seem to overly focus on IR absorption. There is a lot more to climate than IR absorption, and we have much more to learn.
    I realize that I am not talking to a person with an open mind, and even though you have some scientific understanding, that understanding apparently shuts off when you see things you do not like. Therefore, perhaps one of the stupidest thing that I have ever done is to continue this conversation. Yet, I do not do these posts with any illusion of an intelligent conversation with you . . . however, in case some naive reader might be led down a path of misconceptions, I write my last post on this thread.

    You should get out into the real world more often. My children swim in lakes that were dried up in the so-called cooler, wetter past. It would be tragic for our family’s finances to pay more attention to trends produced by computer gymnastics than to the what the climate is in the real world.

    I do not project my local experience onto the whole world, and that is why I study climate records on every continent as well as the ocean. I have met very few people that have a better handle on the major databases of temperature trends, procedures to derive them, similarities, and advantages and disadvantages.

    I have a good handle on what is settled and not settled in the climate science, but I approach it with an open mind, and my understanding has gotten better over the years. One key point of understanding is how much we have yet to understand.

    Talking about stupidity and blogs: perhaps one of the most stupid things to do is to rely on RealClimate. I would conjecture one reason that they say the things they do there is because they are so infaturated with their data manipulations that they forget to look at real world evidence.

    There are times that I believe you — and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have not heard of the Gore film. That is just an illustration of how uninformed you are.

  • Andrew Yoder

    Well said Inquirer. I definitely wish, I hadn’t started the IR absorption argument because it is obvious he’ll never get it. I got stuck in that loop explaining some other points and couldn’t believe how little he actually understood about basic physics. That being said, there is definitely more to how the climate works than just CO2 absorption.

  • Lance

    An Inquirer – er, no. Your bizarre designation of yourself as one of the best-informed people ever is wide of the mark. You’re spectacularly dense, you really don’t understand physics and you quite obviously don’t read the scientific literature. Your strange refusal to specify what film exactly you are talking about makes you look rather retarded as well.

    Yoder, you cocksucking little shit. As you can’t provide any links to any actual science to support your crazed beliefs, you prove to us all that you wouldn’t know real science if it fucked you up the arse.