Just 20 Years
I wanted to pull out one thought from my longer video and presentation on global warming.
As a reminder, I adhere to what I call the weak anthropogenic theory of global warming — that the Earth’s sensitivity to CO2, net of all feedback effects, is 1C per doubling of CO2 concentrations or less, and that while man may therefore be contributing to global warming with his CO2 (not to mention his land use and other practices) the net effect falls far short of catastrophic.
While in the media, alarmists want to imply that the their conclusions about climate sensitivity are based on a century of observation, but this is not entirely true. Certainly we have over a century of temperature measurements, but only a small part of this history is consistent with the strong anthropogenic theory. In fact, I observed in my video is that the entire IPCC case for a high climate sensitivity to CO2 is based on just 20 years of history, from about 1978 to 1998.
Here are the global temperatures in the Hadley CRUT3 data base, which is the primary data from which the IPCC worked (hat tip Junk Science Global Warming at a Glance) click to enlarge
Everything depends on how one counts it, but during the period of man-made CO2 creation, there are really just two warming periods, if we consider the time from 1910 to 1930 just a return to the mean.
- 1930-1952, where temperatures spiked about a half a degree and ended 0.2-0.3 higher than the past trend
- 1978-1998, where temperatures rose about a half a degree, and have remained at that level since
Given that man-made CO2 output did not really begin in earnest until after 1950 (see the blue curve of atmospheric CO2 levels on the chart), even few alarmists will attribute the runup in temperatures from 1930-1952 (a period of time including the 1930′s Dust Bowl) to anthropogenic CO2. This means that the only real upward change in temperatures that could potentially be blamed on man-made CO2 occurred from 1978-1998.
This is a very limited amount of time to make sweeping statements about climate change causation, particularly given the still infant-level knowledge of climate science. As a result, since 1970, skeptics and alarmists have roughly equal periods of time where they can make their point about temperature causation (e.g. 20 years of rising CO2 and flat temperatures vs. 20 years of rising CO2 and rising temperatures).
This means that in the last 40 years, both skeptics and alarmists must depend on other climate drivers to make their case (e.g. skeptics must point to other natural factors for the run-up in 1978-1998, while alarmists must find natural effects that offset or delayed warming in the decade either side of this period). To some extent, this situation slightly favors skeptics, as skeptics have always been open to natural effects driving climate while alarmists have consistently tried to downplay natural forcing changes.
I won’t repeat all the charts, but starting around chart 48 of this powerpoint deck (also in the video linked above) I present some alternate factors what may have contributed, along with greenhouse gases, to the 1978-1998 warming (including two of the strongest solar cycles of the century and a PDO warm period nearly exactly matching these two decades).
Postscript: Even if the entire 0.7C or so temperature increase in the whole of the 20th century is attributed to manmade CO2, this still implies a climate sensitivity FAR below what the IPCC and other alarmists use in their models. Given about 44% of a doubling since the industrial revolution began in CO2 concentrations, this would translate into a temperature sensitivity of 1.3C (not a linear extrapolation, the relationship is logarithmic).
This is why alarmists must argue that not only has all the warming we have seen been due to CO2 ( heroic assumption in and of itself) but that there are additional effects masking or hiding the true magnitude of past warming. Without these twin, largely unproven assumptions, current IPCC “consensus” numbers for climate sensitivity would be absurdly high. Again, I address this in more depth in my video.
netdr:
There have been 3 periods of warming about 60 years apart. Ask Phil Jones of CRU infamy.
There have been 3 positive cycles of the El Nino/La Nina [PDO] 2 since good records have been available.
According to Phil Jones of CRU infamy they were 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998. The latest one was in no way special in length or slope [according to Dr Jones]
From 1940 to 1978 there is an overall downward trend in global temperature as measured by GISS.
During that time there were about 14 La Nina’s and 3 El Nino’s and the temperature went down. No surprise there ! I might add that there was world war II when industry was pumping out CO2 by the ton. [PDO was Negative]
From 1978 to 1998 there was a preponderance of El Nino’s over La Nina’s 11 to 2 and the temperature went up. [PDO was Positive and sunspots were maximum] No surprise there and no CO2 is required to explain it.
From 1998 to present is where it really gets interesting.
In 1999 and 2000 and 2008 there were La Nina’s and between those dates there were El Nino’s and the temperature rose. The temperature resembles an inverted “U” with an up tick because of the El Nino in 2010.
The objection is made that ocean cycles cannot explain the approximately ½ ° C overall warming per century and that is true but it can make temperatures appear to be warmer or cooler by quite a bit.
In 1978 the alarmists became ….. alarmed because of the cooling since 1940. In 1998 the alarmists again became alarmed because of the natural warming since 1978.
The cause of the overall warming is a moot point of interest only to climatologists and not worthy of economy destroying taxes.
Since the warming began immediately after records were started at the end of the little ice age when CO2 production by humans was miniscule I doubt that it was the cause. In any case the warming is minimal and since we are at the top of the sine wave we will observe cooling for the next 20 to 30 years.
June 27, 2011, 2:00 pmnetdr:
The overall pattern of warming is a ramp of approximately 1/2 ° C per century [of interest to climatologists only.] and a 60 year sine wave. This is caused by increased solar output at the end of the little ice age or [just barely] possibly CO2.
Here is a peer reviewed study which supports this view.
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
When the sine wave was at the bottom the alarmists predicted another ice age and global cooling. When the sine wave was at it’s maximum in 1998 the alarmists passed the Kyoto accords. [They couldn't do that today].
I don’t think that CO2 caused the 1/2 ° C per century warming because warming started long before CO2 output became significant but so what if it is? The amount of actual warming is far from catastrophic and we can conduct business as usual while transitioning to renewable fuels.
June 27, 2011, 2:14 pmnetdr:
Woohoo, it’s the same shit, yet again. The same words, the same phrases, the same bullshit, the same tired old nonsense, and no doubt the same moronic failure to respond to criticism.
“While in the media, alarmists want to imply that the their conclusions about climate sensitivity are based on a century of observation, but this is not entirely true.”
Studies of climate sensitivity make use of data from timescales ranging from months to billions of years. Who exactly do you have in mind here?
“Certainly we have over a century of temperature measurements, but only a small part of this history is consistent with the strong anthropogenic theory”
We have hundreds of millions of years of temperature data, and every part of this history is consistent with CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Only a jabbering retard would think that temperature should follow CO2 concentration in a linear fashion.
“the entire IPCC case for a high climate sensitivity to CO2 is based on just 20 years of history, from about 1978 to 1998.”
Christ almighty, you don’t even understand that the IPCC doesn’t make a case for anything. Hundreds of independent papers in the scientific literature make the case, and they make it based on data over timescales from months to aeons.
“the only real upward change in temperatures that could potentially be blamed on man-made CO2 occurred from 1978-1998″
CO2 has always been a greenhouse gas. Not even for an instant has it not been. All of the rise in CO2 has affected the climate, not just one part of it. The bigger the increase, the greater the effect.
“…the still infant-level knowledge of climate science…” – you speak well for yourself.
“As a result, since 1970, skeptics and alarmists have roughly equal periods of time where they can make their point about temperature causation (e.g. 20 years of rising CO2 and flat temperatures vs. 20 years of rising CO2 and rising temperatures).”
You only need a tiny bit of intelligence to understand that there never has and never will be a linear relation between CO2 and temperature. You don’t have that tiny bit of intelligence.
“Even if the entire 0.7C or so temperature increase in the whole of the 20th century is attributed to manmade CO2, this still implies a climate sensitivity FAR below what the IPCC and other alarmists use in their models.”
No, it doesn’t. Climate sensitivities are outputs from models, not inputs, and observations and theory consistently point to the sensitivities that are reported by the IPCC.
“Given about 44% of a doubling since the industrial revolution began in CO2 concentrations, this would translate into a temperature sensitivity of 1.3C”
Only if you assume instantaneous response to forcings. Basic observations that can be made by six year olds show that this assumption is incorrect.
I wonder if you can muster up the intellect in your fog-filled chimp brain to respond to any of this. As you never have done before, it would certainly be surprising if you did.
June 27, 2011, 4:43 pmnetdr:
The last post is not my post.
It is the phony again !
June 27, 2011, 6:34 pmnetdr:
Phony Netdr
Ad hominem attacks abuse and name calling are an admission of defeat and poor thinking skills !. Any fool can do them and most fools do.
The opponent has run out of reasons and resorted to the oldest and least effective form of attack. The “Your mother wears army boots” style of discourse isn’t suitable for this or any other site.
So thank you for once again publicly admitting defeat.!
You will notice that I never reply in kind. [I am a bigger person than that] I argue the facts which are enough to defeat alarmism easily.
…..
Second of all the only period of “anthropogenic global warming” is 1978 to 1998.
June 27, 2011, 6:45 pm.
During all past warming the warming has always preceded the CO2 or it is so far back in time that it is impossible to tell. There is no case in history when a change in CO2 caused warming.
.
pauld:
“I wonder if you can muster up the intellect in your fog-filled chimp brain to respond to any of this. As you never have done before, it would certainly be surprising if you did.”
Yes, it would be surprising if anyone responded. Most people have better things to do.
June 27, 2011, 7:33 pmnetdr:
Pauld
I agree ignore the phony and he will go away.
It is no fun to spout hatred when no one responds.
June 27, 2011, 8:24 pmGrateful:
Thank you, Warren. I enjoyed the presentation. I can report to you that every day people I know are jumping off the CAGW alarmism band wagon. This is thanks to the dissemination of information that exposes the flaws and weaknesses of the CAGW alarmist argument by persons such as yourself. Thank you and well done.
June 27, 2011, 8:25 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm
While natural forcings can account for much of the early 20th Century warming, humans played a role as well. Additionally, the early century warming wasn’t as large or rapid as the late century warming, to which these natural factors did not contribute in any significant amount.
But more importantly, we don’t assume that the current warming is caused by humans because it’s “unprecedented” or faster and larger than previous natural warming events. We know the current warming is anthropogenic because that’s what the physical evidence tells us.
################
Net and I have talked about this before. I’ve always made the case that co2 is in balance with all the other forcings.
June 27, 2011, 8:38 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm
Although there was a significant increase in global temperature in the early 20th Century, the rate of warming from 1910 to 1940 was lower than the rate of warming from 1975 to 2005, at about 1.3 vs. 1.8°C per century, respectively. That being said, it’s worth taking a look at what caused the early century warming. Several different factors contributed.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-1860-1880-and-1910-1940.htm
############################
The second site lists the warming per century rates of the different warming periods.
June 27, 2011, 8:45 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm
Carbon Dioxide
Although humans were not burning very large amounts of fossil fuels or emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the early 20th Century, relative to the late century, CO2 emissions were non-negligible and did play a role in the early century warming.
From 1900 to 1940, atmospheric CO2 levels increased from approximately 295 to 310 parts per million by volume (ppmv). The equilibrium temperature change caused by this increase in CO2 is the climate sensitivity (λ) multiplied by the radiative forcing, which is approximately 5.35 times the natural log of the change in CO2 (Myhre 1998):
The best estimate for the climate sensitivity parameter is 0.8 (Wm-2K-1).
((((((((Thus at equilibrium, this CO2 change would be expected to cause a 0.22°C increase in the average global surface air temperature.))))))))
########################
So Warren Meyers has claimed that the scientists are overestimating climate sensitivity. It appears that the climate sensitivity is right on track for 1910 to 1940.
June 27, 2011, 9:05 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm
Meehl et al. (2004) plots the estimated anthropogenic contribution to temperature change in Figure 1 below. Most of the anthropogenic influence comes from CO2.
Figure 1: Climate model results from anthropogenic forcings compared to observations (black line). The red line is the average of the four-member ensemble. The pink shading is the model range. The blue line is the ensemble mean and the light blue shading is the ensemble range.
((((((As you can see, the best estimate of the anthropogenic contribution to the 1910-1940 warming is approximately 0.1 to 0.15°C.)))))))
#############
This would be from the thermal lag of the oceans.
#############
This is smaller than the value we calculated above because the planet is not immediately in equilibrium. Much of the energy imbalance goes into the oceans, causing what’s known as the “ocean lag” due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. The same lag effect applies to natural forcings.
June 27, 2011, 9:12 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm
Conclusion
The “skeptic” logic behind this argument is usually that if the early 20th Century warming was as large as the late century warming, and was natural, then the current warming could be natural as well (note that we’ve discussed the mid-century cooling elsewhere).
Ultimately while natural forcings can account for much of the early 20th Century warming, humans played a role as well. Additionally, the early century warming wasn’t as large or rapid as the late century warming, to which these natural factors did not contribute in any significant amount.
But more importantly, we don’t assume that the current warming is caused by humans because it’s “unprecedented” or faster and larger than previous natural warming events. We know the current warming is anthropogenic because that’s what the physical evidence tells us.
###############################################
This is a very well put together explanation of the early climate in the beginning of the last century. There is more details to read through that I haven’t covered.
June 27, 2011, 9:23 pmRenewable Guy:
NetDr:
Second of all the only period of “anthropogenic global warming” is 1978 to 1998.
################
2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on the temperature history. I don’t believe the warming has stopped as some would like to think.
2005 and 2010 are tied for the hottest years on record. Oceans are gin
June 27, 2011, 9:28 pmRenewable Guy:
Oceans are gaining in heat content as measured by the argo buoys.
Made a keyboard fumble.
June 27, 2011, 9:29 pmRenewable Guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg
Radiative forcing from the many different components that balance to give us our climate. The Anthropogenic portion is positive even within the range of uncertainty.
June 27, 2011, 9:38 pmJohn Moore:
Renewable guy seems to be arguing with himself. No serious skeptic doubts the basic equilibrium equation – the issue is the feedback. I have seen nothing in these comments that comes close to supporting the 4x or so feedback numbers of the alarmists.
In fact, the alarmist camp has done so badly that they’ve had to find another drum to beat – so they are claiming the excess CO2 is poisoning the oceans.
They’ll always have something to use as an excuse to hinder human progress.
June 27, 2011, 10:56 pmBooker:
I just finished reading the last thread where Renewable Guy was repeatedly trying to make the same invalid points, ignoring what other people were saying to him, until he was finally put in his place on Hansen’s “predictions”. I go into this new thread and lo and behold, here he is again. Sigh.
June 27, 2011, 11:13 pmpauld:
Renewable says: “Oceans are gaining in heat content as measured by the argo buoys.”
June 28, 2011, 3:22 amI would like to see your source for this. I am not sure of the exact date, but Argo data started sometime in the 2002 to 2004 range. The graph I have seen show that ocean heath content has been flat for the past 8 years or so.
pauld:
Renewable say, “2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on the temperature history. I don’t believe the warming has stopped as some would like to think. 2005 and 2010 are tied for the hottest years on record.”
Renewable: Go take a look at a temperature graph using any index you choose. As you look at it, ask yourself, how is it possible for the temperature trend since 2001 to be 0 or close to it and yet the decade of 2001 to 2010 is the warmest on record. If it is not immediately obvious as you gaze upon the graph, then think harder. It is important for you to understand this point, so don’t come back until you have completed this assignment.
June 28, 2011, 3:33 ampauld:
Renewable: The problem with your skeptical science site is that is very slanted and does not tell the full story.
June 28, 2011, 4:01 amFor example, consider the following response by Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). In case you don’t know, he is one of the major players on your side of the CAGW controversy.
This is from a BBC interview:
A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Booker:
@Renewable Guy:
Citing from your link:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm
“The ‘skeptic’ logic behind this argument is usually that if the early 20th Century warming was as large as the late century warming, and was natural, then the current warming could be natural as well (note that we’ve discussed the mid-century cooling elsewhere).
Ultimately while natural forcings can account for much of the early 20th Century warming, humans played a role as well. Additionally, the early century warming wasn’t as large or rapid as the late century warming, to which these natural factors did not contribute in any significant amount.”
The second paragraph presupposes that it has been unequivocally established that the warming in the early 20th Century happened because of the anthropogenic factor plus the natural factors cited in the link and nothing else. I fail to see how one can make such a statement given the current state of the our understanding of climate. The magnitude of factors such as cloud cover and aerosols are under debate, plausible ranges of values for climate sensitivity and a number of similar parameters are very wide, yet we are sure on exactly why the climate behaved the way it did some 70-100 years ago? Sorry, that’s just handwaving. Consequently, the skeptic’s argument in the first paragraph has not been countered.
June 28, 2011, 6:53 amPauld:
Renewable:
Here is a nice graph showing the ARGO data since it became operational in 2003 through 2011. http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0154331e7d65970c-pi
It shows a extremely small, statistically-insignificant positive trend–for all practical purposes no warming in the 8 years that ARGO data has been available.
The graphic also show that the projected warming from Hansen’s model. For present purpose, ignore that for the time being. What Hansen’s model projects for ocean warming is somewhat controversial and I don’t want to get bogged down in that debate.
The point I want to make is that the ARGO data shows that global warming has for all practical purposes stopped for the period 2003 to 2011. This is admittedly a relatively short period. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few years.
June 28, 2011, 7:01 amPauld:
Booker says:
“The second paragraph presupposes that it has been unequivocally established that the warming in the early 20th Century happened because of the anthropogenic factor plus the natural factors cited in the link and nothing else. I fail to see how one can make such a statement given the current state of the our understanding of climate. The magnitude of factors such as cloud cover and aerosols are under debate, plausible ranges of values for climate sensitivity and a number of similar parameters are very wide, yet we are sure on exactly why the climate behaved the way it did some 70-100 years ago?”
Just to provide some support for this, here is what the IPCC AR4 says:
June 28, 2011, 7:24 am“Detection and attribution as well as modelling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th-century warming than the recent warming. A number of studies detect a significant natural contribution to early 20th-century warming (Tett et al., 2002; Stott et al., 2003b; Nozawa et al., 2005; Shiogama et al., 2006). Some studies find a greater role for solar forcing than other forcings before 1950 (Stott et al., 2003b), although one detection study finds a roughly equal role for solar and volcanic forcing (Shiogama et al., 2006), and others find that volcanic forcing (Hegerl et al., 2003, 2007) or a substantial contribution from natural internal variability (Tett et al., 2002; Hegerl et al., 2007) could be important. There could also be an early expression of greenhouse warming in the early 20th century (Tett et al., 2002; Hegerl et al., 2003, 2007).”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-5.html
Renewable Guy:
Pauld:
Renewable:
Here is a nice graph showing the ARGO data since it became operational in 2003 through 2011. http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0154331e7d65970c-pi
########################
The amount of energy it takes to heat water for a given temperature rise is much higher than the air. If you could calculate energy content, it would be substantial.
The earth’s energy content is increasing by 4 hiroshima bombs per second.
June 28, 2011, 7:40 amRenewable Guy:
Booker:
The second paragraph presupposes that it has been unequivocally established that the warming in the early 20th Century happened because of the anthropogenic factor plus the natural factors cited in the link and nothing else. I fail to see how one can make such a statement given the current state of the our understanding of climate. The magnitude of factors such as cloud cover and aerosols are under debate, plausible ranges of values for climate sensitivity and a number of similar parameters are very wide, yet we are sure on exactly why the climate behaved the way it did some 70-100 years ago? Sorry, that’s just handwaving. Consequently, the skeptic’s argument in the first paragraph has not been countered.
#############
If the earth’s temperature is increasing, and it is, then negative feedbacks are constrained to be less than the positive feedbacks. Below is a link on cloud feedback.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-positive-outlook-for-clouds.html
June 28, 2011, 7:46 amPauld:
Renewable says: “The amount of energy it takes to heat water for a given temperature rise is much higher than the air. If you could calculate energy content, it would be substantial.”
Take a look at the graph. The vertical axis shows “gigajoules per meter 2″ Joules is a unit of “energy”
June 28, 2011, 8:01 amPauld:
“If the earth’s temperature is increasing, and it is, then negative feedbacks are constrained to be less than the positive feedbacks.”
June 28, 2011, 8:03 amNo temperature is a function of forcings and feedbacks.
Booker:
Renewable Guy:
“If the earth’s temperature is increasing, and it is, then negative feedbacks are constrained to be less than the positive feedbacks.”
Let’s say the earth temperature is increasing. Are you saying that this proves that the combined magnitude of effects from cloud cover and aerosols is less than the magnitude of the warming induced by anthropogenic CO2?
June 28, 2011, 8:11 amRenewable Guy:
PaulD:
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
#################################
I’ve presented an analysis of the period. WIth more understanding, the statement may not be all that different from what I have presented. What differences would we be talking about? This is kind of a vague thing to talk about.
June 28, 2011, 8:18 amRenewable Guy:
Booker:
Renewable Guy:
“If the earth’s temperature is increasing, and it is, then negative feedbacks are constrained to be less than the positive feedbacks.”
Let’s say the earth temperature is increasing. Are you saying that this proves that the combined magnitude of effects from cloud cover and aerosols is less than the magnitude of the warming induced by anthropogenic CO2?
###############
Cloud cover is showing to be a pos feedback with increasing temperature. Cloud cover decreases, allowing more sunlight to get through. The IRIS effect that Dr. Lindzen has talked about, is not bearing out.
June 28, 2011, 8:21 amPauld:
Renewable: The problem with your skeptical science website is that it present the skeptical side in a very cusory and unsophisticated manner without any citations to the literature and then present the CAGW with journal citations, as if that settled the matter. Missing is any discussion of the skeptical response. The site implies that the skeptics have no response. This is false. The IPCC says there is a great deal of uncertainty in cloud feedbacks for a reason. The issue is far from settled.
June 28, 2011, 8:24 amRenewable Guy:
Pauld:
“If the earth’s temperature is increasing, and it is, then negative feedbacks are constrained to be less than the positive feedbacks.”
No temperature is a function of forcings and feedbacks.
###########################
June 28, 2011, 8:29 amI’ll let you back that one up.
Booker:
Renewable Guy:
“Cloud cover is showing to be a pos feedback with increasing temperature.”
Wait, wait, wait. So, is cloud cover a net positive feedback or a net negative feedback? Can you answer this with certainty?
June 28, 2011, 8:30 amRenewable Guy:
Pauld:
Renewable: The problem with your skeptical science website is that it present the skeptical side in a very cusory and unsophisticated manner without any citations to the literature and then present the CAGW with journal citations, as if that settled the matter. Missing is any discussion of the skeptical response. The site implies that the skeptics have no response. This is false. The IPCC says there is a great deal of uncertainty in cloud feedbacks for a reason. The issue is far from settled.
###################################
I spent a great deal of time on reading cloud feedbacks. It is still uncertain but with preliminary observations showing some pos feedback. That is Dr Andrew Dessler’s paper. 20 years out we will be able to say with more certainty what it is. But even with observations, as temperature increases, cloud cover decreases.
June 28, 2011, 8:33 amPauld:
“I’ve presented an analysis of the period. WIth more understanding, the statement may not be all that different from what I have presented. What differences would we be talking about? This is kind of a vague thing to talk about.”
Whether the periods are similar or not depends, in part, on how one defines the period. The trends are sensitive to the year one chooses as the starting and ending point. It also depends on which temperature index one uses. Finally, there is statistical uncertainty associated with any trend no matter what period or index one uses.
June 28, 2011, 8:35 amJones states his conclusion precisely. There is no statistical difference between the trends in the periods he defines. He describes the temperature index he uses. I don’t understand why you think his analysis is vague.
Pauld:
“But even with observations, as temperature increases, cloud cover decreases.”
You obviously are not familiar with Dr. Spencer’s position regarding this very issue. It is not clear whether temperature increases cause decreased cloud cover or whether decreased cloud cover causes temperature increases.
June 28, 2011, 8:38 amBooker:
Renewable Guy:
“I spent a great deal of time on reading cloud feedbacks. It is still uncertain but with preliminary observations showing some pos feedback. That is Dr Andrew Dessler’s paper. 20 years out we will be able to say with more certainty what it is.”
So, this is uncertain (although, of course, scientists have some ideas and theories, Dessler – his, and other scientists – theirs). This is what I was saying. Ditto everything else.
June 28, 2011, 8:54 amBooker:
Do you agree then with what I said earlier as regards your skeptical science link?
The second paragraph presupposes that it has been unequivocally established that the warming in the early 20th Century happened because of the anthropogenic factor plus the natural factors cited in the link and nothing else. I fail to see how one can make such a statement given the current state of our understanding of climate. The magnitude of factors such as cloud cover and aerosols are under debate, plausible ranges of values for climate sensitivity and a number of similar parameters are very wide, yet we are sure on exactly why the climate behaved the way it did some 70-100 years ago? Sorry, that’s just handwaving. Consequently, the skeptic’s argument in the first paragraph has not been countered.
June 28, 2011, 8:57 amPauld:
I said, “No temperature is a function of forcings and feedbacks.
You said, “I’ll let you back that one up.”
My statement is self-evident. CO2 is a positive forcing. Solar radiation is a positive forcing. Some aerosals are positive forcings,some are negative forcings. Are you suggesting that temperature is not effected by any of these forcings?
Feedbacks are the climate system’s response to these forcings. Changes in water vapor, cloud coverage, precipitation are examples of feedbacks.
Temperatures are a function of forcings and feedbacks. With which part do you disagree?
June 28, 2011, 8:59 amRenewable Guy:
Booker:
Renewable Guy:
“I spent a great deal of time on reading cloud feedbacks. It is still uncertain but with preliminary observations showing some pos feedback. That is Dr Andrew Dessler’s paper. 20 years out we will be able to say with more certainty what it is.”
So, this is uncertain (although, of course, scientists have some ideas and theories, Dessler – his, and other scientists – theirs). This is what I was saying. Ditto everything else.
############################################
NOt so. Dessler data based observations of earth’s cloud cover showed pos feedback. There is a very good chance that the next 20 years will bear out his first 10.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101209141231.htm
June 28, 2011, 2:07 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm
The equation which is a graphic won’t copy over. The first equation under carbon dioxide.
Forcing and feedback affect temperature. How can it not?
#######################################
Pauld:
((((((((I said, “No temperature is a function of forcings and feedbacks.))))))
You said, “I’ll let you back that one up.”
My statement is self-evident. CO2 is a positive forcing. Solar radiation is a positive forcing. Some aerosals are positive forcings,some are negative forcings. Are you suggesting that temperature is not effected by any of these forcings?
Feedbacks are the climate system’s response to these forcings. Changes in water vapor, cloud coverage, precipitation are examples of feedbacks.
((((((((Temperatures are a function of forcings and feedbacks.))))))) With which part do you disagree?
###############################
June 28, 2011, 2:18 pmI have your statements in parenthesis.
I’m either misundersatanding what you are saying or you are contradicting yourself.
Renewable Guy:
Figure 5: Climate model results from all natural forcings compared to observations (black line).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm
Booker:
Natural forcings were looked at. How deep we want to go will take some time to look into the uncertainty of that time period.
The co2 only went from 295 to 310. Other factors if you read the whole article were looked at.
June 28, 2011, 2:24 pmRenewable Guy:
Pauld:
“But even with observations, as temperature increases, cloud cover decreases.”
You obviously are not familiar with Dr. Spencer’s position regarding this very issue. It is not clear whether temperature increases cause decreased cloud cover or whether decreased cloud cover causes temperature increases.
########################################
I’ve read a little of Dr. Spencer’s writings. When it comes to Spencer’s writing I always have to check which hat he has on. Is it his denial hat or his scientist hat. The guy plays both sides of the fence.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/internal-variability.htm
Spencer’s Hypothesis
Dr. Roy Spencer has proposed a hypothesis whereby some unknown internal mechanism causes cloud cover to change, which in turn changes the reflectivity (albedo) of the planet, thus causing warming or cooling. Spencer also attributes most of the global warming over the past century to this “internal radiative forcing.” There are some significant flaws in this hypothesis. For one thing, it fails to explain many of the observed “fingerprints” of human-caused global warming, such as the cooling upper atmosphere (stratosphere and above) and the higher rate of warming at night than during the day.
In order for internal variability to account for the global warming over the past century (especially over the past 40 years), it requires that the large greenhouse gas radiative forcing can’t have much effect on global temperatures. For this to be true, climate sensitivity must be low. But as discussed in Swanson et al. (2009), if climate is more sensitive to internal variability than currently thought, this would also mean climate is more sensitive to external forcings, including CO2. This is a Catch-22 for Spencer’s hypothesis; it effectively requires that climate sensitivity is simultaneously both low and high.
Dr. Andrew Dessler published a study (Dessler 2010) which casts further doubt on Spencer’s hypothesis, as detailed in an email exchange between the two scientists. In short, Dessler argues that cloud cover change is a feedback to a radiative forcing, for example increasing greenhouse gases, while Spencer argues that clouds are changing due to some other, unknown cause, and acting as a forcing themselves. Unlike Spencer, Dessler explains the mechanism and supporting evidence behind his cloud feedback research:
“My cloud feedback calculation is supported by a firm causal link: ENSO causes surface temperature variations which causes cloud changes. This is supported by the iron triangle of observations, theory, and climate models.”
June 28, 2011, 2:33 pmRenewable Guy:
Booker:
Renewable Guy:
“Cloud cover is showing to be a pos feedback with increasing temperature.”
Wait, wait, wait. So, is cloud cover a net positive feedback or a net negative feedback? Can you answer this with certainty?
##########################
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm#Cloud cover effects on climate
There is a graph of cloud cover versus temperature in this link. Cloud cover decreases with temperature giving us a pos feedback. Decreasing cloud cover allows more sunlight to hit the earth.
June 28, 2011, 2:41 pmRenewable Guy:
Pauld:
Renewable: The problem with your skeptical science website is that it present the skeptical side in a very cusory and unsophisticated manner without any citations to the literature and then present the CAGW with journal citations, as if that settled the matter. Missing is any discussion of the skeptical response. The site implies that the skeptics have no response. This is false. The IPCC says there is a great deal of uncertainty in cloud feedbacks for a reason. The issue is far from settled.
###########################
I have just been reading about cloud feedback new observations in just the last year or so. The IPCC would not of known about it then.
June 28, 2011, 2:43 pmRenewable Guy:
Pauld:
Renewable says: “The amount of energy it takes to heat water for a given temperature rise is much higher than the air. If you could calculate energy content, it would be substantial.”
Take a look at the graph. The vertical axis shows “gigajoules per meter 2″ Joules is a unit of “energy”
#######################################
You are right, that was my mistake. Just by eyeball there is a 20 to 1 ratio of ocean to land and atmosphere heating difference. Once the ocean is heated up, we are stuck with it for thousands of years.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=4
June 28, 2011, 2:52 pmRenewable Guy:
Booker:
Renewable Guy:
“If the earth’s temperature is increasing, and it is, then negative feedbacks are constrained to be less than the positive feedbacks.”
Let’s say the earth temperature is increasing. Are you saying that this proves that the combined magnitude of effects from cloud cover and aerosols is less than the magnitude of the warming induced by anthropogenic CO2?
###############################
Pos forcing outweighs negative forcings.
1910 to 1940 solar slightly increased
co2 also increased
and the temperature increased.
This is just off the top of my head. There are other factors. If aeorosols became dominant say like during a volcano, then the temperature falls. Mt Pinatubo comes to mind.
June 28, 2011, 3:08 pmpauld:
Renewable: I just don’t find anything on skeptical science to be very convincing because it does not fully present both sides of the debate. It always ends with the CAGW rebuttal and never discusses the skeptic’s surrerebutal. It thereby creates the illusion that controversial topics have been satisfactorily resolved in favor of CAGW. That is why I don’t find its discussion of Spencer to be helpful. You need to read wider if you really want to understand the controversy.
June 28, 2011, 3:47 pmpauld:
Renewable: Did you actually read the article you cited, that is: http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm#Cloud
It makes many important points that support skeptics. I would have recommended the article, if you hadn’t already done so.
June 28, 2011, 3:57 pmRenewable Guy:
pauld:
Renewable say, “2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on the temperature history. I don’t believe the warming has stopped as some would like to think. 2005 and 2010 are tied for the hottest years on record.”
Renewable: Go take a look at a temperature graph using any index you choose. As you look at it, ask yourself, how is it possible for the temperature trend since 2001 to be 0 or close to it and yet the decade of 2001 to 2010 is the warmest on record. If it is not immediately obvious as you gaze upon the graph, then think harder. It is important for you to understand this point, so don’t come back until you have completed this assignment.
################################
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.gif
It looks like a steady climb to me.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.gif
Both seem to show a general climb upwards
June 28, 2011, 4:06 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
July 28, 2010
State of the Climate in 2009: Report Cover.
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.
#########################################
I don’t know there this flast warming is coming from?
June 28, 2011, 4:10 pmRenewable Guy:
pauld:
Renewable: I just don’t find anything on skeptical science to be very convincing because it does not fully present both sides of the debate. It always ends with the CAGW rebuttal and never discusses the skeptic’s surrerebutal. It thereby creates the illusion that controversial topics have been satisfactorily resolved in favor of CAGW. That is why I don’t find its discussion of Spencer to be helpful. You need to read wider if you really want to understand the controversy.
########################################
Where do you find such sites?
There is established science and then there is uncertain science. The idea that we will warm is certain. How fast and when is uncertain.
There is community science agreement on climate sensitivity to be around 3 deg C for a doubling of co2 in the atmosphere. Climate sceptics and deniers are trying to discredit this. Plus there is an organized campaign of confusion of which Spencer is a part of.
June 28, 2011, 4:43 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=25
I was wondering where this flattening out was coming from. Nasa includes the artic in its data set while Hadcrut does not. The artic has the fastest warming on the planet.
June 28, 2011, 5:03 pmpauld:
“Plus there is an organized campaign of confusion of which Spencer is a part of.”
Please provide your evidence for this assertion.
“Where do you find such sites?” There are lots of them. For starters, I would recommend Judith Curry’s site http://judithcurry.com/ and Roger Pielke, Sr. , http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/ Roger Pielke, Jr is also pretty good and you can find his site fairly easily with google.
June 28, 2011, 5:23 pmRenewable Guy:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-don-easterbrook.html
Figure 1: Easterbrook’s global temperature projections (Source)
This looked similar to what the blogger Warren Meyers was writing about. Looking at the past in terms of warming and cooling periods. What comes to mind is I’ve been asked all kinds of questions about the view of climate warming I have presented.
At the link above Don Easterbrook has presented his view of how the climate will cool. Dana Nuticelli attempts to understand what D.E. is doing. Strangely enough D.E.’s model is not based on physics.
Table 1: Average values for PDO, AMO, and sunspot number during Easterbrook’s chosen timeframes.
Reading through the comments section Easterbrook’s assumptions cannot explain past climates before 1850.
Somehow all kinds of skepticism for the real science and total faith in the bogus science by some of the people.
June 28, 2011, 5:54 pmRenewable Guy:
pauld:
“Plus there is an organized campaign of confusion of which Spencer is a part of.”
Please provide your evidence for this assertion.
“Where do you find such sites?” There are lots of them. For starters, I would recommend Judith Curry’s site http://judithcurry.com/ and Roger Pielke, Sr. , http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/ Roger Pielke, Jr is also pretty good and you can find his site fairly easily with google.
##############################################
I thought you were talking about balance.
I am reading Warren Meyers though. I’ve seen some whacky stuff out of Judith Curry.
June 28, 2011, 7:11 pmpauld:
I also read the other side such as RealClimate. One difference between this site and realclimate is that the comments here are not censored.
I am curious what it is you describe as “some of the whacky stuff out of Judith Curry”? I suggested her because she is willing to be critical of the IPCC, but is still hardly what I would view as a strong skeptic. She is the chair of the department of atmospheric sciences at Georgia Tech so she has credible academic credentials. Although I don’t always agree with her, I have always thought her posts were well-written and thoroughly documented. I think she runs circles around John Cook.
Pielke Sr. is one of the most published climate scientists in the world. His views defy the “black and white” categories that so pervade this debate. He is willing to seriously criticize the IPCC when he thinks it is off-base.
I find it amazing that the CAGW have attacked both Curry and Pielke, Sr. with such acrimony. I think that they present very thoughtful challenges to the IPCC crowd and that is what good scientists should do.
I am still waiting for your evidence that Spencer is part of an organized campaign of confusion.
June 28, 2011, 8:09 pmBooker:
Renewable Guy:
You have a strange manner of talking. You aren’t answering direct questions, continuously bringing up tangential topics, contradicting yourself and whatnot.
As just one example:
Your link stated: “The ‘skeptic’ logic [...] is usually that if the early 20th Century warming was as large as the late century warming, and was natural, then the current warming could be natural as well [...]. Ultimately while natural forcings can account for much of the early 20th Century warming, humans played a role as well. Additionally, the early century warming wasn’t as large or rapid as the late century warming, to which these natural factors did not contribute in any significant amount.”
I replied to that: “The second paragraph presupposes that it has been unequivocally established that the warming in the early 20th Century happened because of the anthropogenic factor plus the natural factors cited in the link and nothing else. I fail to see how one can make such a statement given the current state of the our understanding of climate. The magnitude of factors such as cloud cover and aerosols are under debate, plausible ranges of values for climate sensitivity and a number of similar parameters are very wide, yet we are sure on exactly why the climate behaved the way it did some 70-100 years ago? Sorry, that’s just handwaving. Consequently, the skeptic’s argument in the first paragraph has not been countered.”
To which your answer was: “If the earth’s temperature is increasing, and it is, then negative feedbacks are constrained to be less than the positive feedbacks. Below is a link on cloud feedback.”
Huh? Instead of addressing my point you made a strange statement (I asked you about it and you failed to clarify) and said something about clouds.
Even more blatant:
You then started talking about clouds, and said: “Cloud cover is showing to be a pos feedback with increasing temperature.”
I asked you to clarify what you think are the extents of our current knowledge: “So, is cloud cover a net positive feedback or a net negative feedback? Can you answer this with certainty?”
You replied: “I spent a great deal of time on reading cloud feedbacks. It is still uncertain but with preliminary observations showing some pos feedback. That is Dr Andrew Dessler’s paper. 20 years out we will be able to say with more certainty what it is.”
Good, I can agree with it. I repeat: “So, this is uncertain …”
But apparently you don’t agree. You say: “Not so. Dessler data based observations of earth’s cloud cover showed pos feedback.”
I am at a loss. So, which is it? Has it been established with certainty that effects from clouds on temperature are net positive? Yes or no? Sigh.
You constantly wiggle. Whenever you are asked a direct question, you work hard trying to avoid answering it. When you do answer, you change your mind a post or two later. Sorry, I have better uses of my time than to talk to you.
June 28, 2011, 10:02 pmBooker:
Just found this new gem:
Argument: “The second paragraph presupposes that it has been unequivocally established that the warming in the early 20th Century happened because of the anthropogenic factor plus the natural factors cited in the link and nothing else. I fail to see how one can make such a statement given the current state of the our understanding of climate.”
‘Counter’ by Renewable Guy: “Natural forcings were looked at. How deep we want to go will take some time to look into the uncertainty of that time period. The co2 only went from 295 to 310. Other factors if you read the whole article were looked at.”
Renewable, if you don’t understand the argument, don’t bother replying.
June 28, 2011, 10:08 pmBooker:
And this:
Renewable Guy: “If the earth’s temperature is increasing, and it is, then negative feedbacks are constrained to be less than the positive feedbacks.”
Request for clarification: “Let’s say the earth temperature is increasing. Are you saying that this proves that the combined magnitude of effects from cloud cover and aerosols is less than the magnitude of the warming induced by anthropogenic CO2?”
‘Clarification’ by Renewable Guy: “Pos forcing outweighs negative forcings. 1910 to 1940 solar slightly increased. co2 also increased. and the temperature increased.”
What??
No, really, Renewable Guy, I am done talking to you. That’s just a waste of time.
June 28, 2011, 10:14 pmRenewable Guy:
Booker:
And this:
Renewable Guy: “If the earth’s temperature is increasing, and it is, then negative feedbacks are constrained to be less than the positive feedbacks.”
Request for clarification: “Let’s say the earth temperature is increasing. Are you saying that this proves that the combined magnitude of effects from cloud cover and aerosols is less than the magnitude of the warming induced by anthropogenic CO2?”
‘Clarification’ by Renewable Guy: “Pos forcing outweighs negative forcings. 1910 to 1940 solar slightly increased. co2 also increased. and the temperature increased.”
What??
No, really, Renewable Guy, I am done talking to you. That’s just a waste of time.
#################################################
That’s the reason the sceptics (deniers) loose the argument. They run away. I have given an explanation prepared by a person who reads the science.
The person or persons with the best explanation wins.
June 29, 2011, 4:32 amRenewable Guy:
Booker:
Just found this new gem:
Argument: “The second paragraph presupposes that it has been unequivocally established that the warming in the early 20th Century happened because of the anthropogenic factor plus the natural factors cited in the link and nothing else. I fail to see how one can make such a statement given the current state of the our understanding of climate.”
‘Counter’ by Renewable Guy: “Natural forcings were looked at. How deep we want to go will take some time to look into the uncertainty of that time period. The co2 only went from 295 to 310. Other factors if you read the whole article were looked at.”
Renewable, if you don’t understand the argument, don’t bother replying.
###################################################
My point of view of you is that you aren’t entering into the argument in depth. Which is ok.
Science has reached a reasonably deep level of understanding of the climate.
June 29, 2011, 4:36 amRenewable Guy:
To which your answer was: “If the earth’s temperature is increasing, and it is, then negative feedbacks are constrained to be less than the positive feedbacks. Below is a link on cloud feedback.”
Huh? Instead of addressing my point you made a strange statement (I asked you about it and you failed to clarify) and said something about clouds.
######################################################
Denier explanations are even less so.
YOu are welcome to come up with a better explanation than I have. I am an armchair climatologist in my living room.
June 29, 2011, 4:42 amWHile you are embracing AGW is not a problem, it pretty much relegates you to denier sites and their explanations.
Renewable Guy:
But apparently you don’t agree. You say: “Not so. Dessler data based observations of earth’s cloud cover showed pos feedback.”
I am at a loss. So, which is it? Has it been established with certainty that effects from clouds on temperature are net positive? Yes or no? Sigh.
You constantly wiggle. Whenever you are asked a direct question, you work hard trying to avoid answering it. When you do answer, you change your mind a post or two later. Sorry, I have better uses of my time than to talk to you.
##################################################
There is uncertainty in all of science. I don’t have a link to explain uncertainty in all of science. Within the bounds of some areas of uncertainty, for instance adding more co2 to our biosphere, it is very clear what will be the consequences.
Cloud cover has higher uncertainty than above, and yet there is a trend. It has not been observed yet, because the recent satellites have not been in space that long.
June 29, 2011, 4:49 amRenewable Guy:
PaulD:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/11/11/207018/judith-curry-climate-science/
I am curious what it is you describe as “some of the whacky stuff out of Judith Curry”? I suggested her because she is willing to be critical of the IPCC, but is still hardly what I would view as a strong skeptic. She is the chair of the department of atmospheric sciences at Georgia Tech so she has credible academic credentials. Although I don’t always agree with her, I have always thought her posts were well-written and thoroughly documented. I think she runs circles around John Cook.
####################################
I’m more aware of her crap.
June 29, 2011, 4:56 amRenewable Guy:
pauld:
“Plus there is an organized campaign of confusion of which Spencer is a part of.”
Please provide your evidence for this assertion.
######################
http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer
Spencer is involved in the denial circuits. I’ve noticed he plays both sides of the fence. He is actively trying to confuse things and yet act like a scientist another time.
June 29, 2011, 5:00 amPauld:
Renewable Guy: Desmogblog is engaged in a smear campaign that is pathetic. It is hardly surprising that Spencer has written articles or served in some undefined “expert” capacity for think tanks that take a sceptical view of CAGW. It is also not surprising that such think tank would receive money from energy companies. The leap in logic is that Spencer has compromised his integrity and is misrepresenting science because of any of this. Missing is any evidence to support such an inference.
June 29, 2011, 6:22 amParticularly ludicrous is this statement, “Spencer, along with another well-known “skeptic,” John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere”
This is no secret. Spencer made a technical mistake, admitted it and took action to correct it. Isn’t that what good scientists do? The mistake was that they had not corrected for the orbital drift of the satellites. The problem of orbital drift is frequently discussed on his website
I also find particularly obnoxious the criticism of his religious views. Scientists aren’t allowed to be Christians?
Other actions such as writing books with which other scientists disagree is hardly a crime.
Still waiting to hear about the whacky stuff from Judith Curry?
Pauld:
Oh, I see you did provide your evidence on Curry. Renewable: Did you really find the diatribe to be convincing. You need to read more broadly. Joe Romm is one of the most unhinged players in this entire debate. Read Judith Curry’s own website and then compare it to the reckless ramblings of Romm. If you can’t tell the difference, and who is the more credible, then I see little hope for you.
June 29, 2011, 6:29 amPauld:
“That’s the reason the sceptics (deniers) loose the argument. They run away. I have given an explanation prepared by a person who reads the science.
The person or persons with the best explanation wins.”
Renewable: I have to agree with Booker. You are difficult to reason with because your responses are either largely irrelevant or incoherent. If you think you are winning any arguments here, I think that is an interesting perspective.
June 29, 2011, 6:55 amHerbert:
Oh, joy.
“I have given an explanation prepared by a person who reads the science.”
No, man, what you call an explanation didn’t answer the question.
It looks as if you have tried to look for an appropriate quote on your skepticalscience site, did not find anything suitable and decided to simply reiterate what the site was saying again.
June 29, 2011, 7:30 amPauld:
Renewable: On the post from Romm where he discusses Judith Curry he makes the following statement:
“Only three things in life are certain: Death, taxes, and the grim consequences humanity faces if we take no serious action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. Now that I think of it, though, lots people on this planet don’t pay taxes. I guess only two things are certain after all.”
I would agree that “death” is 100% certain. I am curious whether you agree with Romm that “the grim consequences humanity faces if we take no serious action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions” are 100% certain. Do you think this is a statement that a serious scientist would make?
June 29, 2011, 7:34 amI just happen to be reading a book that discusses the “Big Bang” theory that is supported by very convincing, multiple lines of empirical evidence. Yet I find this statement by Victor Stenger, a well-known physicist: “We have to leave open the possibility that the Big Bang could be wrong . . .”
Which attitude do you think is more consistent with science?
Renewable Guy:
Pauld:
Renewable Guy: Desmogblog is engaged in a smear campaign that is pathetic.
##############################
Desmogblog is telling the truth about Spencer. If you can’t see his behaviour, its more about your judgement than Desmogblog. Recieving money to help propaganda against climate science. Its as clear as it gets.
June 29, 2011, 9:17 amRenewable Guy:
Renewable: I have to agree with Booker. You are difficult to reason with because your responses are either largely irrelevant or incoherent
#######################
You are entitled to your judgment. But I can say the same about sceptic explanations of the climate. They fall apart on their own.
June 29, 2011, 9:23 amRenewable Guy:
Herbert:
Oh, joy.
“I have given an explanation prepared by a person who reads the science.”
No, man, what you call an explanation didn’t answer the question.
It looks as if you have tried to look for an appropriate quote on your skepticalscience site, did not find anything suitable and decided to simply reiterate what the site was saying again.
#######################
Be specific. That is very vague.
June 29, 2011, 9:24 amRenewable Guy:
I would agree that “death” is 100% certain. I am curious whether you agree with Romm that “the grim consequences humanity faces if we take no serious action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions” are 100% certain. Do you think this is a statement that a serious scientist would make?
#######################
Adding more co2 is a guaranteed increase in temperature and all the consequences that come with it.
June 29, 2011, 9:26 amPauld:
“Adding more co2 is a guaranteed increase in temperature and all the consequences that come with it.”
“Be specific. That is very vague.”
June 29, 2011, 10:05 amPauld:
Renewable says, “[Spencer] is recieving money to help propaganda against climate science. Its as clear as it gets.”
There is no evidence anywhere in Desmog’s webpage that Spencer has been given any grant money from anyone. It says:
“Spencer is listed as an author for the Heartland Institute, a US think tank that has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.”
“Spencer is listed as an “Expert” with the George C. Marshall Institute, a US think tank that has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.”
“Spencer is listed as an “expert” by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP). . . ICECAP was initially registered by a representative of the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), Joseph D’Aleo. SPPI is a prominent global warming denier group backed by the Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FoF). FoF has received over $1,272,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.”
“Listed as an author for Tech Central Station daily (TCS), an organization that until recently was owned and operated by a Republican lobby firm called DCI Group.”
There is no evidence that he has received any grant money from any of these organizations, let alone any money from one of their donors. For the record, Dr. Spencer says on his website says:
“Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/
The fact that Desmog trafficks in this type of pathetic innuendo says much about the credibility of the website.
June 29, 2011, 10:45 amMalcolm:
Renewable Guy, you do realize that CRU is partly funded by US DOE (Department of Energy)? That’s right up there with Exxon.
June 29, 2011, 11:22 amPauld:
Renewable says:
“I have your statements in parenthesis.
I’m either misundersatanding what you are saying or you are contradicting yourself.”
Here are my statements that you put in parenthesis:
((((((((I said, “No temperature is a function of forcings and feedbacks.))))))
((((((((Temperatures are a function of forcings and feedbacks.)))))))
Huh?
June 29, 2011, 11:32 amMalcolm:
Missed comma after “No” (should be “No, temperature is a function …”).
June 29, 2011, 1:29 pmsundevil:
A few comments about funding/associations:
How much have GE, BP, the former Enron, Exxon Mobil, etc, etc contributed to the pro-AGW camp? The answer is a lot and you don’t have to look hard to find out about it. What makes people think a company like Exxon Mobil would be so stupid as to only align itself with one side of this issue? Companies hedge and position themselves to win/make money. It is a Leftist canard that the Right is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big business/big oil.
As for the Skeptical Science website, I dismiss any statements that start with “The science says…” There is no such thing as THE Science. AGW Theory has plenty of problems and there are some interesting counter-theories that are slowly gaining ground, but you wouldn’t know it if you confine yourself to THE Science. The case for AGW is only getting weaker.
Having said all of this, I side with Mr. Meyer’s general assertion that CO2 is a warming agent, but its effects are exaggerated. The climate models are doctored up to generate hockey sticks given any random inputs and much of the science is based on nothing more than fear-mongering. It’s actually sad to see science used so poorly and in such an ideological manner.
June 29, 2011, 3:33 pmADiff:
“We have hundreds of millions of years of temperature data”. And what instruments was that data read from? The statement is obviously a falsehood. At best it’s just badly wrong. At worst it’s intentional deception.
What we have is millions of years of more or less hypothetical proxies for temperature, not the same thing as “temperature data” at all.
June 29, 2011, 4:21 pmADiff:
“Having said all of this, I side with Mr. Meyer’s general assertion that CO2 is a warming agent, but its effects are exaggerated. The climate models are doctored up to generate hockey sticks given any random inputs and much of the science is based on nothing more than fear-mongering. It’s actually sad to see science used so poorly and in such an ideological manner.”
Clearly an AGW model is being ‘firmed up’…and it certainly supports warming associated with CO2….but it more and more clearly does NOT support catastrophic change or catastrophic impacts from the CO2 contributed portion of warming (which may more often than not be subsumed by other factors). This is why the ASM has one conference, so advocates of AGW can present their finding, more or less as Science, and the Pew people, who are political, social and ideological advocates of one kind or another, have a SEPARATE conference to try to claim the Science supports their ‘scary stories’…which it generally does not. The pity is the gene pool is now so contaminated on the science side it’s often hard to see where the ideology ends and the science begins. The new result is Science itself must clearly be held suspect as it’s divorced itself from indifference in practice.
June 29, 2011, 4:27 pmRenewable Guy:
Spencer and the “Interfaith Stewardship Alliance”
Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including 6 that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years.
Satellite Research Refuted
According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known “skeptic,” John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth’s lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.
Spencer and the Heartland Institute
Spencer is listed as an author for the Heartland Institute, a US think tank that has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Heartland Institute has also received funding from Big Tobacco over the years and continues to make the claim that “anti-smoking advocates” are exaggerating the health threats of smoking.
Spencer and the George C. Marshall Institute
Spencer is listed as an “Expert” with the George C. Marshall Institute, a US think tank that has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Spencer and ICECAP
ICECAP was initially registered by a representative of the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), Joseph D’Aleo. SPPI is a prominent global warming denier group backed by the Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FoF). FoF has received over $1,272,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Spencer and Tech Central Station
Listed as an author for Tech Central Station daily (TCS), an organization that until recently was owned and operated by a Republican lobby firm called DCI Group.
#############################################
All those links and Spencer doesn’t take a dime of their money.
Do you see a conflict of interest here being so strongly connected to anticlimate groups and doing supposed climate science?
June 29, 2011, 7:30 pmRenewable Guy:
Malcolm:
Renewable Guy, you do realize that CRU is partly funded by US DOE (Department of Energy)? That’s right up there with Exxon.
################################
How so?
June 29, 2011, 7:32 pmRenewable Guy:
Pauld:
“Adding more co2 is a guaranteed increase in temperature and all the consequences that come with it.”
“Be specific. That is very vague.”
#########################################
Co2 is a GHG.
June 29, 2011, 7:34 pmRenewable Guy:
sundevil:
The case for AGW is only getting weaker.
##################################
How so? In your best science please.
June 29, 2011, 7:36 pmRenewable Guy:
sundevil:
Having said all of this, I side with Mr. Meyer’s general assertion that CO2 is a warming agent, but its effects are exaggerated. The climate models are doctored up to generate hockey sticks given any random inputs and much of the science is based on nothing more than fear-mongering. It’s actually sad to see science used so poorly and in such an ideological manner.
#################################
The deniers are nothing but a poor use of science.
Care to show what you are talking about.
June 29, 2011, 7:42 pmRenewable Guy:
ADiff:
“We have hundreds of millions of years of temperature data”. And what instruments was that data read from? The statement is obviously a falsehood. At best it’s just badly wrong. At worst it’s intentional deception.
What we have is millions of years of more or less hypothetical proxies for temperature, not the same thing as “temperature data” at all.
###############################################
Care to learn how they do it? It appears to be all opinion and no facts. No evidence behind what you are saying.
June 29, 2011, 7:47 pmpauld:
Renewable: I asked: ” I am curious whether you agree with Romm that “the grim consequences humanity faces if we take no serious action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions” are 100% certain. Do you think this is a statement that a serious scientist would make?”
So far, you have answered: “Adding more co2 is a guaranteed increase in temperature and all the consequences that come with it.”
When I suggested that this answer was rather vague and requested that you be specific, you elaborated, “Co2 is a GHG.”
Perhaps at some point, you could answer my question.
June 30, 2011, 12:00 ampauld:
Renewable says: “All those links and Spencer doesn’t take a dime of their money.
Do you see a conflict of interest here being so strongly connected to anticlimate groups and doing supposed climate science?”
1) Do you think it is unusual that a scientist would be affiliated with organizations that share his viewpoint?
2) It is up to Romm (or you) to demonstrate that Spencer is taking money from the organizations and that this somehow matters? No such evidence is presented, just innuendo. Spencer says that his research is sponsored by the government.
3) There is no evidence that Spencer is “strongly” affiliated with any of these organization and I don’t see any conflict of interest if he were.
June 30, 2011, 12:09 amChippas:
Renewable,
You make little sense. Why bother? By now you know these deniers are not going to change. The only reason I think you are doing this is because you get some enjoyment out of it. Life is too short to waste time preaching to the deaf, wouldn’t you agree?
But if you are having fun, then by all means…
June 30, 2011, 2:41 amRenewable Guy:
pauld:
Renewable says: “All those links and Spencer doesn’t take a dime of their money.
Do you see a conflict of interest here being so strongly connected to anticlimate groups and doing supposed climate science?”
1) Do you think it is unusual that a scientist would be affiliated with organizations that share his viewpoint?
2) It is up to Romm (or you) to demonstrate that Spencer is taking money from the organizations and that this somehow matters? No such evidence is presented, just innuendo. Spencer says that his research is sponsored by the government.
3) There is no evidence that Spencer is “strongly” affiliated with any of these organization and I don’t see any conflict of interest if he were.
#####################################################
You are missing the big picture here. These organizations don’t want the truth period.
If he is a consultant to them, then he is taking money. Consulting for free is highly unusal.
You haven’t stretched reality this much before. I’m surprised to see you in this position.
June 30, 2011, 4:36 amRenewable Guy:
pauld:
Renewable: I asked: ” I am curious whether you agree with Romm that “the grim consequences humanity faces if we take no serious action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions” are 100% certain. Do you think this is a statement that a serious scientist would make?”
So far, you have answered: “Adding more co2 is a guaranteed increase in temperature and all the consequences that come with it.”
When I suggested that this answer was rather vague and requested that you be specific, you elaborated, “Co2 is a GHG.”
Perhaps at some point, you could answer my question.
####################################################
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1831
We are just getting started. More extreme weather to come.
co2 regulates atmospheric vapor, and the atmospheric vapor carries latent heat into the storms adding energy to them. The more co2 the more atmospheric vapor.
June 30, 2011, 4:45 amADiff:
Huuummm, then why is it that the severity of storms, severity of droughts, number of storms, number of droughts, in fact every single measure of ‘extreme weather’ shows no significant change across the observable periods of warming? The data indicates:
Warming is moderate and slow, and does not vary directly with CO2 alone or predominantly
Warming has been occurring since the LIA and appears to be continuing, without dramatic acceleration
The change displays a consistent range of variation that appears across and throughout warming periods (and cooling periods, too)
Severity of weather, drought, and their frequency does not appear related to observed warming periods.
Ditto for fire, sea level, infectious disease (and vectors).
In short,
No catastrophe …
June 30, 2011, 11:41 amNo crisis …
No emergency …
ADiff:
Actually I know how it’s done, in some detail. That’s not even relevant, as you’d admit if you weren’t grinding an ideological axe. A Proxy is a proxy, not a temperature measurement, so save your breath about how the proxies work (or don’t, as the case may be…to some extent or other…). Good temperature DATA only goes back a hundred years or so, on a sparse and irregular basis. The quality of even that data is not continuously stable (re: ground stations). But at least it is data…unlike the more or less speculative proxy estimates of temperature, some of which aren’t too bad, other of which are very questionable, like many tree-ring proxies.
You seem to think your “issue” so important that your lying is justified, starting with to yourself….
June 30, 2011, 11:49 amADiff:
I trust Exxon a hell of lot more than DOE, and I’ve worked with both……
Exxon is a big company, but it only profits if people willingly buy its products… The DOE operates at the end of a gun, can force consumption of its ‘products’ and only has a single concern on Earth…the perpetuation, expansion and appropriations of DOE……
Given a choice of the two, I’ll take Exxon, at its self-serving worst, every day over the black-hearted bureaucracy of DOE.
June 30, 2011, 11:54 amMalcolm:
For Renewable Guy, on CRU and US DOE:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/21/us-doe-apparently-funded-cru-millions-not-200k-as-reported/
This cites Climategate emails and the website of CRU. All money leaving DOE are public record, so you should be able to verify the cited figures.
June 30, 2011, 1:57 pmpauld:
” I am curious whether you agree with Romm that “the grim consequences humanity faces if we take no serious action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions” are 100% certain.”
Renewable: why are you avoiding answering this question. Romm statement implies that just as it is 100% certain that everyone will die, it is 100% that humanity will face grim consequences if we take no serious action to curtail greenhouse gases.
The part of this statement that I am interesting in hearing your response is the part dealing with level of certainty with which Romm holds his view. The part where he equates the certainty of grim consequences with the certainty of death.
July 1, 2011, 10:16 amsundevil:
@Chippas:
Opinions is shifting toward the ‘denier’ side of the argument. If you cannot see that, I’m sorry to say that you are deluded. The inherent weaknesses of AGW theory are being formed into valid alternative explanations and more and more scientists are abandoning the AGW ship. At the very least, they are gravitating the weak-AGW theory (climate sensitivity is less than originally theorized).
@Renewable:
Public polling indicated AGW to be very very low on the list of people’s concerns. Temperatures are regressing to the mean as this main article notes. In the end, the public just isn’t buying the fear-mongering. As I said, man likely is contributing is some fashion, but “so, what?” is the public’s reaction, and so far, that reaction has proven to be prudent.
If you want to know more about how the climate models produce hockey sticks with random data, just Google it. Do your own research. It’s not hard to find and I’m not going to get into a battle of links. If you are truly intellectually honest, you’d look at the best arguments against your position and the possible corruption of the science you hold so dear. It seems obvious you don’t care and you just want to obfuscate things and re-define term so that, in your mind, you win the argument.
July 1, 2011, 2:52 pmRenewable Guy:
pauld:
” I am curious whether you agree with Romm that “the grim consequences humanity faces if we take no serious action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions” are 100% certain.”
Renewable: why are you avoiding answering this question. Romm statement implies that just as it is 100% certain that everyone will die, it is 100% that humanity will face grim consequences if we take no serious action to curtail greenhouse gases.
The part of this statement that I am interesting in hearing your response is the part dealing with level of certainty with which Romm holds his view. The part where he equates the certainty of grim consequences with the certainty of death.
############################################
I don’t know why you need 100%. WIth more co2 the temperatures will increase. Guaranteed.
The consequences Romm talks about of increased co2 are in line with the science of climatology.
I’ve learned correct climate science through Romm.
If this is proof that I’m hedging according to you then so be it. It’s your interpretation not mine.
July 1, 2011, 9:18 pmRenewable Guy:
sundevil:
If you want denier science then look no further than the NIPCC taking place in Washington DC. Talk about out of touch. Whacked out is more like it.
Science is self correcting, denier science just spreads confusion. Back to Spencer. He couldn’t get his book peer reviewed so he just skipped it. Lack of integrity is well rewarded on the denier side. Lies are highly appoved of and well paid for.
Doesn’t matter what the whole population believes. GHG’s do what they do. We will get warmer while you keep touting ice ideas with no basis in observation. Just a wing and prayer.
July 1, 2011, 9:28 pmRenewable Guy:
Malcolm:
For Renewable Guy, on CRU and US DOE:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/21/us-doe-apparently-funded-cru-millions-not-200k-as-reported/
This cites Climategate emails and the website of CRU. All money leaving DOE are public record, so you should be able to verify the cited figures.
#####################################################
Anthony is on another witch hunt.
July 1, 2011, 9:32 pmRenewable Guy:
ADiff:
I trust Exxon a hell of lot more than DOE, and I’ve worked with both
##################################
Since you don’t accept climate science, then your position would make sense. I don’t agree with you though.
I accept the IPCC as conservative in their forcasts and DOE’s purpose is to move on energy efficiency, cleaner energy generation, promoting cheaper and more abundant clean energy, support for clean energy projects.
That supports my thinking the whole way.
July 1, 2011, 9:36 pmRenewable Guy:
Adiff:
A Proxy is a proxy, not a temperature measurement, so save your breath about how the proxies work (or don’t, as the case may be…to some extent or other…).
######################################
From your statement you probably don’t give accurate balance to proxies, which would make sense to me since you are cynical about AGW.
Each proxie by itself could be vague, but if several proxies indicate the same trend, then they act as a group and strengthen the confidence in the questions being asked.
July 1, 2011, 9:43 pmRenewable Guy:
Adiff:
You seem to think your “issue” so important that your lying is justified, starting with to yourself….
##############################################
Interesting view you have of me.
CO2 regualtes the H2O in the atmosphere. H2O as so many deniers are fond of saying is the stronger ghg. The two work in concert and outdo the negative feedbacks.
IF I’m lying to myself on that one then so be it.
Then tell me Adiff, how is that a lie?
July 1, 2011, 9:49 pmRenewable Guy:
Adiff:
No catastrophe …
No crisis …
No emergency
I’ll pick one easy one that has human causation in it.
The record breaking tornado outbreak in the spring. According to DR Trenberth, the gulf of Mexico was 2 F above normal. 1F was natural variation and 1F was anthropogenic. That one degree puts extra mooisture in the air along with its associated latent heat. That extra energy went into the storms rolling through the United States. The extra water vapor landed in the midwest causing record floods.
There were a lot of other more extreme storms than normal all over the world.
As the earth heats up, more moisture comes into the air adding energy to whole weather system. That’s a given.
CO2 increases more moisture increases, more energy in storms, more ice melts from co2, sea levels rise,
Sea level rise will be trillions of dollars damage alone.
The investment of clean energy will bring the final average temp peak lower rather than a higher temp peak which would be destructive to our present society.
July 1, 2011, 10:02 pmRenewable Guy:
Sundevil:
If you want to know more about how the climate models produce hockey sticks with random data, just Google it. Do your own research. It’s not hard to find and I’m not going to get into a battle of links. If you are truly intellectually honest, you’d look at the best arguments against your position and the possible corruption of the science you hold so dear. It seems obvious you don’t care and you just want to obfuscate things and re-define term so that, in your mind, you win the argument.
#############################
You must prove science corrupt. Otherwise you are just being a rumor monger. The climategate has been cleared by several groups as the scientists are mostly pissed at deniers.
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html
I know you pretty much won’t watch these videos. There are 23 different lectures by a professor in climate. The students pay about 500 to a 1000 dollars for this class. Compare it to Anthony Watts if you want.
With this much co2 in the atmosphere, we are going to get much warmer than this. 300 years out we are looking at 15 feet sea level rise.
If you can’t accept the reality of this then come up science reasons why this is wrong. Corrupt science is a denier backed into a corner with no other explanation.
July 1, 2011, 10:12 pmintrepid_wanders:
(Golf Clap…)
Very nice Renewable Guy, for playing in an alley. But, that is how most cultists like to play. Since you estimate that most will not watch your suggested links; unless they are papers that have not been countered (you know, that science thing, where a theory can be countered with a dismissive thing).
Anyhow, regardless of the views here, level playing field and all, what is it that you propose? We have a CARBON-LESS tech called NUCLEAR, should we give it a go and convert our COAL over to NUCLEAR (Until all the “Wonderland Wind-Turbines and Solar” catch up (In the business world, we call that a “Stop-Gap”)?
July 2, 2011, 12:31 amkelly liddle:
Global Thermal Warming
The following study done by myself and assisted by a scientist is only to demonstrate that the warming can be mostly if not all explained by thermal emmissions or basically a large scale heat island study using energy use data. This is not intended to give any exact warming extent as average values are used and wind land cover etc are not taken into account (this is virtually impossible despite the claims of organisations such as NASA or CSIRO) Also the energy use is not constant and will have greater effects when weather is cold and heating is more widely used.
The energy use we shall use is the total annual use of fossil fuels and nuclear. These 2 energy sources are being released by humans.
Numbers used for calculations.
Area m2 is square metres
USA 9626091000000 m2
China 9596960000000 m2
France 547030000000 m2
Germany 357021000000 m2
United Kingdom 244820000000 m2
Planet Surface 510066000000000 m2
(Source : http://www.worldatlas.com)
Annual energy use based on energy use in 2009. Includes fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Does not include others such as wind solar biofuels geothermal or hydro.
Mtoe is Million tonnes or oil equivalent.
USA 2119.8 Mtoe
China 2037.7 Mtoe
France 228.8 Mtoe
Germany 285.6 Mtoe
United Kingdom 197.7 Mtoe
World 10424 Mtoe
(Source : Statistical review of world energy full report 2010 (Beyond Petroleum))
The following formula was used. It basically is working out the amount of energy in continuous watt output per hour per metre squared and then calculating out the expected change in temperature by using the average input of energy from the sun using Albedo and Suns energy per square according to NASA. This is not intended to give any accurate prediction but just a general prediction.
Mtoe* 11.63*1 000 000 000 000 (conversion of Mtoe to Watts)*0.7 (energy available as thermal energy)/365/24(conversion to Watt output per hour)/land area in square metres(to give energy output per square metre per hour)*Kelvin 287/342/.703(to give estimated temperature change where Kelvin 287 is earth average temperature 342 is available energy from sun and 0.703 is the amount available to the troposphere after the albedo)
After doing these calculations if the air never left the country and everything else such as albedo remained constant mentioned these would be the approximate temperature changes.
USA 0.24 degrees increase
China 0.23 ,,
France 0.46 ,,
Germany 0.88 ,,
United Kingdom 0.89 ,,
World 0.0224 ,,
Conclusions: If a climate model printout has not taken this into account the printouts highest value shall be the greater of the recycling price to the use as a biofuel (but watch out for the thermal emissions). Most fuel use is over land and in the northern hemisphere so this is where the expected highest results are likely. Anecdotely this could be the effect in the antarctic peninsular but it is very difficult to get any fuel use figures. If this is the case the increases are likely to be in summer as this is when the scientists travel there.
Note; The energy available is a very conservative estimation based on average power station efficiency and vehicle efficiency and uses eg. domestic use of energy is far higher with average households spending over 50% of energy dirrectly for heating (hot water cooking and space heating). The amount of energy from sun will not be accurate as the albedo and latitudes on the earth could have a big effect.
July 2, 2011, 6:05 amnetdr:
The alarmists see that past temperature rise does not conform to the high sensitivity the IPCC believes in.
They counter that all warming from past CO2 has not occurred yet, it is somehow being stored somewhere. Since over 95 % of the heat is stored in the oceans that would be the natural place to look.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2005/to:2012/trend/plot/uah/from:2005/to:2012
Between 2005 and today both the ocean and the atmosphere have failed to warm. That is impossible if a the sensitivity is as the IPCC says it is.
See the “missing heat” argument. If the heat is somehow slipping to the bottom of the ocean undetected it isn’t doing any warming is it ? Will it surface 1,000 years from now or is it even there?
Where is the catastrophe in the CAGW ?
July 2, 2011, 6:44 amkelly liddle:
hey if you want to get into that arguement you are wrong i do not know by what factor but the earths core would contain much more energy
July 2, 2011, 6:50 amnetdr:
Renewable Guy:
NetDr:
Second of all the only period of “anthropogenic global warming” is 1978 to 1998.
################
2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on the temperature history. I don’t believe the warming has stopped as some would like to think.
2005 and 2010 are tied for the hottest years on record.
*******************************
This has been explained several times before.
Your statemenst could be true and it still doesn’t prove that the 00′s warmed. Think it through.
It is possible [and true] that the 00′s are warmer than the 90′s and that the 00′s have failed to warm and are essentially flat during the period 00 to 09. One statement doesn’t contradict the other.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2009
It isn’t hard to understand.
It warmed from 90 to 00 so the AVERAGE must be lower than the 00 value, Right?
If it didn’t cool as much during the 00′s as it warmed during the 90′s the average of the 90′s would be less than the average of the 00′s. Right ?
No matter how much lipstick is put on the pig it is still a pig.
There has been failure to warm since about 1998. Something has changed and the heat isn’t going into the oceans. [see above]
That is why the models have all jumped the shark.
July 2, 2011, 7:03 amnetdr:
Kelly
So the “missing heat” is stored in the earth’s core ?
Interesting?
July 2, 2011, 7:05 amkelly liddle:
I am not saying that just that the arguement is insufficient. I would like for you to read my previous blog and calculate it it out and check the numbers should you wish. You seem like and intelligent gal or guy. I am not actually dissagreeing with you.
July 2, 2011, 7:13 amnetdr:
Kelly
Interesting !
I have wondered on a micro level that my house burns [on average] 2,000 KWH per month. That is what my power bill is. No mater how good the insulation is that heat goes into the atmosphere.
In Dallas there are about 6 million people and many businesses so where does the heat go ?
I have personally measured the temperature heat island effect of Dallas and it is about 7 degrees F on a sunny summer afternoon. Downtown Dallas Vs 35 Miles in the country.
Some of that is concrete heat absorption and some is just escaping heat from buildings. You might get an estimate about what each effect is by doing the same measurement at dawn.
I did that too and the heat island was only a degree F or so. This was done with a temperature logging thermometer with 1 degree F resolution.
July 2, 2011, 9:04 amkelly liddle:
netdr
Your insulation is irrelevant except for timing at some stage that heat will go somewhere at least the vast majority some could cause chemical reactions etc. The average efficiency of a fossil fuel power plant according to IEA is 36% in 2008 for nuclear i am guessing that is the same but i have not found that information (based on they are both steam turbine driven)so your real heat emission would be at least 2 times that in my opinion as in there are just as much emissions at th power plant. You are coming back to, in this case micro technicalities. I am not suggesting any exact measurement that is for those getting millions of dollars. Me and you do not have the ability to measure the temperatue on a large scale. At the transition period from heat absorbtion to heat emission and vis a versa theoreticaly it would be 0 timing when the transition is is difficult. There are so many variables that these predictions are impossible as in where ever you are take into account these variables your latitude, clouds in the sky, humidity, color of buidling (albedo) if you are in a down town area the entire thermal emissions from your area and then again from wind direction and speed if the wind is a high speed then even more difficult the rate of energy loss in other words how fast the energy disperses this is a factor of the temperature and the air currents and the evil gas co2 but based on the sea temps has had little if any effect as in how long will it take to rise to the top of the troposphere and the evaporation rate the energy for evaporation is very large. Basically i think these ideas are well beyond us but weather forcasting as in using previous readings to predict future readings is very good (weather not climate change). You know what to us now what may seem common sense was at the time a radical theory as in the the earth is round. So my main point is that they (climate scientists) at least the ones our governments talk about have not actually calculated out the energy produced as in thermal emissions. I am just assuming that but searching on mostly nasa and some csiro that is our mob. Excuse my gramma
July 2, 2011, 10:09 amRenewable Guy:
intrepid_wanders:
(Golf Clap…)
Very nice Renewable Guy, for playing in an alley. But, that is how most cultists like to play. Since you estimate that most will not watch your suggested links; unless they are papers that have not been countered (you know, that science thing, where a theory can be countered with a dismissive thing).
Anyhow, regardless of the views here, level playing field and all, what is it that you propose? We have a CARBON-LESS tech called NUCLEAR, should we give it a go and convert our COAL over to NUCLEAR (Until all the “Wonderland Wind-Turbines and Solar” catch up (In the business world, we call that a “Stop-Gap”)?
###########################################
Electric transportation where possible, geothermal heating and cooling where possible, renewable energy in all its forms, energy efficiency in all its forms, Peak shaving in electrical generation, smart grid, electric trains rather than diesel, utlity grade power storage.
##############################################
should we give it a go and convert our COAL over to NUCLEAR (Until all the “Wonderland Wind-Turbines and Solar” catch up (In the business world, we call that a “Stop-Gap”)?
##############################################
Wind and solar are cheaper and faster than nuclear.
July 2, 2011, 11:50 amkelly liddle:
renewable guy
July 2, 2011, 12:06 pmi suggest you read my first post it is is the only proof i have found of human induced warming
Renewable Guy:
netdr:
Renewable Guy:
NetDr:
Second of all the only period of “anthropogenic global warming” is 1978 to 1998.
############################################################
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_Decades
1970–1979 -0.00100{{{3}}}−0.001 °C (−0.00180 °F)
July 2, 2011, 1:08 pm1980–1989 0.1760{{{3}}}0.176 °C (0.317 °F)
1990–1999 0.3130{{{3}}}0.313 °C (0.563 °F)
2000–2009 0.5130{{{3}}}0.513 °C (0.923 °F)
intrepid_wanders:
Renewable Guy says:
“Electric transportation where possible, geothermal heating and cooling where possible, renewable energy in all its forms, energy efficiency in all its forms, Peak shaving in electrical generation, smart grid, electric trains rather than diesel, utlity grade power storage.”
You paint quite the utopia. You must be quite the follower of Sven Teske and his nonsense…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/a-blunder-of-staggering-proportions-by-the-ipcc/
Real experts in the field say that the COAL plants will still be firing with these LOW ENERGY DENSITY and UNRELIABLE wind and solar scams.
http://ipccar5wg2ch10.blogspot.com/
Richard Tol is a respected economist and IPCC contributor.
and…
Renewable Guy says:
“Wind and solar are cheaper and faster than nuclear.”
Care to cite something that can make this true?
Also, some comments on this could be helpful…
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/IPCC1995_Fail.htm
Why do you suppose we hit the target (and better) of the most aggressive CO2 reduction simulation without the world wide commitment to going back to the stone-age?
July 2, 2011, 3:42 pmnetdr:
Renewable Guy:
netdr:
Renewable Guy:
NetDr:
Second of all the only period of “anthropogenic global warming” is 1978 to 1998.
############################################################
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_Decades
1970–1979 -0.00100{{{3}}}−0.001 °C (−0.00180 °F) [The trend was DOWNWARD DURING THIS PERIOD - NETDR]
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif
1980–1989 0.1760{{{3}}}0.176 °C (0.317 °F) [This is the period when there were 3 El Nino's to 1 La Nina Of course it warmed. No CO2 is needed to explain the warming. -NetDr]
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
1990–1999 0.3130{{{3}}}0.313 °C (0.563 °F)
[This is part of the El Nino warming during the period 1978 to 1998 check the chart-- NetDr]
2000–2009 0.5130{{{3}}}0.513 °C (0.923 °F)[During the period 2000 to 2009 there was essentially no warming as has been explained before.-- NetDr.]
****************
Looking at it by decades gives you a false pictures especially if you cherry pick the decades. The bigger picture is a cycle of warming and cooling on a 60 year cycle with a slight warming bias.
You forgot the 1940 to 1949 and 1950 to 1959 and 1960 to 1969 and 1970 to 1979 cooling periods.
Were they caused by CO2 ? As I recall there was a world war and CO2 emissions skyrocketed.
The 1978 to 1998 warming is easily explained by the positive cycle of the PDO and a strong sunspot maximum.
Since we are at the top of the sine wave the period 2010 to 2019 will be cooler than 2000 to 2009, and 2020 to 2029 will be even cooler, but we will have a long time to wait to verify that prediction. So far 2011 has been cool due to La Nina’s which will increase as part of the natural cycle.
We are entering a similar cooling period of 30 years right now caused by more La Nina’s than El Ninos. [I wonder what mental gymnastics the alarmists will do to explain it away with aerosols.] By the end of it the global warming bandwagon will have crashed and burned.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif
The data indicates it [the cooling] was due to excess La Nina’s which are well documented. [Just as the 78 to 98 warming was caused by excess La Nina's which are well documented also.] The aerosol excuse is undocumented and is just a software plug.
So I say again:
“Second of all the only period of “anthropogenic global warming” is 1978 to 1998.”
And even that was during a natural positive cycle of the El Nino [PDO] and a maximum sunspot cycle and probably wasn’t due to CO2.
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
July 3, 2011, 6:47 amRenewable Guy:
Kelly Liddle:
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/sun_radiation_at_earth.html
This simplified model of Earth yields an average global temperature for our home world of 254 K (or -19° Celsius or -3° Fahrenheit). Such a planet would be a chilly place indeed; most or all of the water on Earth would be frozen if this were indeed the temperature of our world. In reality, Earth’s overall average temperature is roughly +15° C (or +59°F or 288 K). As we’ll see in a bit, our atmosphere makes this planet a much more comfortable place to live!
##########################################################
IT gives an idea of how much our atmosphere gives us a comfortable place to live. GHG’s combined of the past gave this climate of the last 10,000 years.
IF you go to the equation in the link of “total power absorbed = total power emitted”. That is for an atmosphere in balance. Right now, our earth is balanced towards less emission by about .75 watts/m*2. The scientists are saying this why we are warming.
July 3, 2011, 11:36 amkelly liddle:
Yes i am very happy about our atmosphere. All i am pointing out is that the amount of extra energy we are releasing into the atmosphere is increasing the temperature slightly relatively close to its release point. Depending on how much energy you put in you will reach an equalibrim a point at which the energy loss will equal the energy input. This is because heat is emitted at a faster rate when the temperature is high. Before human activity assuming the earth and sea are not increasing or decreasing in temperature there would be more energy absorbed from swamps and the sea. As in what has made our coal and oil. Now we are expelling that energy so the amount of energy leaving the planet will be greater that is too balance the equation. I understand the arguement that increased green house gases are causing us to be warmer but there is very little empirical evidence. I am from Australia no measurable change here basically. and if the green house gas was the main cause then why have we not changed here. Basically i dissagree with those scientists.
July 3, 2011, 12:41 pmTed Rado:
The world experience with wind and solar is well documented in the literature. Google “cost of wind and solar power in Spain”. The cost in money and jobs is very high. And this is with “free” standby. Apparently, all the European countries are having second thoughts because of the obvious shortcomings and cost of wind/solar. As I have repeatedly pointed out, there are no technically or economically viable backup methods. The government is simply pouring billions into alternative energy studies to placate the enviroloonies (buy votes). It would be lovely to have some competent, objective, engineers in the government.
I guess the AGW zealots are prepared to shoot themselves (and us) in the foot rather than face reality.
July 3, 2011, 5:13 pmRenewable Guy:
Kelly:
I understand the arguement that increased green house gases are causing us to be warmer but there is very little empirical evidence. I am from Australia no measurable change here basically. and if the green house gas was the main cause then why have we not changed here. Basically i dissagree with those scientists.
######################################################
THis website is from Austrailia also. There are several thousand peer reviewed papers of observations linking the earth’s response to our global emissions.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-indicators-of-a-human-fingerprint-on-climate-change.html
Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let’s look at more evidence that we’re responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.
When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006).
This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you’d expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide (Manning 2006).
Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).
So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What’s the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth’s surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.” (Evans 2006).
If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).
Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what’s happening (Jones 2003).
With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).
An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovi?ka 2006).
July 4, 2011, 5:35 amKelly Liddle:
Renewable Guy
Yes there is more co2 in the atmosphere. Why has it supposibly heated up the arctic the most and not had any effect on antarctica. Is the co2 in the southern hemisphere lazy? Please read my original post and give it to a scientist if you know one prove me wrong. The problem is the distribution of the heat changes for co2 to be the cause.
July 4, 2011, 5:44 amRenewable Guy:
Kelly:
I understand the arguement that increased green house gases are causing us to be warmer but there is very little empirical evidence. I am from Australia no measurable change here basically. and if the green house gas was the main cause then why have we not changed here. Basically i dissagree with those scientists.
###########################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/great-barrier-reef-part1.html
Austrailia is famous for its great barrier reef. The best scuba diving in the world is there. Impacts on its health are being observed.
Austrailia had devastating floods earlier this year. There is a human component in that impact. With .8C increase in world wide temperature, there is an increase in water vapor at the rate of 6.5% per degree centigrade. It would be easy to say Austrailia got much more than a 6.5% increase in rain in those storms.This 6.5% increase rate has been observed by NASA.
July 4, 2011, 5:45 amRenewable Guy:
Kelly:
So do I have to prove you wrong in everything you don’t believe?
Pine Island Glacier (PIG) is being effected in Antartica. Just its ice alone can raise the sea levels several meters. The sea around antartica is increasing in temperature melting the ice that extends below the surface 1 to 2 kilometers deep.
For the Artic, the ice albedo is decreasing allowing the sun more time to heat the water. The erosion of the ice habitat for artic animals is moving northward.
July 4, 2011, 6:11 amKelly Liddle:
yes floods happen every now and then. Yes there were a lot of them but individually i think only 2 beat records. Effects on the reef are disputed by some there is no consensus there. With any photo you look at it might look bad but it recovers quickly and also could be taken after a hurricane or cyclone.
July 4, 2011, 6:24 amnetdr:
renewable
Austrailia is famous for its great barrier reef. The best scuba diving in the world is there. Impacts on its health are being observed.
Austrailia had devastating floods earlier this year. There is a human component in that impact. With .8C increase in world wide temperature, there is an increase in water vapor at the rate of 6.5% per degree centigrade. It would be easy to say Austrailia got much more than a 6.5% increase in rain in those storms.This 6.5% increase rate has been observed by NASA.
******************
How do you square this with the fact that water vapor has been going down for 60 years ?
http://climate4you.com/ — Greenhouse gasses
July 4, 2011, 6:52 amKelly Liddle:
see you tomorrow maybe
July 4, 2011, 8:08 amTed Rado:
The temperature has been going up since the little ice age. That’s not the question. How much of it is due to man is what is in dispute.
July 4, 2011, 11:35 amADiff:
Ted, There’s not much doubt there’s a contribution to global climate from human activities. The cumulative impacts are poorly and only partially understood, but there is at least some significant contribution to overall warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. It’s not yet clear exactly how this relates (in magnitude or mechanisms) with all the other significant determinants and influences, most of which are unrelated to human activity. There’s no question human generated gases contribute to warming….but to what effect and in what manner in relation to overall trends is very much still an unknown.
But that’s not even what all the dispute is over. The dispute is over claims of pending disaster, catastrophe … and all the ‘end of the world’ bosh, mostly from non-scientists, or from people calling themselves scientists who are really administrators, manager, program directors … publicists, funding specialists and so forth… The evidence on balance completely fails to support any of the predictions of disaster.
If there’s no pending disaster, then issues around warming and such might actually be able to proceed without becoming contentious matters of faith, ideology, political convinction, personal interest and all the other forces at play in the entire discussion of so-called “Global Warming”, “Climate Change”, whatever-the-latest-name is is…..
July 4, 2011, 12:52 pmADiff:
“The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.” – Mark Crislip
July 4, 2011, 12:57 pmRenewable Guy:
NetDr:
How do you square this with the fact that water vapor has been going down for 60 years ?
climate4you.com/ — Greenhouse gasses
###############################
http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm
I believe that specific atmospheric humidity will be the most accurate representation of what I have been saying. It is the mass of water to the mass of dry air. A 4% increase in water vapor would be difficult to see in this graph. But starting at 1972 there would appear to be an increase overall. Plus there was an explanation of data before 1973, stating that the data is not homogeneous.
With increasing temperature in the world how can humidity decrease? We are 70% ocean.
http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/Elliott&Gaffen.BAMS1991.pdf
July 4, 2011, 4:01 pmRenewable Guy:
Kelly:
It’s waste heat
Link to this pageThe skeptic argument…
It’s waste heat
“Global warming is mostly due to heat production by human industry since the 1800s, from nuclear power and fossil fuels, better termed hydrocarbons, – coal, oil, natural gas. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 play a minor role even though they are widely claimed the cause.” (Morton Skorodin)
What the science says…
The contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2. Greenhouse warming is adding about 100 times more heat to our climate than waste heat.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm
Written by John Cook. From one Aussie to another.
July 4, 2011, 4:08 pmRenewable Guy:
Ted Rado:
The temperature has been going up since the little ice age. That’s not the question. How much of it is due to man is what is in dispute.
“Who is disputing it?”, would be another good question to ask.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm
About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.
July 4, 2011, 4:33 pmRenewable Guy:
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_report_two.htm
Diplomats Overrule Scientists on Certainty of Global Warming Effects
July 4, 2011, 4:48 pmIf these warnings seem dire, consider that the language was softened just hours before the report was released, a political maneuver led by China and Saudi Arabia that brought sharp protests from some of the leading scientists who worked on the report.
Renewable Guy:
ADiff:
From the scientists themselves. I find them highly qualified. You are entitled to your own opinion on this.
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_report_two.htm
Findings of the report include:
•Projected climate change is likely to affect millions of people who are already vulnerable. Heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts will cause increased death, disease and other harm. Global warming is also expected to lead to more deaths due to malnutrition, diseases that cause diarrhea, cardio-respiratory diseases related to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, and wider distribution of diseases carried by insects, rodents, etc.
•Millions more people are projected to be at risk from coastal flooding due to sea level rise, especially in densely populated and low-lying settlements that already face other challenges, such as hurricanes and tropical storms.
•Approximately 20-30 percent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at higher risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5 degrees Celsius. The global average temperature already has increased by about 0.74 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.
•In the course of the current century, water supplies stored in glaciers and snow cover are projected to decline, reducing water availability in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges, where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives. For example, glacial retreat in the Himalayas will disrupt downstream water supplies, which will have implications for billions of people across India, China, Nepal and Bhutan.
•By 2020, 75-250 million people in Africa will be exposed to water scarcity due to climate change.
•During the same period, yields from rain-fed agriculture in some African countries could be reduced by 50 percent.
•Latin America faces a risk of significant biodiversity loss by mid-century as increases in temperature and associated decreases in soil water lead to gradual replacement of tropical forest with savanna in parts of the Amazon region.
•People living on small islands, such as those found in the Caribbean and the Pacific, are particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels, extreme weather, and deteriorating coastal conditions associated with global warming. Climate change is projected to reduce water resources on many small islands and to adversely affect the livelihoods of island communities by undermining fisheries, tourism and other core components of island economies.
July 4, 2011, 4:55 pmADiff:
Might, could, risk, chance…and so far all the doomsayers are batting .000. Science 1, crystal ball gazing zip.
July 5, 2011, 12:26 amnetdr:
Renewable
•Projected climate change is likely to affect millions of people who are already vulnerable. Heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts will cause increased death, disease and other harm. Global warming is also expected to lead to more deaths due to malnutrition, diseases that cause diarrhea, cardio-respiratory diseases related to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, and wider distribution of diseases carried by insects, rodents, etc.
•Millions more people are projected to be at risk from coastal flooding due to sea level rise, especially in densely populated and low-lying settlements that already face other challenges, such as hurricanes and tropical storms.
***********
So far they have ALWAYS BEEN WRONG.
Whenever the doom and gloomers make a prediction and include a date they are ALWAYS WRONG, but like a stopped clock they keep making the same predictions. Maybe they will be right someday.
I have a collection of failed predictions as well as failed climate models, which are just another type of prediction.
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production.
[They attempted to remove the evidence but Google has a cached feature and were caught red handed.]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-disappearing-attempt/
So the estimates were wrong by 50 million out of 50 million. Is that indicative of the quality of their predictions ?
July 5, 2011, 8:13 amkelly liddle:
netdr
I like your persistance. Many of the predictions will be true of the doomsdayers actually. But the fact that there are too many people on the planet and they are causing deforestation degrading farmland and water resources very poor wealth distribution. And another one about inundation that is not such a rare thing a tsunami or storm surge can easily sink an island that is only a few metres above sea level. Every weather event from now until the theory is gone will be blamed on climate change. If it is a major weather event climate change average weather is weather variability. So by chance and normal observations they are always right. Do you know what the warmists theory is on antarctica just using common sense should be the perfect place to study this co2 induced warming because it is covered with snow all the time so the albedo never changes?
July 5, 2011, 11:01 amkelly liddle:
the scientists who we now refer to as flat earthers were also the most qualified
July 5, 2011, 11:03 amnetdr:
A draft study produced by researchers at Yale University and four other research institutions has arrived at a surprising (to them) finding: The more that people are scientifically literate, and the more that they’re numerate, the likelier that they’ll be climate change skeptics.
Even more surprising (to them): socialistic types and free market types are poles apart in their thinking on climate change, with those most knowledgeable in each camp having the strongest views.
http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/SSRN-id1871503.pdf
BTW:
Despite a steady drumbeat of predictions of catastrophe none have ever been right.
I believe Holdren co authored a book which predicted widespread starvation by 2000. Some people are absolutely addicted to doom and gloom. [I think they hate humanity and civilization.]
Please show me one prediction of calamity which has passed the date the calamity was scheduled for which has been proven correct.
The alarmists love to say “Its worse than we thought ” but when you read the story it is a new variable which MIGHT make it hotter, colder, wetter, dryer than predicted.
It is NEVER about a measurement !
July 5, 2011, 11:05 amnetdr:
I agree that any weather event and many non weather events will all be cited as a verification of the CAGW religion.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it. Voltaire
CO2 causes:
Volcanoes [No joke, just after the Iceland volcano there were peer reviewed studies
linking it to global warming]
Earthquakes [Same thing after the Japan earthquake]
More snow
Less snow
Heat waves
Intense cold
Floods
Droughts
More extreme weather
Less extreme weather
Melting ice
Freezing water
More hurricanes
Fewer hurricanes
More cloud
Fewer clouds
Stratospheric warming
Stratospheric cooling
etc. etc. ad nauseum.
The science is settled.
You are all in denial………
The alarmists have turned themselves into a bad joke.
July 5, 2011, 11:16 amTed Rado:
The fact that many “highly qualified” scientists support a hypothesis does not prove that it is indeed correct. Critical study of a hypothesis is part of science. To suggest that one must not question what the majority (or minority) of scientists think of a particular hypothesis is nonsense. That is how scientific progress is made. Einstein was poohood about his theory of relativity until it was clearly proven to be correct. Many hypotheses go the other way.
The big debate (in my mind at least) is not about the validity of the AGW models, but whether the projected catastrophe is so well proven that we should destroy our industial society without an alternative energy source.
July 5, 2011, 1:06 pmRenewable Guy:
Ted Rado:
The fact that many “highly qualified” scientists support a hypothesis does not prove that it is indeed correct.
################################
AGW is a theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Scientific_theories
Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Global warming is the current rise in the average temperature of Earth’s oceans and atmosphere and its projected continuation. The scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring and was initiated by human activities, especially those that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[2][3] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not rejected by any scientific body of national or international standing.[4][5][6][A]
July 5, 2011, 9:20 pmRenewable Guy:
netdr:
July 5, 2011, 9:21 pmYou understand counter AGW better than AGW. How can you know its wrong if you ignor its observations?
intrepid_wanders:
Renewable Guy,
Please show me the “Report 2″ at the UN. “About.com” is not a reference. Don’t DISS on the Pachy.
Here, start here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.shtml
…and point to the nonsense that Rolling Stone and Skeptical Science TOLD you to regurgitate. If you are having issue with that, here is an assist along netdr’s list.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Regardless of the issues at play, renewables (and AGW, climate disruption, whatever) are NONsense in the foreseeable future, unless it is nuclear. People do not trust Greenpeace and WWF anymore. You manipulate with less than half truths. Let the REAL greens (Mark Lynas, George Moinbat etc) step up before your types put the planet in jeopardy with geo-engineering, bigger bird choppers, etc.
Besides, you never answered my inquiry.
July 5, 2011, 9:32 pmRenewable Guy:
kelly liddle:
the scientists who we now refer to as flat earthers were also the most qualified
####################################
Maybe you should visit the Heartland Institute. They hire scientists to tell you the story you want to hear.
July 5, 2011, 9:40 pmRenewable Guy:
ntrepid_wanders:
Renewable Guy,
Please show me the “Report 2″ at the UN. “About.com” is not a reference. Don’t DISS on the Pachy.
Here, start here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.shtml
##################################
YOu have chosen what you want to believe.
When the temperature of the earth increases due to co2, there are consequences. Having people gifted in science assist me in understanding global warming is fair game. Just as you may have Anthony Watts assist you in resisting AGW. I’m not resisting AGW, you are. And that takes energy on your part and stories of how all this just ain’t so. And they are just stories, not well studied evidence.
July 5, 2011, 9:48 pmRenewable Guy:
intrepid_wanders:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Over-the-tipping-point.html
The director of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, Mark Serreze, and his team have studied the Arctic for over 20 years. He explains: “We’re now committed to an ice-free Arctic in the summer – there’s just too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the planet’s getting too warm. We’ve crossed a tipping point.”
#######################################
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(climatology)
A climate tipping point is a point when global climate changes from one stable state to another stable state, in a similar manner to a wine glass tipping over. After the tipping point has been passed, a transition to a new state occurs. The tipping event may be irreversible, comparable to wine spilling from the glass—standing up the glass will not put the wine back.
##########################################
Do you have a better explanation for why the ice is melting all over the world?
Why the sea level is rising?
Do you know what polar amplification is? Do you think its happening or just a bunch of well studied, peer reviewed bunk?
We have passed a tipping point in the artic and are now commited to ice free summers in the future. This is from a guy who has studied ice fhe past 20 years. Maybe Anthony Watts can come up with an answer for you. The ice free summers change how our climate works and there will be changes in our weather based on that.
Maybe you can tell me why this individual scientist is an idiot from your point of view.
July 5, 2011, 10:01 pmRenewable Guy:
Ted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
######################################
The geologists work for oil companies. All other science organizations uphold AGW.
Now the Pope upholds AGW.
July 5, 2011, 10:09 pmintrepid_wanders:
Renewable Guy:
“YOu have chosen what you want to believe.”
No. Your ilk chose the narrative and ruined the entire movement. The Greenpeace stance on nuclear is NON-SENSE (None, Zip, Zero), in a Carbon Reduction Program. That irrational response is responded to in kind. I am personally interested in what is going to power your I-pad. As you DISS on Watts, have you noted what kind of car you are driving?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/fly-your-flag-2/
Yeah, he had those rightest tenancies that you like to exploit, but he attempting to be a human, are you?
I find your your preferences of alliances to be dubious at best, but I am always willing to hear RATIONAL discussions. That means that Skeptical Science is just as annoying to me as Watts Up with That is to you.
Yes, the earth is increasing in temperature. CO2 does increase the temperature. Sensitivity is only around 1.25deg/doubling CO2 based on empirical evidence (logarithmically falling off after saturation).
This does not take too much energy. After the Montreal Treaty on O-zone depleting substance non-sense and the disappearance of the NH MWP, I was flat done with the current poor science. You can argue blue, but science is laughable now. It was not a mere 40 years ago. Real science was working.
So, what “stories” are you going to spin next?
July 5, 2011, 10:33 pmnetdr:
Renewable Guy:
netdr:
You understand counter AGW better than AGW. How can you know its wrong if you ignor its observations?
************
Not true.
.
I know the arguments of the alarmists even better than they know them themselves.
.
I was a true believer when I viewed “An Inconvenient Truth” and for about 6 months afterword but the more I read the less I believed.
.
The verbal tap dance they do to explain how CO2 can lag temperature [after an ice age] and still be the cause of the temperature rise is laughable. That fiasco started my disbelief.
I have read many books [and hundreds of papers] on climate science but my favorite one is “A Rough Guide….” by Henson. I have my own copy and use it to check out the sloppy science knowledge of the alarmists.
For example:
Most alarmists think that CO2 is a strong GHG. In fact it is very poor.
Without feedbacks [which are likely negative] the computed temperature increase of a DOUBLING OF CO2
is only 1 ° C. Ninety percent of the alarmists don’t know this fundamental concept. [The actual warming is likely much less than that. ]
Several peer reviewed studies proved to me that the actual effect of water vapor is to reduce actual warming [Negative Feedback]. [Spencer and Braswell 2010]
I am an engineer and have written computer models and know too much about the process to believe they can even estimate the temperature 20 let alone 100 years in the future. The present crop have “jumped the shark” badly starting the day they were published. Backcasting is a first step but believing it assures correct predictions is laughable.
It has been shown that the more scientifically literate a person is the more likely they will be skeptical of CAGW.
July 6, 2011, 7:39 amTed Rado:
The continued use of “scientific consensus” as an argument is nonsense. You don’t determine whether water runs uphill or downhill by having a vote.
The way to determine the validity of the AGW (or any other) HYPOTHESIS is by study and the accumulation of data. Obvious questions that anyone with a scientific or technical background would ask need to be answered, NOT shouted down. I was always happy to explain my work to questioners. I can’t imagine being offended if questions were raised. Hopefully, we all want the correct answers, rather than merely trying to justify our OPINIONS. This is particularly true with the AGW thing, as it calls for the destruction of our industrial economy. (No, there is no viable large scale “alternative energy”.)
By the way, not ALL other scientific organizations uphold AGW. Maybe the Pope is a good cheerleader, as the AGW thing is more like a religion than OBJECTIVE science.
July 6, 2011, 8:33 amkelly liddle:
renewable guy
could you please tell me why the arctic is hot and the antarctic is cold as far as change goes as they are the most simular environments to compare. Hey to anyone who blogs here i like it because in a relative sense it is civil. so lets keep it that way.
July 6, 2011, 11:05 amWaldo:
Hey kids! Been a while! Don’t mean to get entirely off topic, but I was wondering if anyone wanted to say anything about Willie Soon and Exxon?
July 6, 2011, 2:46 pmintrepid_wanders:
Contrary to the lies the Greenpeace spreads, fully disclosed. Non-issue.
Greenpeace has now achieved a level of reproach that revivals the tobacco industry
July 6, 2011, 6:54 pmWaldo:
Sure, blame Greenpeace “lies.” Glad to see the same levels or hypocrisy, doublethink, and denial still active at CS. I can only imagine what you would post if Jones et all were getting that much money from CRU–oh wait! The peeps here have opined frequently about the CRU crowd on just such charges.
Actually, seems like a pretty big issue. Deny if you want.
July 6, 2011, 10:29 pmHerbert:
Sorry, Waldo, what’s your point?
July 6, 2011, 11:47 pmnetdr:
If it weren’t for the excuse of “Big Oil” the alarmists would have to face that fact that the case for CAGW is so poor that most scientifically literate people don’t believe in it.
That fact is not at all surprising to me. Is it to you ?
http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/SSRN-id1871503.pdf
July 7, 2011, 8:47 amWaldo:
Hi Herbert, sorry–I thought I was being clear…but perhaps I am continuing an older conversation that I haven’t been a part of for a while.
I think netdr’s response kind of makes my case. Willie Soon is an oft-quoted critic of climate change. He’s not a climate scientist per se but an astrophysicist and astronomer. He believes that climate change is a product of solar variation.
Now, however, it has come to light that Soon has taken nearly $1M from several energy companies, Exxon among them, to do his research. Rather than admitting the conflict of interest, netdr comes out with some babble about “scientifically literate people” (who are apparently not the most scientifically literate people, the actual climate scientists involved) and blames the “alarmists,” entirely skirting the issue.
In the past, the good people at CS have made many unproven allegations about climate scientists (Phil Jones and the CRU crew in particular)padding their pockets at the expense of legitimate science. This is an oversimplification but it is the gist. But, when someone like Soon (and he’s not the only critic) is exposed taking big money, CS and the gang of posters is predictably quiet…
So, I hope that makes my point clearer.
I’m reading netdr’s link; I’m not sure it makes exactly the case netdr thinks it does.
And has anyone been able to track down the web addresses on Mr. Meyer’s “Junkscience” chart above?
July 7, 2011, 12:39 pmTed Rado:
I gather then that the only people who are to be believed are those who have never had employment and never gotten a government (pro-AGW) grant. Oh, I forgot. Those that question the catastrophis AGW idea are automatically disbelieved. Only AGW pushers need offer their views.
July 7, 2011, 12:47 pmnetdr:
There are many scientists that don’t ride the CAGW bandwagon and aren’t being paid by Big Oil [Like CRU is]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support
Posted on December 4, 2009 by Anthony Watts
One of the favorite put-downs from people who think they have the moral high ground in the climate debate is to accuse skeptics with this phrase: “You are nothing but a shill for Big Oil”
This sounds like a new version of lysenkoism to me. Those skeptical of Lysenkoism were branded shills for capitalism [big oil?].
The climate change industry [including the US Government which seems to want to justify carbon taxes ] has funded almost all climate studies so far. I don’t see any difference between the objectivity of a climatologist studying climate change and a cigarette company scientist studying smoking.
If a scientist accepts funding from Greenpeace, WWF, or NASA and doesn’t come up with scary predictions he won’t get the funds again will he ?
A partial list of things caused by global warming.
[Courtesy of the climate change industry.]
Acne, Afghan poppies destroyed, African holocaust, aged deaths, poppies more potent, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, aggressive weeds, Air France crash, air pockets, air pressure changes, airport farewells virtual, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaskan towns slowly destroyed, Al Qaeda and Taliban Being Helped, allergy increase, allergy season longer, alligators in the Thames, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, animals shrink, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra lost, Arctic warming (not), a rose by any other name smells of nothing, asteroid strike risk, asthma, Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water, bananas grow, barbarisation, bats decline, beer and bread prices to soar, beer better, beer worse, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billion homeless, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird loss accelerating, bird populations dying, bird strikes, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds decline (Wales), birds driven north, birds face longer migrations, birds return early, birds shrink(Aus), birds shrink (USA), bittern boom ends, blackbirds stop singing, blackbirds threatened, Black Hawk down
Plus 1,000 more.
July 7, 2011, 1:29 pmHerbert:
Waldo: “I think netdr’s response kind of makes my case.”
I understand what you are saying, but, without getting into the whole “he started this first” thing, I’d suggest that this argument isn’t about science, and thus it might make sense to discuss it separately. (I, for one, would leave that argument alone as I am much more interested in numbers and graphs.)
July 7, 2011, 10:27 pmWaldo:
Good point, Herbert. Although I might suggest that this site, CS, is much more about politics and ideology than it is about numbers and graphs. It’s about ideology hiding behind numbers and graphs that come from some dubious sources and are dealt with in a dubious manner
So netdr, let’s deal with your post a point at a time:
1) The Wattsup link is dead and I found at least two versions of the email on different sites, which is suspicious. I will not discount it, but I am suspicious.
2) Did either Mike Kelly or CRU take money from Shell or BP? Neither email indicates that. The Kelly email sounds like he was helping a graduate student get funding for a project. The Mike Hulm email is unclear what he is taking about–he mentions some people that work for BP and Shell, but not what his relationship is with them or what their business is. Do you have any additional information?–because what Watts presents is a weakly supported allegation. Very typical.
3) According to your last post, unless a climate scientist “come[s] up with scary predictions he won’t get the funds again will he ?” This is exactly the kind of unfounded allegation I referred to earlier. I don’t know–does a climate scientist need a scary scenario? Aren’t there a number of climate scientists without scary scenarios working in science? Even some that disagree with CAGW? Again, very typical.
4) Do you have a double standard here? Is it acceptable for Soon to take money but not for CRU scientists?
5) And finally, what about Willie Soon? Both you and Ted are deflecting your answers. Neither is apparently willing to say anything about Soon–you’d rather throw strawmen in the fire.
Has anybody checked on the validity of Mr. Meyer’s original information for this post?
I predict netdr will disappear now, as this was usual for him back in the day.
July 7, 2011, 10:54 pmnetdr:
I also am most interested in the poor arguments of the climate alarmists. Charts and graphs tell the story.
The truth or falsity of the charges against Soon doesn’t interest me.
The hundreds of Billions of dollars poured into the study of climate has created group of people with a vested interest in climate alarmism. If there is no CAGW then reduced budgets and for many no job. Groupthink is inevitable in that environment.
Eisenhower should have warned us about the Climate Industrial Complex as well as the Military Industrial Complex.
The alarmists need to have the strawman of “big oil” to blame their own inability to sell their mousemilk.
BTW: The whatsup link is not dead and I just accessed it.
At least for a change waldo isn’t playing Humpty Dumpty.
When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Did you ever find a climate model that has predicted the last 12 years of non warming ?
[If you need help deciding what a climate model is just ask.]
July 8, 2011, 7:47 amnetdr:
You never did tell us what temperature the non climate model you cited predicted for 2000, through 2011 and how you arrived at those numbers.
I predict that you never will.
July 8, 2011, 7:52 amWaldo:
Watts’ link to the original email –
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=171&filename=962818260.txt
–is dead.
You have me confused with someone else re the “non climate model.” I have no idea what you are posting about.
*****”The truth or falsity of the charges against Soon doesn’t interest me.”
Of course you don’t, netdr, you are only interested in one thing and you are willing to ignore any information that doesn’t fit your prefab notions about climate science. You have some pretty good evidence that a climate denialist are on the take–but you will ignore it and submit unproven allegations about “groupthink.” This willful ignorance includes, say, the “charts and graphs” from any actual scientific body, anyone other than the Meyers and Watts of the world.
Good to see things are still the same.
July 8, 2011, 8:03 amnetdr:
Humpty
Your writing style gives you away.
BTW: the link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
Works just fine.
I read the original e-mails when they came out. The copied excerpts seem to be exactly what I read many months ago.
The politics of why they aren’t freely available on the web right now is of no interest to me.
[Conspiracy anyone?]
Your alter ego can’t find a climate model which is even close to predicting the 1998 to present non warming. Can you do better?
Dr Hansen’s 1988 model looked pretty good if the year were 2007. As of 2011 it looks terrible.
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/HansenvUAH.png
The AR4 models have jumped the shark also.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/strandwg/CCSM3_AR4_Experiments.html
Investing tens of trillions of dollars because of the predictions of failed computer models is beyond dumb. [To use the technical term!]
If there are any climate models which are doing well I would love to see them, but since they weren’t scary they were never published.
July 8, 2011, 8:34 amHerbert:
Google cache for the dead link:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dOKT3Sa6Bm4J:www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php%3Feid%3D171+CRU+email+%2B962818260&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&source=www.google.com
July 8, 2011, 9:43 amWaldo:
Thanks Herbert.
Rereading that email it sounds more and more as if Mick Kelly was searching for student money. Any additional information on the correspondence?
July 8, 2011, 2:37 pmAscienceman:
Some regular posters on this blog should stop posting. Far too much rhetoric, too many shoddy conclusions based on scientific data and theory that you do not understand. There is a preponderance of bias fuelled by cherry-picking quotes and snippets of data from a variety of peer-reviewed and non peer-reveiwed sources to suit your own views. Utter tripe. If you want to add some intellectual weight to a difficult topic, go and take some courses on the subject and come back with knowledge and understanding – Don’t be a blog scientist. For example, “el nino/la nina, i.e. PDO” NO. ENSO is not the same as PDO, they are ocean systems controlled by different ocean dynamics on separate timescales and their impact on climate is very poorly understood. So when you say the ‘earth cooled while PDO was positive’, this is not a scientific statement, this is an opinion.
July 26, 2011, 5:17 amAscienceman:
…Revise that – When you say ‘From 1978 to 1998 there was a preponderance of El Nino’s over La Nina’s 11 to 2 and the temperature went up. [PDO was Positive and sunspots were maximum] No surprise there and no CO2 is required to explain it.’ This is half-baked stuff. For a start you must be very explicit in what you mean – La Nina and El Nino conditions are two extremes of the same oscillation and so both occur in equal ‘numbers’. Prolonged or extreme conditions can be classed as events. Then, we have to deal with your assertion that the temperature rise is an explicit result of this preponderance of extreme El Nino’s over La Nina’s. You cannot justify this, in fact noone has been able to justify this yet, ever. Next, “PDO was positive and sunspots were maximum” Again, more non-science. Making various assumptions that you have no right to, namely, assuming the PDO and sunspot cycles do have a measurable impact on temperature (whatever ‘temperature’ you are getting at, i assume average global surface) and then attributing their various states (positive or negative) to the temperature anomaly you are discussing. Very unconvinvcing. My point is, be wary of rhetoric, unfounded statements, opinions, half-baked conclusions and cherry picking. If you want to come to a discussion about the science, get yourself read – make a good peer-reviewed literature review and then come back with some intellectual weight. That is what real scientists have to do, even the ones who are skeptical of AGW.
July 26, 2011, 5:44 am