Ivar Giaver on the flawed science behind climate change alarmism.
Ivar Giaever is is a professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a joint recipient of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics. In this speech at the Nobel laureates meeting on July 1, 2015, he discusses the flawed science behind climate change alarmism.
“Mainau Declaration 2015”
“On 3 July 2015, the final day of the 65th Lindau Meeting, 36 Nobel Laureates signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, an emphatic appeal for climate protection. It states “’that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions.’”
http://www.lindau-nobel.org/
Relevance to the video?
“Ivar Giaver is is a professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a joint recipient of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics.”
Yes?
Dr. Giaever does not work in the field in question:
http://www.desmogblog.com/ivar-giaever
He’s also well-known for spreading misinformation about climate science, one of a handful of corrupt individuals who have sold their PhDs to the fossil fuel industry.
Are you implying the following syllogism: Giaever hasn’t published any work in the area of climate science, therefore what he says about climate change is wrong? As for misinformation, if you think he’s spreading any in the above video, you are welcome to point it out.
Clearly shows that your implied appeal to authority is quite misplaced, so it’s relevant. Giaver is no expert in this field, and his views are at odds with the majority of other inexpert Nobel Laureates.
Fine for you to ask for a detailed factual response to his comments. If I have time I will.
Tell us something we don’t already know.
If you wish to dispute what he says, I invite you to produce a substantive argument.
He did. https://pressingwax.wordpress.com/2016/01/03/foreign-policy-journal-starts-the-year-with-nobel-laureate-ivar-giaver-on-climate-change/
Please see my initial reply here.
Why emphasize the one Nobel Laureate with a flawed viewed of climate science when the 36 other Nobel Laureates support strong action on climate.?
Well – I think we all know why these days.
Just disgusting really. And such an insult to commercial growers the world over. Ignorant old fool hasn’t got a clue.
Will there be no shame?
Please produce an argument.
Please point out what you think are his flawed views.
Indeed.
Published no papers, is not a Climate Scientists, has no idea why parts of Antarctica have increased ice (sea), but fast melting land ice – no idea – no credibility. http://www.desmogblog.com/ivar-giaever
Please address the substance of what he says.
She has. You should read the link.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html
Please state here what point of fact or logic you think Giaever errs in. You are welcome to provide links to support your arguments, not to make them for you (see terms of use of this site).
coward
Then of course there s more proof he has no idea: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html …and no knowledge of the studies regarding plant growth with more CO2, it is very complicated with many aspects to affect the increase, can be researched. He basically, is a fool.
You are engaging in ad hominem argumentation. Please address the substance of his arguments. Are you seriously challenging his statements about how more atmospheric CO2 is beneficial for plant growth?
She has addressed the substance of his arguments. Giaver has been shopping his claims around for a few years now. There are no shortage of rebuttals.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html
And the claim that CO2 is good for plant growth is answered here
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
Giaver’s arguments are pretty dumb and have been rebutted repeatedly over the years.
Saying somebody “has no idea” and “is a fool” is not addressing the substance of his arguments.
As for your own comment, please produce your own argument that specifically addresses something he says in the above video.
Jeremy, I’ve spent “a few hours reading on Google” about brain surgery. Would you rather I cut into your frontal lobe to try to alleviate these delusions of grandeur you’re having, or a team of highly trained actual brain surgeons?
Now give us one of your patented Dodge and Weave moves. They’re… almost amusing.
Spending a few hours Googling is a wonderful way to spend one’s time. It’s more than most people do on this subject. You can really learn a lot by doing so, and, as he says in the video, it doesn’t take much time to be able to find a wealth of information that ought to cause us to at least question AGW dogma.
I mentioned The Greening of Planet Earth above.
As best as I can trace, that’s the origin of many of the false memes cataloged at Skeptical Science, some already mentioned here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/fixednum.php
SkS#2 “Climate’s changed before”
SkS#32 “We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age”
SkS#42 “CO2 is not a pollutant”
SkS#56 “Medieval Warm Period was warmer”
SkS#120 “CO2 is plant food”
These memes were well-marketed and persist to this day.
The problem for you is that all of those statements are factually true, they are not memes.
Now that human induced climate change is simply an obvious everyday reality all over the world the last-of-the-deniers are getting increasingly desperate – as this absurdly flawed rambling nonsense illustrates so perfectly.
I think what annoys me as much as the flat out lies and ignorance is the assumption that anyone listening to this garbage must be utterly stupid and/or terminally gullible.
It’s just insulting.
Yes, it is an obvious reality that climate changes. It has been changing since the Earth was formed.
I believe in listening to alternative views. Please address the substance of what he says rather than engaging in ad hominum argumentation and advocating willful ignorance.
The Earth does not care if the climate changes but humans do. Over the last 10,000 years the climate has been relatively stable and has allowed us to expand from a few million to 7.5 billion today.
Previous climate change has taken place over millennia and in most cases was forced by natural changes in CO2. The reason you know about it is because the work of climate scientists who have researched and documented it.
ttps://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
Current climate change forced by human emissions of CO2 is happening rapidly and the risk is that it will overwhelm our ability to adapt.
Indeed, humans do care if climate changes, and, indeed, the past 10,000 years have been wonderful. Why is that? Because it’s been warmer. Warm periods such as the current Holocene are short and temporary in the grand scale of things.
CO2 does not drive temperature. Rise in CO2 lags rise in temperature in the record, indicating that it is a consequence, not a cause, resulting from CO2 being released from the oceans as temperatures rise.
“Rise in CO2 lags rise in temperature in the record, indicating that it is a consequence, not a cause, resulting from CO2 being released from the oceans as temperatures rise.”
So, the way you evaluate physical reality, is you throw out empirical evidence of increased CO2 increases downwelling infrared, something we can directly measure, in favor of literally a classic logical fallacy. Correlation relationships are not limited to “one must be cause and one must be effect”. Do you really not know this, or does your enthusiasm for this topic just wash such things out? It’s hard to understand. Your logic does not hold. The two items could be both caused by another, or (as in this case) could be mutually reinforcing. Warmer oceans release CO2. Greater CO2 increases greenhouse. Why do you imagine such a pedestrian system relationship is impossible? Worse, you believe fallacious logic supersedes empirical evidence of this. Endlessly striking.
That CO2 lags temperature in the record is completely uncontroversial, as is the explanation for it, that the rising temperatures result in a release of CO2 from the oceans.
You assert I’ve used fallacious logic, but to support that you argue against a strawman. I didn’t deny that increased CO2 in turn causes additional warming in a feedback loop. Yes, additional atmospheric CO2 would do so. The question is to what extent. The dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor comprising about 95% of all greenhouse gases, whereas CO2 comprises only about 4%. All I am saying is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, while obviously a factor, clearly is not the main driver of temperature.
Not a straw man, you wrote “Rise in CO2 lags rise in temperature in the record, indicating that it is a consequence, not a cause, resulting from CO2 being released from the oceans as temperatures rise.”
i.e. you state explicitly that CO2 is a consequence and not a cause of warming. It is fine that you are amending this. Your statement “All I am saying is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, while obviously a factor, clearly is not the main driver of temperature” is meaningless, because what you mean by “main” is undefined, and typical of hand-waving criticisms of science. Climate science does not claim CO2 is the “main driver of climate”, if we assume by this you mean “the only thing that drives climate” or “the thing that is always driving climate”.
Criticisms of science are only interesting if you are able to reflect *what the science actually is*. It is easy to learn what scientists are saying – go read. If you spend your time on WUWT and weak political blogs dabbling in science they don’t like but don’t understand (sorry) you won’t be able to even approach this.
In science, the earth is simply a physical system. It has no plan. It doesn’t ‘mysteriously do things on its own’. It is a rock with fluid around it which responds to energy influences – either changes to incoming energy (and things which modify that such as albedo) or changes in outgoing (chiefly the greenhouse effect which modifies that). Any such variable can “drive” if it is changing and the others are relatively stable. Solar and volcanic have been relatively stable. Orbital is slow. Greenhouse is changing at an extreme pace.
There is complexity in the details, but at root this isn’t rocket science. It takes dedication to decide you don’t want to deal with it and create thousands of blog pages contorting in order to reject it.
You claimed that I denied the possibility that the resulting increase in CO2 would in turn contribute further to the already warming temperatures. I did not. That is a strawman argument, which is proven by the fact that, far from rejecting it, I explicitly acknowledged that this might be so.
What I said was “Rise in CO2 lags rise in temperature in the record, indicating that it is a consequence, not a cause, resulting from CO2 being released from the oceans as temperatures rise.” That statement doesn’t reject the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that will contribute some measure to warming in a feedback loop. As I already clarified, the point is that clearly it isn’t the main driving force of the temperature increase. You take issue with that statement as well, wondering what I mean by “main”. Obviously, I do not mean “the only thing that drives climate”, by virtue of the definition of the word “main”. Nor do I mean “the thing that is always driving climate”. I simply mean the factor that has the greatest effect in terms of causing the observed warming. The question, again, is to what extent the CO2 further contributes to temperatures that were already rising due to other factors. You lecture me about science, but if you were honest about the science, you would acknowledge that the answer to that question is “We don’t know” rather than pretending otherwise.
You are just being defensive in not conceding that you misstated. Not worth discussing, I am not trying to prove everything you say is wrong because you stated one thing wrong.
“I simply mean the factor that has the greatest effect in terms of causing the observed warming.”
You are not improving on your confusion. At different *times*, different factors can be having the greatest effect. They are all variables – they are all usually relatively stable but they don’t have to be. You are assuming that what drove climate 15,000 years ago must be the same thing driving it now. It is an assumption, it is not worth much and happens to be wrong. The glacial cycle was very likely driven by orbital changes, and greenhouse operated as a magnifying feedback to enable the extent of climate change. Orbital changes are slow compared to the spiking of the greenhouse effect *today*.
” you were honest about the science, you would acknowledge that the answer to that question is “We don’t know” rather than pretending otherwise.”
The foundational fallacy of anti-science argument is “any uncertainty means total uncertainty”. It doesn’t. Scientists do not need to say “we don’t know” when they do know things.
It is also a fallacy to believe that uncertainty is always our friend. Unless you have a plausible reason to expect otherwise, uncertainty can break 50/50 either way – things are either better *or worse* than scientists are projecting.
Effectively mitigating CO2 to levels that would give us confidence we are choosing the optimal cost/benefit path relative to current projections is already essentially unobtainable. We will be taking risk. The odds of “overreacting” in policy are low, because we are already doing less than what we should. Betting that uncertainty will break in our favor means *maybe* we are doing the right level of mitigation, but if it breaks the other way then we will have been incredibly foolish. Imagining it is likely all areas of uncertainty break *so hard* in our favor that we are risking “overreacting” is just willful self-deception. For some reason it is very difficult for critics to apply probability-based rational cost/benefit assessments to this problem. You are all stuck in some sort of psychological/ideological paralysis (“total certainty is required before action!”) that would be easily identified as obviously irrational in any other sphere (national security, business decision-making, etc.) For some reason your ideological beliefs make this invisible to you here.
Well written response! And should be reposted early and often!
You are just being stubborn in not acknowledging that you were arguing against a strawman.
Certainly, but we are being told that human activity is the increase in global temperatures since the advent of the industrial era.
No, I’m not. Yet another strawman.
But scientists should say “we don’t know” when they don’t know, as in this case.
You are beginning to try my patience.
“Certainly, but we are being told that human activity is the increase in global temperatures since the advent of the industrial era”
Yes, we are. Your comment seems non sequitur. You think the idea that different forcings can dominate in different periods is inconsistent with AGW? Or what is the point of your comment?
“No, I’m not. Yet another strawman.”
Then you are just making non sequitur comments. Why don’t you try to answer directly instead of dancing around with evasive non sequiturs – you have clearly implied that you think CO2 following temperature in paleoclimate is evidence against AGW. Are you saying you did not intend to imply this, or that you just are unwilling to support the claim logically?
“But scientists should say “we don’t know” when they don’t know, as in this case.”
“This case” is the question of whether CO2 increase causes warming, from our discussion. Or what do you think it is? I’m afraid they know, it’s a direct result of physics, relatively not hard to derive, *and* directly observed. That *you* don’t know is a completely different problem from whether science knows something.
“You are beginning to try my patience.”
You are long past trying everyone’s. Your comments are poor and fallacy-ridden. I think we can agree to stop wasting our time.
When I began seriously looking into the science of climate change around 10 years ago, one of the first things that struck me was the lagging CO2 effect. My jaw dropped, but rather than rush to judgment I looked into it further. Just as waxliberty explains, this is a case of reciprocal causality – a vicious cycle that can start with either the chicken or the egg, whether the direction is toward warming or cooling (e.g. when the atmosphere cools, there is less CO2 emission from oceans and the life-cycles of plants and animals). But why attempt to explain what has already been superbly explained by those who have devoted themselves to the challenge: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
I’ve twice now addressed the feedback in other comments. My point is that clearly CO2 is not the main driver of temperature. Yes, there would be a feedback effect where the increased atmospheric CO2 from the release of the gas from the ocean due to the increase in temperature would in turn cause additional warming. The question is to what extent.
“My point is that clearly CO2 is not the main driver of temperature.” Do you mean historically? If so, I believe the paleo record concurs, with solar variation being the main forcing/driver. For example, it’s what’s been pulling us in and out of interglacial periods for hundreds of thousands of years, with positive feedback from CO2, methane and perhaps other GHGs moving in and out of “storage” from the warming or cooling. Or do you mean with respect to modern, industrial era warming?
I mean historically, with implications for the modern, industrial era warming.
Good. Something to agree on. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Giaever pretty much dismiss CO2 (and other anthropogenic GHG emissions) as a cause of modern warming, if, in his view, such warming is actually taking place? For example, he uses the RSS flatline since ~1997–98 as an argument that the simultaneous increase in CO2 concentration is nothing to worry about. Correct me if I’m mischaracterizing his view.
I’m sorry but the cartoonist ( http://web.archive.org/web/20071213172906/www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3 ) who runs the climate alarmist website that you linked to did not explain one of the fatal flaws in your global warming religion that CO2 responds to climate change, it is not the driver of climate change.
Your “reciprocal causality” is nonsense. A cause must come before the effect. On both long timeframes like the ice cores where the CO2 increase lags temperature by ~800 years (Caillon(2003)) and on short timeframes.
Emission of CO2 from oceans was a result of temperature increases at the end of ice ages. It caused further warming. Scientists call this a positive feedback phenomenon. It doesn’t matter what the source of CO2 is it will retard the escape of UV IR radiation from the surface of the earth. This effect was proposed as a theory in 1824 by Joseph Fourier, and satellite measurements of upward radiation escaping from the earth’s atmosphere show the reduced radiation intensity at the expected wave lengths.
acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html
Currently it is indisuputable that the source of the 120ppM CO2 increase since the industrial age is human caused emissions. Nature has absorbed about 1/2 the CO2 emitted as a result of human industry. What was a feedback mechanism is now a cause of warming.
“It caused further warming”
This is a baseless, evidence-free allegation and a climate alarmist dogma. There has never been a peer reviewed paper that empirically documented and quantified global warming caused by CO2. That is a fact.
“proposed as a theory in 1824 by Joseph Fourier”
But never been empirically quantified as to how much warming it causes in the real world. But the empirical evidence is that it’s not much, because the 570 billion tons of human CO2 that have been added during the past ~19 years hasn’t caused the temperature of the Eath’s atmosphere to increase at all. When you can add over 1/3 of all the human CO2 produced since 1750 and it causes no global warming, you know it is an insignificant factor.
“Currently it is indisputable that the source of the 120ppM CO@ increase since the industrial age is human caused emissions.”
Not correct. Murry Salby has disputed it with empirical data. http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_3_global-warming.html
“
There has never been a peer reviewed paper that empirically documented and quantified global warming caused by CO2. That is a fact.
Totally contrary to fact, but it doesn’t prevent you from repeating the sentence over and over.
“Totally contrary to fact”
Wrong. Your inability to cite one shows it is true. If one existed, you would be all over it like flies on cow pies. Your graph shows NO quantified warming. Why did you post it?
“Salby belongs in an insane asylum.”
You’re off on another of your relentless tirade rants.
Flagged for violation of ToS.
As I’ve now commented elsewhere on this page several times, I was not denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and, but pointing out that the belief propagated by, eg. Al Gore’s film that CO2 levels are the driving force behind temperature changes is false. Yes, all else remaining the same, increased CO2 will cause warming; the question is how much.
“I was not denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and, but pointing out that the belief propagated by, eg. Al Gore’s film that CO2 levels are the driving force behind temperature changes is false.”
Here is what you said,
“Rise in CO2 lags rise in temperature in the record, indicating that it is a consequence, not a cause, resulting from CO2 being released from the oceans as temperatures rise.”
I pointed CO2 does not lag temperature today even though it did in the ice ages before humans started burning fossil fuels on a large scale. I didn’t say that you denied CO2 was a GHG. However you claim that because it lagged temperature, it couldn’t be a driver of warming. This is somewhat misleading. Even during ice ages when CO2 lagged temperature changes because it was emitted and absorbed by oceans in response to temperature changes, it was a major factor changing the temperature during ice age cycles. It was a feedback mechanism.
Now you concede that CO2 is indeed a GHG and say the amount of warming is uncertain. The concencensus of scientists the range of variation is most likely to be 1.5 to 4.5 C. This is what has driven Al Gore’s advocacy. This concensus is what has driven 196 nations to limit CO2 emissions, despite the opinions of people like Giaver that it is not important, based on the internet web sites he has decided to look at.
Yes, rise in CO2 lags rise in temperature in the record, indicating that it is a consequence, not a cause, resulting from CO2 being released from the oceans as temperatures rise. That is correct. That is not to deny a feedback mechanism in which the increased atmospheric CO2 won’t in turn contribute to warming (that is, it’s not to deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas). You “Now you concede that CO2 is indeed a GHG” as though I had ever denied that, which is just plain silly. For the umpteenth time, the question is to what extent has rising CO2 contributed to the warming we’ve seen.
You are confusing me. Are you claiming today’s rise in CO2 lags the rise in temperatures, or are you conceding that the rise in CO2 today as not a result of temperature rise, but stems from humans clearing land, raising cattle and burning fossil fuels? Which is it?
“For the umpteenth time, the question is to what extent has rising CO2 contributed to the warming we’ve seen.”
The IPCCscientific committee on this subject looked at a large number of papers on the attribution of the surface temperature increase. Their concensus is that there is a 50% chance that the GHG contribution since 1950 has contributed to a temperature increase of 110% of what has been observed, and a 95% chance that the increase due to GHG’s has been more than 50% of the increase observed.
I already pointed out that the range of climate sensitivity has remained pretty steady over time, since 1906 when Arrhenius caluclated it at 4C, and Plass gave a figure of about 3.6 in 1956. Currently the expected range is 1.5 to 4C. Because of the heat capacity of the ocean it will take the order of decades to reach this value when and if the CO2 in the atmosphere tops out.
“Alternative Views” :) Pretty funny.
It doesn’t matter who the people or sources are, whether they are a publishing climate scientist or a non climate scientist who has spent 4 hours “googling”. All opinions are equal and therefore balanced. I learned that watching Fox news. :)
Please produce an argument.
I just did Jeremy. Did it go over your head? :)
You are on notice for violating the terms of use (see link above for terms). Alleging bias in lieu of substantively addressing points of fact or logic in order to show them to be in error is ad hominem argumentation, which violates the TOU.
So, I invite you again to produce an argument.
Just because a view is “alternative” does NOT mean it is valid and worthy of consideration.
That’s very true; just as it is equally true that being contrary to dogma doesn’t mean it isn’t valid and worthy of consideration.
This is pathetic. Before I gave my lecture debunking so-called “tunnelling phenomena in superconductors,” I spent TWO days Googling the subject.
Syd, I challenge you to produce an argument addressing the substance of Giaver’s.
If you’re sincerely interested in an answer, you could start by reading the point-by-point refutation, with linked citations, already posted here by Rhona Eastment: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html
As per the terms of use of the commenting section, please produce your own arguments. You are welcome to provide links to support your arguments, but not to make them entirely for you. The post at the link does not address the above video.
If you’re asking me to reinvent the wheel (i.e., to attempt to provide a summary of established climate science) for you in the comments section of a website because, evidently, you’re not interested in reading a preexisting debunking of his arrogantly ignorant rant or in looking up how the IPCC covers the subjects he raises, the short answer is “no.” Life is too short, and I’ve wasted enough time playing that game in the past. But I have, willy nilly, addressed much of his line of confusion on my blog, particularly “the pause” meme: http://sydbaumel.blogspot.ca/ If you only have time to read (and respond to) one, this might be the most substantive: http://sydbaumel.blogspot.ca/2014/08/the-heat-is-on-still-and-heres-how.html
What I’m asking you to do is to produce an argument and to comply with the terms of use of this site. If you continue to insist on violating those terms, you will be banned. I again invite you to produce an argument (as per the terms, you are welcome to support your argument with links to sources). It needn’t be lengthy; you can start with a single point. Go ahead and pick what you think is the strongest refutation of the above video and I’d be happy to discuss it with you.
“As per the terms of use of the commenting section, please produce your own arguments.” – Jeremy R. Hammond
You’re wasting readers’ time and whatever reputation you and this publication have on what you seem to think is some sort of valuable exercise. It takes far more time and effort to debunk BS than it does to produce it. I consider even the time spent to write these three sentences wasted.
Excellent comment, this whole post is ridiculous. Thus, your time was not completely wasted ;)
And you could continue by reality-testing his arguments against the contents of the latest IPCC report, which diligently reviews and critically discusses the extensive scientific literature rather than the biased blogs and tabloid news sites Giaver appears to have based his Google-powered crash course on.
Again, if you wish to argue that Giaver is wrong, I challenge you do substantively address what he says in the video.
And where is your “substantive evidence”? All you’ve done is post SOMEONE ELSE’S video, yet you expect people to provide you THEIR OWN evidence and consider their referring to the IPCC report, i.e., referring to the EXPERTS, as lacking. Do you not see how ridiculous this is? Every response someone has given that refutes this video is responded to with this exceedingly lazy comment of yours.
I welcome you to substantively address the content. Where does he err in fact or logic?
Hehe.
So, in denialist land that make I.G. 4 times smarter than you; he only needed a half day…
What a dreadful piece of propaganda, to amplify the voice of someone with no background in climate science, making some pretty clunky statements wholly at odds with the mainstream scientific position on this issue, and allow no right of reply to any of the many thousands of scientists who dedicate their lives to studying the subject.
To “allow no right of reply”? I invite you to reply the the substance of his arguments with an actual argument.
By return I would ask that you explain the unsupportable decision to present such a skewed piece on such a serious issue.
As to right of reply, I’m not a scientists but Giaver’s observations are so embarrassingly lazy, arrogant and incompetent that even I can pull them apart.
So much of what he says is incorrect that it would take a very long time to unpick so I’ll point out a few of his gross misrepresentations:
1. Climate Debate and Origins of Discussion
“Global warming has become a new religion because you can’t discuss it….
Global warming really starts with these two people, Al Gore and Pachauri or whatever you pronounce it…..
How can a Nobel Laureate open a discussion with such arrogant, lazy lies? The theory of Global warming due to of human activity that originated with Guy Callendar in 1938, was expanded on in the 1950’s by Roger Revelle and chemist Hans Suess and was presented as an issue of concern to US President L B Johnson in the mid 1960s.
Since the founding of the IPCC in the late 1988 it has been the subject of intensive investigation and debate, with the scientific community only recently starting to express near certainty on the issue.
So nearly 80 years of discussion and debate that he is ignorant of, or deliberately misrepresents.
2. Recent Temperature Data
On lack of warming during the last two decades Giaver behaves like a second rate magician, misdirecting his audience by ignoring 4 terrestrial data sets compiled by 4 entirely different scientific institutions on three different continents. He also ignores the fact that UAH V5.0 dataset aligned well with these until it was adjusted in the V6.0 iteration, after which it aligned more closely with the RSS dataset, (only a small part of which he reveals to the viewer).
Then again to focus on the UAH dataset might would confirm that satellite data sets are not the pure unadulterated data that the climate denial lobby (for the meantime) presents them as.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201501_gistemp/annual_temperature_anomalies_2014.png
Giaver does not bother to explain that RSS and the terrestrial data sets measure different parts of the climate system nor, when he finally gets round to mentioning that they do not agree, does he bother to explain that the information has been independently verified by
4 organization.
Instead he, without a trace of evidence accuses one of the pre-eminent scientific institutions on earth of serious fraud.
So, after stating that the temperature has not risen he then says:
2. Correlation Between CO2 and Temperature Rise
OK, here is what I expect of a scientist explaining an issue, that they would lay out all the information and explain all the possibilities and advise what is likely or not.
In this case Giaver slaps down an incomplete picture of the mismatch between rising CO2 levels and temperature rises then pointificates with all the crude, uniformed certainty of a pub bore without studying the wider context.
A cursory glance at the graph of C20th temperature rises show a stepping pattern and not a linear one. How can a Nobel Laureate not recognize or acknowledge something so incredibly obvious?, How can they fail to express any curiosity about a phenomenon that may be at the heart of the question they have just asked.
Had he engaged in anything but a rush to dismiss, he might have noted that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a natural cycle of approx 30 years when the Pacific Ocean switches back and forth between warm and cool phases, aligns strongly with fluctuations in temperature rises.
The chart in this link overlays the RSS, GISS (NASA’s terrestrial dataset) & the PDO charts.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:2015/mean:12/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1880/to:2015/mean:12/scale:0.25/offset:-0.3/plot/rss/from:1880/to:2015/mean:12/offset:0.3
When you see the RSS in context (blue) against GISS (red) you can immediately see how Giaver is exaggerating the difference and how he ignores earlier variations between the datasets. Moreover, if you look at the PDO (green) it is clearly in the type of cool phase that previously appeared to dampen temperature rise.
The above theory has been clearly articulated by scientists. Giaver might justifiably examine and choose to reject the theory on soundly argued scientific grounds (despite his false assertion, such genuine skepticism is not only welcome but remains at the heart of climate science), but in ignoring the possible impact of the PDO, he either demonstrates a considerable lack of knowledge or considerable dishonesty.
If the former, then he is not qualified to speak on the subject. If the latter he is not fit to speak. Either way the unquestioning publication of his dubious speech, with no right to reply given to any genuine climate scientist is an irresponsible spreading of misinformation about the most serious issue that we face today.
These are just a few of the howlers in his speech. That a man with such exemplary credentials would stand up and make such a lazy, arrogant and misinformed speech beggars belief, one can only wonder if he has been paid to do so.
Very, very well said.
Excellent!
1. When Giaever says it starts with Al Gore and Pachauri, he doesn’t mean they originated the theory, but, obviously, that they are responsible for making it a phenomenon.
2. I believe when he refers to ocean temperatures, Giaever is referring to the recent paper that argued there has been no pause in warming, which conclusion was arrived at by adjusting the data from buoys and ignoring the satellite data.
3. Indeed, the PDO correlates fairly well with fluctuations in temperature. Atmospheric CO2 also correlates with temperature in interglacial periods, but rise in CO2 lags rise in temperature, indicating that it is not rising CO2 driving temperature up but rising temperatures resulting in the release of more CO2 from the oceans.
This is an inadequate response. Your headline….
emphatically opens with his award to suggest that what we are about to hear is the highest level of thinking not something that requires ill informed hackery to sweep up after.
1. You may paraphrase what he meant but those are your words. IG’s own words are demonstrably misleading, and his comment about no permissible debate (the one that you ignore) is an outright lie.
2. Again you’re words, not his, and not a response to the substance of my point, i.e. you are putting IG forward as an example of the highest level of thinking, but he instead indulges in cheap trickery. As a scientists he should have given an overview of al data sets and if necessary offered critique and demonstrated where he has issues with any given data sets. Instead he highlights the bits that support his argument while ignoring or brushing over those that don’t and then offers an unsupported allegation of corruption.
The NOAA document that you refer to was a study that went through an independent peer review process.
3. You in no way answer my point here, which is that the IG Noble Laureate did not even mention the PDO. Instead you go off on an tangent. based on an incorrect assumption.
Its pretty generally accepted that historic shifts in the level of atmospheric CO2 were not the initial trigger for temperature change but that once those changes began, atmospheric CO2 levels rose acted as a positive feedback mechanism to drive further warming. This New Scientist article explains the process:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/
So all you have done, here is rephrase your IG Nobel subject’s words, you don’t answer my charges nor explain how you can justify presenting his drivel without an balancing voice.
It is also notable that his diatribe is 6 months old, hardly hot off the press. You would think that with the recent summit in Paris you could at least have made an effort to drag out some fresh nonsense, then again, I get the feeling that its all wearing a bit thin.
1) You are misinterpreting. Needless to say, he didn’t mean that Al Gore literally invented the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
2) If you think he was referring to something other than what I suggested he was referring to, you are welcome to state what it is.
3) If anything, had he mentioned the PDO, it would have made his case stronger since, as you acknowledge, the PDO strongly correlates with temperature in the industrial era while, as you also acknowledge, atmospheric CO2 does not. The fact rise in CO2 lags rise in temperature is not tangential, but goes to the heart of the whole matter. As you acknowledge, increase in CO2 is not what drives increase in temperature. Yes, once more CO2 is released from the ocean due to rising temperature, there may be a feedback in which the CO2 then further contributes to warming. But CO2 is obviously not the main driving force, and it is not the predominant greenhouse gas. Of the greenhouse gases, water vapor comprises about 95% while CO2 is a mere 4%. Nobody denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that greenhouse gasses contribute to warming. The question is to what extent.
Your first point is irrelevant. History shows that the politicization of the science started with the American right wing free market idealogues funded by big oil.
1) The first person who pointed out humans would contribute to warming the earth by burning fossil fuels was Svante Arrhenius in 1896. In 1904 he calculated that doubling CO2 would increase the global average temperature 4C. In 1956 using early computers, and more accurate spectra and atmospheric measurements, Gilbert Plass calculate 3.6C. Manabe and Weatherald calculate about 3C in the 1970’s using more sophisticate computer models. The range of numbers has stayed the same since then. This work was furthered by James Hansen, who originally worked on the climate of Venus, but saw that the earth’s climate was affected by the same factors. When Hansen publicized his work, the right wing in the US was afraid that regulations to protect the environment would ensue if the science was accepted. As a result some of the same right wing “think tanks” hired scientists who had helped cigarette companies claim that cigarette smoke was OK for kids to breathe in, hired some of the same scientists to write articles opposed to the accepted science which said CO2 is warming the Earth. See Naomi Oreskes Merchants of Doubt for details.
2) If one is looking at the temperature anomaly rather than the absolute average temperature, it doesn’t matter whether the temperature from ships intakes or the temperature of buoys was adjusted. Either way the adjustment in the anomaly is justified and would be the same. The argument that it is deceptive to do it the way Karl did it is nonsense.
3) The argument that CO2 lags temperature changes in the ice ages and therefore CO2 couldn’t be the cause today is nonsense, as I pointed out in my above post. Humans are causing the increase in CO2 today and it is causing temperatures to increase.
The points that you made are so easily refuted, and are so obviously false, it is amazing that people who seem intelligent can cling to them. It indicates how powerful prior beliefs can get stuck in the minds of people, and even though they are demonstrably false be retained nevertheless.
“Your first point is irrelevant.”
No, it is relevant, because it explains how the propaganda of the CO2 religion was spread and popularized.
“History shows that the politicization of the science started with the American right wing fre marked idealogues[sic] funded by big oil.”
That is totally false. You are merely repeating your CO2 climate religion’s propaganda talking point.
The real history shows the politicization of climate science began in the origins of the whole alarmist CatastrophicAGW by CO2 scare movement which as Lindzen, Happer & Giaever recognize has turned into a religion. The modern CO2 religion was born by the left wing socialist, Malthusian agenda as laid out in the 1975 Endangered Atmosphere Conference by keynote speaker Margaret Mead and couched in the sheepskin of environmentalism.
“What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane”. – http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
It’s not a conspiracy. It was an open strategy which was laid out back there in the mid-1970s when the consensus of the world’s leading climate scientists was the the world had been cooling for 3 decades and that the world would not soon return to the warmer agricultural-optimum climate of the early 1900s. This consensus of the world’s leading scientists was documented by a neutral party here: http://tinyurl.com/yds3ynt .
The CO2 alarmist strategy was to conjure up artificial warnings to scare people into acting. And the “as free as possible from internal disagreements” has been carried out by the tribalism of attacking anyone who dares to disagree with the “consensus”, bully p-r editors to not publish papers that go against the “consensus”, self-appointed mindguards such as the cartoonist and greenman. The CO2 climate alarmist religion meets every single symptom of groupthink.
1) – Sorry, but you are merely regurgitating climate religion propaganda talking points, bringing up “smoking”
The CO2 hypothesis of Arrhenius was never widely held and was rejected by the climate scientists in the mid-1950s: “Arrhenius and Chamberlain saw in this [variations in carbon dioxide] a cause of climate changes, but the theory was NEVER widely accepted and was ABANDONED … burning coal has increased the amount of CO2 by a measurable amount (from 0.28 to 0,30 percent), and Callendar [7] sees in this an explanation of the recent rise in global temperature. But during the last 7000 years there have been greater fluctuations in temperature without the intervention of man, and there seems to be no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is NOT considered further.” – 1951 Compendium of Meteorology, ‘Theories of Climate Change due to terrestrial causes’, ‘Variations of Carbon Dioxide’, p. 1018
2) – Karl’s adjusting good data with bad data has been soundly criticized and wasn’t deceptive, it was just bad science done only because global temperatures have not risen for the past ~19 years as the climate alarmist’s flawed, faulty models had predicted. True science adjusts the hypothesis when the real world empirical data shows that the hypothesis is wrong. Pseudoscientific cult religions adjust the data because they “know” their hypothesis can’t be wrong.
And you ignore Hammond’s point on the satellite data. The satellite datasets are the only temperature datasets that are close to giving a true global average temperature and neither of them show warming in the last ~19 years.
3) – Your baseless, evidence-free allegations are nonsense. The empirical evidence shows that CO2 follows temperature change on both long term and short term. It’s “amplification” is too small to have ever been empirically measured. This graph shows it clearly: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3015/3823/original.jpg?w=800&h
Your failure of your attempted rebuttal arguments show that everything Giaever and Hammond have said is correct. Your ideological blindness blinds you to reality of the empirical science which shows your CO2 beliefs are false.
The connection between the defense of smoking is historically correct, and using the term religion to describe it doesn’t prove anything.
I had never heard of Margaret Mead’s 1975 conference, and nobody was paying much attentiion at the time. It is interesting how on target the predictions of global warming due to CO2 were, even though revival of interest in CO2 as a factor revived in the 1956 with the work of Gil Plass. The fact is that sulfate pollution at the time was obscuring the warming effect of CO2 and causiing the earth to cool by reflecting sunlight back into space. I don’t see anything profoundly evil about combatting air pollution, and neither do the 196 countries that realized the air and climate is everyone’s concern and committed to cut CO2 emissions at the COP 21 conference.
Around the time of Mead’s conference the CIA was worried about global cooling, which was occurring, due to aerosals, and its effect on crops, which it worried would contribute to political unrest. What we have today is drought an heat in the Middle East which has contributed to political and religious strife in Syria and North Africa. The US Defense Dept. is now worried about the effect of global warming on world peace.
Plenty of trash has been published in the peer reviewed literature which discounts global warming, as you ar fond of regurgitating, while at the same time you claim nobody on your side is allowed to publish. Examples are the work of Lindzen and Spencer on clouds.
Repetition of the meme, no warming in the past 19 years doesn’t make it correct. All indicators except satellite temperatures say the earth has been getting warmer during that period. Sea level rise, ocean heat gain down to 2000 M below the surface, all of the surface temperature records show warming. Karl’s corrections hardly matter, and they were well justified in his paper, and whether the buoy temperature or ship intake temperature got adjusted the change in the anomaly graph looked the same. The difference between buoy and intake temperatures created some artificial cooling of sea surface temperatures.
The graph you linked to doesn’t identify the variables. I am guessing it subtracts the annual CO2 and temperature trends and looks at the seasonal CO2 and temperature variations. If so, you are fooling yourself if you claim it has anything to do with climate change. It is the trend that is important, not the seasonal variation of CO2 which depends on a combination of seasonal burning of fossil fuels and global plant growth and ocean temperatures.
“smoking”
Irrelevant. Off topic. Propaganda talking point as I pointed out.
“Nobody was paying much attention at the time.”
Co-editor Kellogg, Stehphen Schneider, John Holdren, George Woodall, James Lovelock who were at the 1975 conference were obviously paying attention, as they became key players in perpetrating the CatastrophicAGW scare religion.
“Repetition of the meme, no warming in the past 19 years doesn’t make it correct.”
That is right. What makes it correct is the data itself.
“The graph you link to doesn’t identify the variables
It certainly does, hadsst2, is version 2 of the HadCRUT sea surface temperature.
And esrl-co2 is Mauna Loa CO2.
“You are fooling yourself if you claim it has anything to do with climate change”
Your ideological blindness is fooling you. It has everything to do with how CO2 and sea surface temperature react. And it shows that CO2 follows changes in SST, and that on short term basis your claim that CO2 drives temperature is wrong.
You rebutted nothing of what I posted, so what was you purpose of your rambling reply?
Of course in your mind, my propaganda talking points are invalid, and yours propaganda talking points are not propaganda.
The graph you posted doesn’t say how you processed temperature and CO2 data to get the graph that you posted. It was a total mystery.
What is “CatastrophicAGW scare religion.” to you is the result of 190 years of scientific research. Plass, and Manabe had already done their work by 1975 . There were many peer reviewed articles which pointed out that global warming was the future. Here is a list drawn from Peterson, THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS:
file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/131047.pdf
Warming papers
1965 President’s Science Advisory
Committee 1965-66
1966 1967-67
Manabe and Weatherald 1967-306
1968
1969 Sellers 1969-191
1970 Benton 1970-0, Report of the Study
of Critical Environmental Problems
1970-130
1971 Mitchell 1971-81, Budyko 1972-36, Machta 1972-31,
Mitchell 1972-36, Federal Council for Science and
Technology Interdepartmental
Committee for Atmospheric Sciences
1974-1, Kellogg and Schneider
1974-30, Sellers 1974-33
1975, Broecker 1975-54, Manabe and
Wetherald 1975-211, Ramanathan
1975-63, Reck 1975-13, Schneider
and Mass 1975-82, Schneider 1975-
94, Thompson 1975-49,
At the time there were plenty of papers pointing to global warming due to GHG’s. It is not a politically manufactured idea as you claim.
There you go again Eric off on wild rant denying reality.
“What is this “CatastrophicAGW scare religion”
It’s the one Giaever spoke of. You know, the one which repeatedly claims ‘we only have _____ years to save the planet’ and the Hansen ‘the oceans will boil’ because of runaway warming, and on and on. All the while we add 1/3 of all the human CO2 produced since 1750 over the past ~19 years and it has caused NO increase in the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere! THAT CatastrophicAGW scare religion.
Oh my, you trot out flawed Peterson historical revisionism paper claiming that the global cooling alarm in the 1970s was a myth. Once again you are merely denying reality. The consensus was for cooling, as the CIA document records when the world’s leading climate scientists of the 1970s gathered. No paper with a biased counting of papers can change that fact. Consensus isn’t determined by counting papers. It’s determined by getting the leading climate scientists together in a room and not leaving until they could reach a consensus. And they did that in 1974 and it was for global cooling, not global warming. The threat of global warming wasn’t even mentioned in the document.
Wild rant? Not a rant and not wild.
The CIA paper was clearly influenced by current events. That is what they focused on. The cooling at the time was causing crop failures.
If you claim that Peterson erroneously classified papers as warming, please give some examples.
Actually the Federal Council of Science said that human intervention would probably delay the next ice age. That means warming to me. Check the 4th conclusion in the reference below.
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822000471953;view=1up;seq=9
=
Then there are the papers of Budkyo who predicts in that temperatures would increase 0.5C by the end of the 20th century. Here is a link to “The Future Climate”
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1029%2FEO053i010p00868?r3_referer=wol&tracking_action=preview_click&show_checkout=1&purchase_referrer=onlinelibrary.wiley.com&purchase_site_license=LICENSE_DENIED_NO_CUSTOMER
Budkyo’s work is menitoned in the CIA paper you linked to, but not his conclusion about the future of climate. What spooked the CIA was the current cooling trend.
Consensus isn’t determined by counting papers. Period.
“there are papers by Budyko who predicts in that temperatures would increase 0.5C by the end of the 20th century … Budyko’s work was mentioned in the CIA paper you linked to, but not his conclusion about the future of climate.”
Budyko also wrote a 1969 paper ‘The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth’. The paper was not about TSI variations, but on how much solar radiation reached the Earth’s surface. “It follows from the analysis of observation data that the secular variation of the mean temperature of the Earth can be explained by the variation of short-wave radiation arriving at the surface of the Earth.”
With this understanding, Budyko would have looked at the recent papers, Hatzianastassiou(2005), Pinker(2005), Herman(2013), McLean(2014), Goode(2007) which found that the amount of solar radiative forcing reaching the Earth during the late 20th/early 21st century of 4.1W/m²(1984-2000), 2.9W/m²(1983-2001), 2.7W/m²(1979-2011), 5W/m²(1984-2009), 6.8W/m²(1984-2000), respectively, and concluded those increases in short-wave radiation reaching the surface of the Earth were the primary cause of the late 20th century warming, because the increases in CO2 forcing over those time periods were only 0.4W/m² to 0.8W/m² , as it fit his 1969 paper’s hypothesis perfectly.
So interestingly, if indeed Budyko’s forecast ~0.5C of increase by the end of the 20th century he was correct, and from his published work and the empirical data on solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, he would have concluded that natural increases in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century were the primary cause of the warming, not anthropogenic CO2.
I expect if he were alive today, he would shake his head in disbelief at the anti-science fanaticism of the CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 groupthink crowd, just as Gaiever, Lindzen, Happer, and others do.
“So interestingly, if indeed Budyko’s forecast ~0.5C of increase by the end of the 20th century he was correct, and from his published work and the empirical data on solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, he would have concluded that natural increases in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century were the primary cause of the warming, not anthropogenic CO2.
I expect if he were alive today, he would shake his head in disbelief at the anti-science fanaticism of the CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 groupthink crowd, just as Giaever, Lindzen, Happer, and others do.”
You are determined to inhabit a world of your imagination, that conforms to your biases, rather than to understand what is really happening.
If you bothered to read the first page of his paper, which I linked to, you would Know that Budkyo’s projection of 0.5C was actually based on CO2 emissions. I would have cut and pasted it for you but I wasn’t able to.
“You are determined to inhabit a world of your imagination, that conforms to your confirmation biases, rather than to understand what is really happening.”
What in the world are you talking about?
I merely quoted from a few p-r papers, all very much in the reality of the real world, and drew a very logical conclusion based on the real words which are in those papers, and the real empirical data from real peer reviewed papers.
Are you claiming that the papers that I quoted from exist only in the “world of my imagination”?
That’s delusional
Are you claiming that the words and numbers that I quoted from those papers exist only in the “world of my imagination”?
That’s delusional.
Are you claiming that the conclusion that I drew which was based on the fact that Budyko’s own paper stated that the Earth’s temperature variations could be explained by the variation of short-wave radiation reaching the surface of the Earth, and the peer reviewed empirical data which showed 2.7W/m to 6,8W/m of increased solar radiative forcing reaching the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century and only 0.4W/m to 0.8W/m of increased CO2 forcing during the late 20th century, was flawed, and that Budyko would not conclude that the primary cause of the temperature increase during that time was due to the increased solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.
That’s delusional and defies logic and common sense.
Everything that I said was reality and logic and common sense. It seems that you are the one who is inhabiting a world of their own imagination, is ideologically blinded by their confirmation bias, and is not living in the real world. Methinks you were projecting.
1)In 1951, Arrhenius’ work was not accepted by meteorologists, but Gilbert Plass changed things in 1956. He described the objections to the Arrhenius work, and showed that modern measurements of spectra and the knowledge of the distribution of water vapor and gases in the atmosphere made the objections obselete.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate
2) None of the criticisms of what Karl did is valid. It is incontrovertible that transition of sea surface measurements from ships intakes to buoys created a cooling bias in sea surface temperatures. It is immaterial to the sea surface temperature anomaly whether the intake measurements are reduced by 0.12C or the buoy measurements are added to. The anomaly data look the same either way. It is simple arithmetic.
3) You didn’t identify the graph that you have been posting and reposting on the internet as proof that CO2 lags temperature changes. You have subtracted the trend of CO2 and temperature increases over the time period. It amounts to an increase averaging 1.5ppM/year, and plotted the change in average temperature fluctuation and CO2 concentration around the trend. So what lags the temperature fluctuation is only a fluctuation of at most 0.2ppM, at most less than 13% of the change in CO2. This is a small fraction of the change in CO2 in any one year. The seasonal variation in CO2 is about 7ppM.
Furthermore since CO2 emitted by human activity in any year is twice what remains in the atmosphere, we know that the natural environment is not emitting CO2, it is absorbing it on an annual basis. It is ignorant to claim otherwise.
Your rejection of empirical data from peer reviewed science that shows ~10 times more increase in natural solar radiative forcing than increase in CO2 forcing and your obsession with what you obviously consider an all powerful gas CO2, which 0.4W/m² of forcing is stronger than 2.7 to 6.8W/m² of solar radiative forcing, then I’m sorry but I don’t think that I can’t help you come to grips with reality.
I agree that science has been politicized — just not in the way you mean.
One cannot simply ignore the satellite data.
That CO2 lags temperature in the record is not “nonsense”, it is an uncontroversial fact.
“That CO2 lags temperature in the record is not “nonsense”, it is an uncontroversial fact.”
It is irrelevant nonsense applied to the human sources of CO2. There is no doubt that humans are responsible for the modern day increases in CO2. The oceans are absorbing some of the CO2 that humans are producing. It is not being produced by ocean warming. There is no evidence that CO2 lags temperature change in the modern era.
“One cannot simply ignore the satellite data.”
The satellite temperature data is the outlier. It is produced by calculations done by a few scientists. The head of one of the groups, RSS, Carl Mears, says the surface temperature data is more accurate. The data has seen many corrections UAH has had six major corrections, and the TLT, the lower troposphere tempera”ture that AGW deniers focus on, according to Mears is subject to a lot of error and uncertainty.
The evidence says that it is less reliable than the surface temperature. In addition the oceans are a kind of thermometer. When glaciers melt and the oceans absorb heat the oceans expand. Ocean expansion has recently accelerated. In addtion land based glaciers are melting.
If you look at radiation escaping from the top of the atmosphere versus radiation entering, there is evidence that more is entering than leaving.
If you focus on the satellite data and don’t look at anything else, it is easier to fool yourself about what is happening.
“The first person who pointed out humans would contribute to warming the earth by burning fossil fuels was Svante Arrhenius in 1896. In 1904 he calculated that doubling CO2 would increase the global average temperature 4C.”
Yes, and he thought that would be a GOOD thing for the world and the people in it!
That is not news to anyone who knows the history. The models did not exist to look at the consequences in detail. . He knew that CO2 is plant food and chemical processes involving plant growth are accelerated by increasing temperature. It turns out to be more complicated than that.
Increasing CO2 is going to cause mass extinction of shell fish, corals and the life that lives on coral reefs. the process is beginning already.
The regions where most people live will be damaged. The areas that will benefit are largely unpopulated now, including northern Canada and Siberia although loss of permafrost will cause some problems. Arrhenius was from a northern country so he welcomed the possibility of a warmer climate.
Arrhenius got a lot of things right in his calculations. He included positive feedback from reduction of ice and snow cover, as well as increased water vapor in the atmosphere. A good analysis of his work in this is given here:
http://stsimonsislandgaguys.blogspot.com/2011/02/svante-arrhenius-part-2.html
Not a valid argument because climate models don’t tell us the “consequences” of warming. They merely project a future temperature, and they can’t even do that well at all, as vonStorch(2013) said “we find the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.”
That’s baseless, evidence-free, alarmism.
Can you cite a paper explaining the model of shell fish which has been empirically validated to support your claims of “mass extinction”?
Also can you tell us why we currently have shell fish, ie., how did they survive the Cambrian Period when CO2 levels were 5,000+ppm and global temperature was several degrees C warmer than today?
Did I misunderstand the “Cambrian Explosion”? I thought life exploded ONTO the Earth. Did the explosion cause extinction of all life FROM the Earth?
Actually your alarmist claims conflict with peer reviewed science:
You have your blinders on as usual.
Oysters are already dying out in the Pacific Northwest due to acidified ocean water
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/northwest_oyster_die-offs_show_ocean_acidification_has_arrived/2466/
It doesn’t matter that shellfish lived in past eras, 10’s of millions of years ago, when the oceans were more acid than today, because the species have subsequently evolved to thrive in a more alkaline ocean. The increase in acidification is unprecedented in the last million years, and is too rapid for shellfish to evolve. The fact that you would use such an obviously lame argument is a telling indicator of the low quality of thinking determining you position on the issue of global warming.
The GWPF publication by Golkany is in agreement with the IPCC position that there have been some benefits from global warming as of the present. His assessment of the future effects is where the difference is. There is no perfect way to model this, so the scientific community is using a number of different approaches to see what they say about the regional effects of global warming. In the IPCC AR4 report, which Golkany participated in, his ideas about the future did not prevail.
Pure alarmist propaganda and assumptions. No empirical evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere caused.
Rebut the science in the report. You can’t.
We’ve got two issues on the table. One is simple arithmetic. Are you ready to admit that 2.7-6.8W/m of increased natural solar radiative forcing reaching the surface was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming rather than the 0.4-0.8W/m^2 of increased CO2 radiative forcing. Why do you deny simple arithmetic?
Second is are you ready to answer the 3 questions that you dodge because they show that ‘backradiation’ doesn’t transfer any heat into the oceans? Here they are again.
3 Questions for Eric Adler:
1) Which is warmer on a global average?
. . . A) the surface of the ocean? or
. . . B) the atmosphere & ghgs above the ocean?
2) Which direction does the Columbia Univ. lecture on Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling ( http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html ) say that the net backradiation heat flow is going?
. . . A) from from the ocean to the atmosphere or
. . . B) from the atmosphere to the ocean?
3) Which direction does net heat flow?
. . . A) from warmer objects to colder objects, or
. . . B) from colder objects to warmer objects?
1) ____
2) ____
3) ____
I’m still waiting.
And you charge me with being a troll?
The oceans are not acidic.
“The oceans are not acidic.”
I did not say they were currently acidic. The pH of oceans is decreasing. In the language of chemistry it means they are becoming more acid, or acidifying. The pH is still above 7, so as I stated in my post, it is still alkaline.
Do you have a rattional scientific argument to contribute to the discussion, or are you going to concede that what I say about shellfish survival and acidification is correct. Is the story about Pacific Oysters dying out a made up lie, or a misconception? Do you have real evidence of either?
“or are you going to concede that what I say about shellfish survival and acidification is correct.”
I showed you that your baseless alarmist claims are pure rubbish here: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2445811593
You’ve never rebutted them. All you did was link to an article from an activist which showed no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 in the atmsophere was the cause of the decreased alkalinity measured. There is no evidence that it wasn’t natural variability caused by ENSO or other natural ocean cycles.
There is evidence for such factors has been found: https://news.vice.com/article/a-huge-algae-bloom-off-the-pacific-coast-is-poisoning-shellfish-and-sea-lions
“This is one of the largest and one of the largest-running blooms we’ve seen in the last 15 years” So the last similar one was just 15 years ago.
“When the ocean is warm like this … A strong El Nino formation, a naturally occurring spike in Pacific Ocean temperatures …” Yep, natural variability. And of course they had to throw in the standard groupthink “the current warm conditions could develop into… and climate change might have something to do with it.” Pure speculation.
“The Pacific Ocean bloom has been caused by high concentrations of Pseudo-nitzschia, a type of phytoplankton that produces a harmful substance called domoic ACID.”
Gee, a natural cause of reduced alkalinity. Surprise, surprise. Not really, except to ideologically blindned climate cultists who mindlessly jump to conclusions that fit their confirmation bias and global warming religion. Fooled you though, didn’t it.
The situation is more complex than you make it out to be.
Whereas you claim corals are becoming extinct due to decreasing alkalinity of the oceans and that species cannot adapt to this change, Georgiou, et al, concluded that the ability of some corals to survive and grow in extreme pH environments “may provide them with a greater resilience to the increased levels of ocean acidification expected to occur over the coming decades and centuries.”
Shamberger, et al, report on “the existence of highly diverse, coral-dominated reef communities under chronically low pH” conditions.
And:
More to the point, that the oceans are becoming less alkaline does not prove that human contributions to CO2 emissions is what is driving temperature changes to Earth’s climate.
“More to the point, that the oceans are becoming less alkaline does not prove that human contributions to CO2 emissions is what is driving temperature changes to Earth’s climate.”
Straw man argument!
The takeaway of the paper you quoted is that Palau is special. It may be due to the fact that human agriculture is not increasing the nutrients in the coastal waters there, like it has on other parts of the globe, where corals are dying.
The corals on Palua are being eroded biologically by high CO2, but surviving.
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83380&tid=3622&cid=217709&c=2
“So how do Palau’s low-pH reefs thrive despite significantly elevated levels of bioerosion? The researchers aren’t certain yet, but hope to be able to answer that question in future studies. They also don’t completely understand why conditions created by ocean acidification seem to favor bioeroding organisms. One theory is that skeletons grown under more acidic conditions are less dense making them easier for bioeroding organisms to penetrate coral skeletons. But that is not the case on Palau, Barkley says, “because we don’t see a correlation between skeletal density and pH on Palau.”
A previous study published January 2015 in the journal Geology by Thomas DeCarlo, a member of Cohen’s lab and a coauthor on this paper, showed that the influence of pH on bioerosion is exacerbated by high levels of nutrients. That finding implies that local management strategies, such as controlling runoff from land, can help to slow the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef decline. Increased runoff from areas of intense agriculture and coastal development often carries high levels of nutrients that will interact with decreasing pH to accelerate coral reef decline.
“On the one hand, the results of this study are optimistic,” Cohen says. “Even though many experiments and other studies of naturally low-pH reefs show that ocean acidification negatively impacts calcium carbonate production, as well as coral diversity and cover, we are not seeing that on Palau. And that gives us hope that some coral reefs—even if it is a very small percentage—might be able to withstand future levels of ocean acidification. But there’s also a cautionary side, even for those coral communities able to maintain their diversity and growth as the oceans become more acidic, increased rates of bioerosion and dissolution seem inescapable.” “
No, just pointing out how you’ve shifted the topic. We were discussing the significance of human contributions to atmospheric CO2 to global temperature, and you kept make the strawman argument about how, yes, humans really are contributing significantly to rising levels of CO2 (as though anybody was arguing otherwise).
The argument was made that “CO2 follows temperature” to support the claim that instead of CO2 being a cause of temperature change, it was merely a result of temperature change. I was not replying to a straw man argument.
I had to point out that CO2 was currently being emitted by humans so it is not following temperature changes, and the science shows it is a significant cause of temperature change, even during the ice ages, where it was a feedback mechanism.
I am glad to clear the air on these points.
Oh, but you were. Nobody was arguing that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, that, all else remaining the same, increasing levels of CO2 would tend to cause global temperature to increase. Nobody was arguing that CO2 isn’t a cause of temperature change.
I would reiterate, but don’t see the point, since your strawman was so obviously deliberate, since your insistence on standing by it so utterly vain, and since the argument that was actually made was so clear and unambiguous, remaining where posted for anyone to read for themselves.
So now the claim that “CO2 follows a change in temperature” is not relevant to whether CO2 is capable of causing global temperature changes. OK. I am happy to hear that.
So it seems that the repetition of this by you and RealOldone2 is irrelevant to the discussion of whether human caused increases in CO2 in the atmosphere will cause climate change.
This leaves me with the question of why this point gets so much emphasis in the deniosphere.
“relevant to whether CO2 is capable of causing global temperature changes.”
It is capable, but is has never been empirically shown to have caused any quantified amount of temperature change.
“So it seems that the repetition of this by you and RealOldone2 is irrelevant to the discussion of whether human caused increases in CO2 in the atmosphere will cause climate change.”
Why do you continue to beat a dead horse and fabricate strawmen to blow down? You have claimed that CO2 has caused 110%! of the late 20th century warming, all the while ignoring the fact that during the late 20th century there was ~10 times more increase in natural solar radiative climate forcing than there was increase in CO2 forcing(anthropogenic & natural together).
Why do you continue to deny reality?
And since the late 20th century warming ended, which was caused by natural climate forcing, not anthropogenic CO2 forcing, humans have added over 30% of the human CO2 produced since 1750 to the atmosphere, and it hasn’t cause the Earth’s atmosphere warm at all.
And I proved to you that the “missing ghg heat” did NOT go hiding into the oceans, because ocean warming is caused by solar radiation, not ghgs. You are a denier of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as you claim that colder ghgs in the atmosphere actually transfer more heat into the ocean than the Sun does. That’s beyond stupid. It’s a lunatic ravings of a fanatical climate cult zealot.
You have FAILED to show us ANY empirical evidence that CO2 has caused any quantified amount of warming during the late 20th century. You can’t, because there are no papers that empirically show that. All you do is mindlessly repeat your climate cult’s propaganda scare talking points.
You are the one who repeatedly refuses to face reality and admit to your mistakes. So sad. Your behavior is fully consistent with that of a debunked doomsday cult zealot.
You are welcome to respond to what I actually said.
To summarize, it is clear that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since industrial times began, and you seem to accept that as fact.
You have supported the meme that “CO2 follows temperature changes”. The evidence shows that currently the ocean temperature is modifying its absorbtion of CO2 from the atmosphere, but these are short term insignificant fluctuations in a trend of increasing CO2.
It appears that “CO2 follows temperature changes” is not an accurate description of what his happening today, when humans are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Why is this meme so important to you? I don’t understand it.
“The evidence shows that currently the ocean temperature is modifying its absorbtion[sic] of CO2 from the atmosphere, but these are short term insignificant fluctuations in a trend of increasing CO2.”
Another baseless, evidence-free allegation.
The ocean has ALWAYS continually changed its absorption and emission of CO2 from/to the atmosphere. And since you admit that the SST and upper ocean has increased in temperature over the late 20th century, that means that the oceans have been a net EMITTER of CO2 to the atmosphere, contributing to the long term increase. The biosphere has tried to keep up as it has warmed: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/Images/npp_change_bump_lrg.jpg
“It appears that “CO2 follows temperature changes” is not an accurate description of what his[sic] happening today”
Wrong. CO2 is still following temperature increase as I showed you in the graph that you are in too deep of denial of reality to accept.
“when humans are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.”
We can’t measure the natural CO2 fluxes accurately enough to know how much of the increase is natural and how much is anthropogenic, but that whole point is moot anyway, since the empirical evidence shows that CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming anyway. In the last ~19 years, humans have added to the atmosphere over 1/3 of all the human CO2 produced since 1750 and it has caused NO increase in the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Why do you continue to deny reality and mindlessly repeat your debunked propaganda memes?
Sorry but the temperature change of the ocean is insufficient to explain the increase in CO2. In fact we know that the pH of the ocean has increased, which is evidence that CO2 is being absorbed from the atmosphere and is forming H+ and HCO3- ions. Although the Henry’s law solubility constant of CO2 has decreased slightly the concentration increase in the atmosphere has overwhelmed this change causing the oceans overall to absorb much of the CO2 that humans have emitted. Henry’s law says the solubility of a gas in a liquid is proportional to its pressure in the atmosphere above the lquid. The pressure has increased 40%. The temperature change would decrease the solubility by much smaller fraction.
“The ocean absorbs about a quarter of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification‘
In fact satellite based measurements of CO2 ocean flux show a 26 year average of -1.48 Pg C yr. A negative value indicates absorption.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Surface+CO2+Flux+maps
“Our diagnostic model yields an interannual variability of ±0.14 Pg C yr-1(1σ) with a 26-year mean of -1.48 Pg C yr-1.”
So the variation in the average amount absorbed has been about 10% of what is absorbed.
You are making up facts.
You are denying reality. Ocean temperature has gone up, so the oceans have been a net emitter to the atmosphere.
So sad that you are such a denier of reality, such as:
1) denying that 2.7-6.8W/m of increased natural solar radiative forcing during the late 20th century warming is greater than 0.4-0.8W/m of CO2 forcing.
2) ignorantly clinging to your denial of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by claiming that the Sun has added more heat to the oceans than the Sun has during the late 20th century.
Back to your climate cult meeting to get another dose of brainwashing.
“You are denying reality. Ocean temperature has gone up, so the oceans have been a net emitter to the atmosphere. ”
As I pointed out the measurements say otherwise, and so do the measurements of the chemistry of sea water. The small increase in temperature is outweighed by the 40% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere due to human emissions.
You are making up stuff and don’t really know sh– about science.
“As I pointed out the measurements say otherwise”
Oh, so now you’re denying that ocean temperatures have gone up. Make up you mind.
“You are making stuff up and don’t really know sh– about science.”
Hahaha. I have to admit that you ARE good at projection!
Sorry, but the one who
1) denys that 2.7-6.8W/m of increased natural solar radiative forcing during the late 20th century warming is greater than 0.4-0.8W/m of CO2 forcing.
and
2) ignorantly clings to denial of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by claiming that the Sun has added more heat to the oceans than the Sun has during the late 20th century.
is the one who doesn’t know sh– about science!
Questions for Eric:
1) Which is warmer on a global average?
. . . A) the surface of the ocean? or
. . . B) the atmosphere above the ocean?
2) Which direction does the Columbia Univ. lecture on Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling ( http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html ) say that the net backradiation heat flow is going?
. . . A) from from the ocean to the atmosphere or
. . . B) from the atmosphere to the ocean?
3) Which direction does net heat flow?
. . . A) from warmer objects to colder objects, or
. . . B) from colder objects to warmer objects?
Focus Eric. Answer those 3 questions Eric, and nothing more. We can move on from there after those questions are answered.
1) ____
2) ____
3) ____
“Oh, so now you’re denying that ocean temperatures have gone up. Make up you mind.”
You can’t read. I wrote:
“The small increase in temperature is outweighed by the 40% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere due to human emissions.”
I guess you are not familiar with Henry’s Law regarding solubility of gases in a liquid.
Earth to Eric: It DOESN’T MATTER because CO2 doesn’t cause any significant warming!
Quit dodging. Why do you:
1) deny that 2.7-6.8W/m of increased natural solar radiative forcing during the late 20th century warming is greater than 0.4-0.8W/m of CO2 forcing.
and
2) ignorantly cling to your denial of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by claiming that the Sun has added more heat to the oceans than the Sun has during the late 20th century.
Questions for Eric:
1) Which is warmer on a global average?
. . . A) the surface of the ocean? or
. . . B) the atmosphere above the ocean?
2) Which direction does the Columbia Univ. lecture on Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling ( http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html ) say that the net backradiation heat flow is going?
. . . A) from from the ocean to the atmosphere or
. . . B) from the atmosphere to the ocean?
3) Which direction does net heat flow?
. . . A) from warmer objects to colder objects, or
. . . B) from colder objects to warmer objects?
Focus Eric. Answer those 3 questions Eric, and nothing more. We can move on from there after those questions are answered.
1) ____
2) ____
3) ____
You should know by know that I am not interested in answering your nonsense questions. With your claim that oceans are emitting CO2, while becoming more acidic from their absorption of CO2, you clearly don’t know anything about the subject. Your arguments are incorrect, and incoherent, and the information you post is irrelevant. Your claim that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics is silly. If you really believe that 3 of the greatest minds in physics and chemistry, Fourier, Arrhenius, and Tyndall, as well as all of the current Physicists who accept the GHG theory overwhelmingly, would accept a theory that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you are amazingly capable of deluding yourself!!
I am curious to know if Hammond accepts your claim.
“your nonsense questions”
Still denying reality! So sad. But so typical of delusional, duped doomsday cliamte cult zealots.
Quit dodging. Why do you:
1) deny that 2.7-6.8W/m of increased natural solar radiative forcing during the late 20th century warming is greater than 0.4-0.8W/m of CO2 forcing.
and
2) ignorantly cling to your denial of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by claiming that the Sun has added more heat to the oceans than the Sun has during the late 20th century.
Questions for Eric:
1) Which is warmer on a global average?
. . . A) the surface of the ocean? or
. . . B) the atmosphere above the ocean?
2) Which direction does the Columbia Univ. lecture on Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling ( http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html ) say that the net backradiation heat flow is going?
. . . A) from from the ocean to the atmosphere or
. . . B) from the atmosphere to the ocean?
3) Which direction does net heat flow?
. . . A) from warmer objects to colder objects, or
. . . B) from colder objects to warmer objects?
Focus Eric. Answer those 3 questions Eric, and nothing more. We can move on from there after those questions are answered.
1) ____
2) ____
3) ____
CO2 increase does lag temperature increase in the records. I never argued that it was a perfect correlation, and this is not a “meme”, it is an uncontroversial fact, which puts the lie to “meme”–to borrow from your own rhetoric–the public is constantly exposed to, made famous by Al Gore’s ironically-titled “An Inconvenient Truth”, that CO2 is the driving force for temperature change.
There are 2 things wrong with your statement.
You are confusing the ice age changes in CO2 with industrial age increase in CO2. The causes are different.
CO2 did lag the changes in temperature during the ice ages. This made CO2 a feedback mechanism. and was responsible for about 1/3 the temperature changes in the ice age cycles.
Today CO2 is the initiator of climate change. The excess CO2 is not coming from the oceans ore natural systems. It is coming from humans. It has been the driving force for the increase in temperature we have seen since the 1970’s. The meme that CO2 lags temperature change is irrelevant to today’s situation.
Repetiition of that meme seems designed to confuse and cloud the situation rather than shed any light on what is happening today.
Eric, don’t be silly. I did not arguing that the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial era is due to rising temperature. I am simply pointing precisely what you just confirmed, that that CO2 lags temperature in the historical records — which remains true in the modern era, since it was warming prior to mankind contributing significant CO2 emissions.
You say CO2 was responsible for about 1/3 the temperature changes in the ice age cycles. I know you are referring to a statement by Jeff Severinghaus. Can you tell me, please, how he managed to quantify that?
It is quite relevant to point out that the alarmist meme that CO2 is the driving force of temperature change on the planet (e.g., Al Gore), is a lie.
“I know you are referring to a statement by Jeff Severinghaus. Can you tell me, please, how he managed to quantify that?”
I suspect he was quoting a paper on Paleoclimate by James Hansen
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf
Consult figure 2.
“It is quite relevant to point out that the alarmist meme that CO2 is the driving force of temperature change on the planet (e.g., Al Gore), is a lie.”
The scientific committee of the IPCC on attribution of climate change is a recent source for this. If the source of CO2 is human burning fossil fuels, rather than the oceans, why is the ice age experience, where CO2 was a feedback mechanism not the impetus for climate change relevant? Are you claiming that the fact that Al Gore’s says it, is proof that the IPCC is lying? Where is the logic in that?
“I suspect he was quoting a paper on Paleoclimate by James Hansen http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf Consult figure 2.”
1) It wasn’t a peer reviewed paper. It was a chapter in an alarmist book based on the failed climate model based CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 hypothesis.
2) Fig 2 was based on assumptions not empirical data. Pure rank speculation of your climate cult religion.
“The scientific committeee of the IPCC on attribution of climate change is a recent source for this.”
Which is why we can disregard it, because the IPCC’s attribution studies were based on climate model projections, and since climate models can not accurately model natural climate variability, they can not be properly used to rule out natural climate variability.
You can disregard whatever you like. In fact data and physics shows that natural variability is not the cause of the global warming trend since 1975. The greenhouse effect does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Malfunction of satellite equipment and fudging of satellite data isn’t going to deceive the world that your side is correct, The ravings of senile old scientists like Gaiver and Dyson are ignored by climate scientists and the world is working on reducing CO2 emissions.
The Republican party, funded by oil interests is in denial, and the children of today will vilify them as evil when they see what is happening to the world’s climate in the future.
“In fact data and physics shows that natural variability is not the cause of the global warming trend since 1975”
There you go lying again. Have you no shame? How can you tell such blatant falsehoods? No matter now many times you tell your lie it will never make it true.
I’ve shown you peer reviewed science that shows that there was ~10 times more increase in natural solar forcing during the period of greatest warming in the late 20th century than there was increase in CO2 forcing.
You have NEVER rebutted that.
You have NEVER cited a paper that shows that solar radiation at the Earth’s surface has decreased over that time frame.
You have NEVER cited a peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.
“The greenhouse effect does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.”
Strawman! Why are you so dishonest to fabricate strawmen? I’ve never said it did. But your claim that colder ghgs in the atmosphere transfer more heat into the oceans than the Sun, DOES violate the 2nd Law.
Are you going to admit to your mistake? Or are you going to continue to cling to it , continuing to turn it into a LIE? “When a mistake is pointed out, but still clung to, it becomes a lie.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/factual-errors-vs-lies-and-admitting-mistakes.686/
Why are you so serially dishonest?
“Malfunction of satellite equipment and fudging of satellite data isn’t going to deceive that world that your side is correct.”
Wow, once again you just make stuff up! There is no malfunction represented in the satellite data. Any problems have been corrected. And there has been no “fudging” of the satellite data. You can’t cite a single example of any satellite data being “fudged”. You are once again making stupid excuses so that you can deny reality again. That is EXACTLY what doomsday cults do when their predictions of doom fail to happen. Thanks for confirming that you are a member of a doomsday climate cult.
“The ravings of senile old scientists like Gaiver[sic] and Dyson are ignored by climate scientists.”
There you go ad homming anyone who dares to use empirical science to expose that you are a dumb $hit who believes in CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion. So sad. But typical of duped scientifically illiterate doomsday climate cult fanatics who get their science from WIKIPEDIA like you do. It doesn’t get any more stupid than that.
“The Republican party …‘
LOL @ your handwaving clown dance of obfuscation. So pathetic.
But it what we expect from someone who is so delusional that he thinks that an increase of 0.4W/m² of CO2 forcing has caused 110% of the late 20th century warming and 4.1W/m² of increased solar forcing has caused climate cooling over that time frame. Doesn’t get any more delusional than that.
And it is what we expect from someone who is so delusional that he denies the 2nd Law and thinks that colder ghgs in the atmosphere at 0C transfer more heat into the oceans than the Sun does at 5300C.
Why do you refuse to admit to making a single mistake Eric? Oh yeah, I forgot, that’s what duped doomsday cult zealots do. So sad.
In fact data and physics do not support your certainty about that.
The IPCC Ar5 report is my source. Are you claiming that the climate scientists who looked at the physics models and the data had no support for what they said i.e.
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”
To find out the meaing of extremely likely you can look here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/
and at the following graph in the iPCC AR5 report:’
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_fig_10.5.jpg
Figure 2. Assessed likely ranges (whiskers) and their mid-points (bars) for attributable warming trends over the 1951–2010 period due to well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHG), other anthropogenic forings (OA), natural forcings (NAT), combined anthropogenic forcings (ANT), and internal variability. The HadCRUT4 observations are shown in black with the 5–95% uncertainty range due to observational uncertainty.
It shows that GHG’s actually cause more than the observed surface warming, and anthropogenic aerosol cooling compensates some of the GHG caused warming. The 95%/5% limits show that certainty is a fair statement
.
It is pretty clear to scientists that clouds, which are a reaction to winds and ocean temperature are not the root cause as RealOldOne2 claims. Climate scientists (except for Lindzen and Spencer) would consider such a claim laughable.
“Are you saying that the climate scientists who looked at the physics models and the data had no support for what they said…”
They had no empirical data support for their claim of anthropogenic causation and the graph that you showed because those were based on climate models which are unable to accurately model natural climate variability, so they can not be properly used to attribute warming to anthropogenic vs. natural causes. I’ve explained this to you many many times, but like everything else that goes against your climate cult beliefs you bury your head and ignore it.
“It is pretty clear to scientists that clouds, which are a reaction to winds and ocean temperature are not the rood cause as RealOldOne2 claims.”
Come on Eric quit being so dishonest. You know it’s not just my claim. The peer reviewed papers that I cited which show 2.7-6.8W/m² of increased solar radiation attribute the cause to reduced cloud amount. You know, that 10 times greater natural climate forcing you deny as you delusionally claim that the 0.4W/m² has caused 110% of the late 20th century warming. Ready to admit that mistake yet? Or are you going to cling to it and continue to turn it into a lie?
And thanks for pointing out that the changes in cloud amount are caused by other natural factors such as ocean temperatures and wind. And we know based on fundamental thermodynamics that ocean warming is caused by solar radiation not CO2. Are you ready to quit denying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and admit your mistake claiming that the colder ~0C ghgs in the atmosphere transfer more heat into the ocean than the 5300C Sun? Or are you going to continue to cling to that mistake too, turning it into a lie?
Therefore we know that the late 20th century warming was almost entirely natural, not anthropogenic in cause because there was ~10 times more increase in natural climate forcing than there was increase in CO2 forcing. That’s why there isn’t a single peer reviewed paper in existence that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century. The IPCC makes that empirical evidence-free claim, but it doesn’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically supports that claim. It’s all based on the flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, which aren’t able to accurately project future global temperatures at even the 2% confidence level. “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.” – vonStorch(2013) And that stagnation is now ~19 years, so it’s likely below the 1% confidence level. Basing decisions to reduce CO2 that have huge negative economic impact and harm the poor as it unnecessarily drives energy prices to be much more expensive on flawed models which don’t have even 2% confidence is lunacy. That decision isn’t based on science, but ideology, an ideology which has FAILED the real world test no less, as shown by the fact that over the last ~19 years humans have added over 1/3 of all the human CO2 produced since 1750 into that atmosphere and it hasn’t caused the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere to increase at all.
You have not rebutted anything that I have posted. All you do is ignore that science that I post and re-post your debunked propaganda talking points.
To beg the question by taking a qualified opinion from a political body and asserting it without caveat as uncontested fact is most unreasonable.
The iPCC is a committee of qualified scientists. Each section is written by a committee of specialists in the subject field. They examine the scientific literature on the subject of the chapter they are working on and draw conclusions based on it. They are not just looking at a single paper when they do that. Skeptics get to contribute their ideas, but they turn out to be a minority opinion overall. Judith Curry is an example of a skeptic whose ideas were not accepted, and now badmouths the process.
Taking the unqualified opinion from a single paper, or a single scientist, and asserting it without caveat is certainly more unreasonable than asserting the consensus of a committee of the world’s foremost experts.
I agree. And yet to beg the question by taking a qualified opinion from a political body and asserting it without caveat as uncontested fact remains most unreasonable.
The IPCC consists of scientists providing information to the world community, including politicians about the issue of global warming. It certainly is more expert and knowledgable than an old curmudgeon who learned his ciimate science from googling global warming denier web sites.
And yet it remains most unreasonable to beg the question by taking a qualified opinion from a political body and asserting it without caveat as uncontested fact.
The IPCC is a scientific body, rather than a political body. All of the participants are experts in a scientific field related to climate.
Why ascribe significance to the views of on curmudgeon who won a Nobel Prize for work done over 50 years ago and hasn’t done any significant work since then? I would think that someone not knowledgable in climate science, would accept the word of a committee of specialists in the field, over the opinion of an old curmudgeon who got his information by googling politically motivated web sites in a search for information about climate.
False. It’s a governmental body. It has a political agenda. Ergo, it’s a political body.
No, I am not claiming that the fact that Al Gore says it is proof that the IPCC is lying. (Where are you getting this stuff from? Please stick to what I actually say rather than continually relying upon these strawman arguments.)
I am merely observing that much of what the public knows about the subject comes from sources like Al Gore’s famous film, in which he repeats this misinformation that atmospheric CO2 drives climatic temperature changes.
The relevance of pointing out that that is false ought to be obvious.
So the general public doesn’t read scientific papers. That is not relevant to a discussion of what the science says. It is correct to say that CO2 is responsible for climate change today, and GHG’s contributed about 1/2 of the driving force for climate change in the Ice Ages. If there were errors in Al Gore’s film, it doesn’t mean that scientists who say this are incorrect.
I know that right wingers hate Al Gore, so in their (your?) minds anything he says is suspect. Is that your argument here?
How the public is routinely misinformed about what the science actually says (i.e., the claim that atmospheric CO2 drives temperature) is most certainly relevant to the discussion.
Because Al Gore says it, doesn’t prove it is false. Logically you would have to show that everything Al Gore says it is wrong to claim that it is wrong simply because Al Gore says it.
An overwhelming majority of Climate Scientists say CO2 increases are presently driving temperatures, based on a number if independent polls. Depending on how the question is phrased it is between 84 and 97%. The burden of proof is on you to show otherwise. Your unsupported claim is not good enough.
I didn’t argue that it was false because Al Gore said it.
You have worn out my patience with your persistent strawman argumentation. You are on notice: If I have to endure yet another instance of it, you will be banned for trolling.
You know as well as I do that Al Gore’s claim, when he showed that graph from the historical records showing a correlation between temperature and CO2, that it was the CO2 driving the temperature change was false. You know as well as I do — and you’ve already acknowledged this fact repeatedly — that CO2 change lags temperature in the records.
We have gone over this issue repeatedly and you ignore what I say, and never reply directly to any of the arguments that I make. I reply to the points you make. You could do me the courtesy of a reasoned reply that refers directly to what I say.
. In the ice ages, CO2 was a feedback factor adding to global warming, according to a paper by James Hansen et. al.. and other papers. Global warming, due to melting snow and ice in the as a result of the astronomically driven increase in the length of the northern hemisphere summer, caused the oceans to emit CO2, which created further global warming. So CO2 did drive the continuation of global warming in the ice ages, although it didn’t initiate it. I think you are quibbling about words here, rather than showing that Al Gore was wrong about what he said. He was giving a popularized version of the science in his lecture.
What this indicates that human emissions of CO2 happening today will initiate global warming. Today, the CO2 is not coming from the oceans, it is coming from human activities and is being absorbed by the oceans. The fact that CO2 was positive feedback to global warming in the ice ages is irrelevant to today.
I am certainly not a troll. Let the readers, if there are any decide who is a troll.
“We have gone over this issue repeatedly and you ignore what i say, and never reply directly to any of the arguments that i make. I reply to the points you make”
You are projecting again. Mr. Hammond hasn’t ignored what you say. He has exposed your logical fallacious non-arguments. You are the one who fails to address his arguments, making strawmen, ad hom, non-sequiturs, red herring logical fallacies.
“In the ice ages CO2 was a feedback factor adding to global warming”
Why do you persist in repeating that empirical evidence-free dishonest claim? There is NO empirical evidence showing that the CO2 was the cause of any of the warming.
“What this indicates that human emissions of CO2 happening today will initiate global warming”
How can you be such a denier of reality? In the last ~19 years humans have added over 1/3 of all the human CO2 produced since 1750 and it has not caused the Earth’s atmosphere to warm AT ALL! Your CO2 hypothesis says it should have warmed by 0.5C! it doesn’t matter where the CO2 is coming from, because it has caused NO warming! How can you be so stupid not to understand that?
“The fact that CO2 was a positive feedback to global warming in the ice ages is irrelevant to today.”
Sorry Eric, but repeating a false empirical evidence-free claim doesn’t make it true. So sad that you delusionally think is does.
“I am certainly not a troll.”
LOL! Yet another demonstration of your delusional denial of reality. You have been unable to rebut any of Mr. Hammond’s or my arguments, all you do is make logical fallacies and repeat your debunked propaganda talking points and dishonestly refuse to admit any of your mistakes. You certainly ARE trolling now, and I suspect that you really want to be banned so you can feel good about yourself. I’d suggest seeking help from a mental health professional to help you deal with your denial of reality issues. They have meds fo it.
He’s upset that I won’t debate the arguments he falsely attributes to me.
Why would I waste my time debating your strawman arguments? You could do me the courtesy of a reasoned reply to what I actually say, as opposed to things I didn’t say but you dishonestly attribute to me (e.g., “Because Al Gore says it, doesn’t prove it is false.”)
How can it be possible that you are still trying to argue that Al Gore was not wrong to claim that atmospheric CO2 drives temperature despite having already repeatedly acknowledged that changes in CO2 lag temperature changes? This is mind-boggling. Pointing out the fact that An Inconvenient Truth misinforms the public about this is hardly “quibbling”.
“How can it be possible that you are still trying to argue that Al Gore was not wrong to claim that atmospheric CO2 drives temperature despite having already repeatedly acknowledged that changes in CO2 lag temperature changes? This is mind-boggling. Pointing out the fact that An Inconvenient Truth misinforms the public about this is hardly “quibbling”.”
It was not misinformation. The greenhouse effect is a driver of climate change. Joseph Fourier pointed that out in 1824, and it is a scientific theory that no one in the field of climate science denies, except for quacks. During the ice ages CO2 was a feedback mechanism, so it changes in CO2 did lag the initial temperature changes. However CO2 changes caused about 1/3 of the global average temperature changes that were recorded during the recent ice age recovery, and the total changes in GHG concentrations accountef for about 43%. During the current global warming period human emissions of GHG’s seem to have accounted for more of a temperature change than has actually been observed, with other human caused emissions such as aerosals counteracting the effect of GHG’s, according to the IPCC.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/
Al Gore was not wrong, and didn’t mislead the public. Ivar Gaiver is wrong, and is misleading the public. .
“It was not misinformation.”
Wow, there you go denying reality again.
“The greenhouse effect is a driver of climate change…”
CO2 is an insignificant factor, as evidenced by the fact that the Earth’s atmosphere hasn’t warmed at all in the last ~19 years even though humans have added over 1/3 of the total human production of CO2 during those ~19 years. Plus there isn’t a single p-r paper that empirically shows that CO2 caused the late 20th century warming, while there are numerous papers showing ~10 times more increase in natural solar radiative forcing reaching the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century than increase in CO2 forcing.
Quit denying reality.
Are you ready to admit that 4.1W/m² of increased natural solar radiative forcing over the late 20th century warming is greater than 0.4W/m² of increased CO2 forcing? Or are you going to cling to your dishonest denial of reality?
Are you ready to stop denying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and admit that colder ghgs in the atmosphere do not transfer heat into the oceans? Or are you going to cling to your dishonest denial of reality?
ps. The evidence that aliens caused the late 20th century warming than there is that CO2 caused it:
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3112/8063/original.jpg
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3112/8061/original.jpg
“Are you ready to stop denying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and admit that colder ghgs in the atmosphere do not transfer heat into the oceans? Or are you going to cling to your dishonest denial of reality?”
Even Roy spencer doesn’t deny that downward radiation from GHG’s in the atmosphere are keeping the oceans warm. The oceans send 492W/M2 of energy upwards. They receive 168W/M2 from the sun. They would be cooling like crazy unless they were getting 324W/M2 from the atmosphere.
That is one thing that Roy Spencer understands correctly.
“Even Roy spencer doesn’t deny that downward radiation from GHG’s[sic] in the atmosphere are keeping the oceans warm.”
Strawman!
You stupidly claimed:
That is a denial of the 2nd Law, as colder objects do not transfer any heat to colder objects. Heat is only transferred in one direction, from hotter objects to colder objects. The warmer object (surface of the oceans) cools and the cooler object (ghgs in the atmosphere) warms. “keeping the oceans warm” is not transferring heat into the oceans, it can only affect how much heat the ocean loses. So sad that you deny this fundamental science, heat transfer and thermodynamics.
It’s so much fun exposing your total inability to make a valid logical and empirical argument to support your climate cult religion and exposing your scientific illiteracy and denial of reality!
So,
Quit denying reality.
Are you ready to admit that 4.1W/m² of increased natural solar radiative forcing over the late 20th century warming is greater than 0.4W/m² of increased CO2 forcing? Or are you going to cling to your dishonest denial of reality?
Are you ready to stop denying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and admit that colder ghgs in the atmosphere do not transfer heat into the oceans? Or are you going to cling to your dishonest denial of reality?
ps. The evidence that aliens caused the late 20th century warming than there is that CO2 caused it:
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3112/8063/original.jpg
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3112/8061/original.jpg
You are being as dishonest as Al Gore was when he claimed that changes in CO2 drive temperature changes when–as you know perfectly well–CO2 changes in fact lag temperature changes in the historical record.
You say he wasn’t spreading misinformation in so claiming because “The greenhouse effect is adriver of climate change.” But that’s not what Al Gore claimed. He claimed it was the driver of climate change. He didn’t say that the climate goes through periods of warming and cooling because of other factors and that during the warming periods, as CO2 is released from the oceans due to the rising temperatures, there is then a feedback in which the additional CO2 contributes further to the warming. He said that the increase in CO2 was the cause of the increase in temperature.
You know as well as I do that was a lie.
You’ve exhausted my patience. Banned for trolling.
There are indeed surprises, and seem to be cases where CO2 increases seen to date has had no effect on shellfish. The link that you used points out that your example is not generalizable, and there are many shellfish that exhibit problems with enhanced CO2. In addition predator shellfish who are OK with CO2 may lose out in the end because their prey die off.
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=3622&cid=63809
“The “take-home message, “ says Cohen, is that “we can’t assume that elevated CO2 causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all calcifying organisms.” WHOI and the National Science Foundation funded the work.
Conversely, some organisms—such as the soft clam and the oyster—showed a clear reduction in calcification in proportion to increases in CO2. In the most extreme finding, Ries, Cohen and WHOI Associate Scientist Daniel C. McCorkle exposed creatures to CO2 levels more than seven times the current level.
This led to the dissolving of aragonite—the form of calcium carbonate produced by corals and some other marine calcifiers. Under such exposure, hard and soft clams, conchs, periwinkles, whelks and tropical urchins began to lose their shells. “If this dissolution process continued for sufficient time, then these organisms could lose their shell completely,” Ries said, “rendering them defenseless to predators.”
“Some organisms were very sensitive,” Cohen said, “some that have commercial value. But there were a couple that didn’t respond to CO2 or didn’t respond till it was sky-high—about 2,800 parts per million. We’re not expecting to see that [CO2 level] anytime soon.””
Here is the concensus of coral reef experts which says that coral reefs are threatened by ocean acidification and climate change due to CO2.
https://www.gci.uq.edu.au/climate-change-threatens-survival-of-coral-reefs
So are you revising your statement that “Increasing CO2 is going to cause mass extinction of shell fish, corals and the life that lives on coral reefs. the process is beginning already”?
I am not an expert in this area and neither are you. I accept the concensus estimate of the experts, that CO2 increases coupled with temperature increases will have disasterous effects on many ocean species. Individual studies on certain species and special reefs don’t prove the contrary.
https://www.gci.uq.edu.au/climate-change-threatens-survival-of-coral-reefs
“Over recent decades, 33-50% of coral reefs have been largely or completely degraded by a combination of local factors and global climate change. Reefs in many regions have lost half or more of their live corals. Additional extensive degradation will inevitably occur over the next two decades as temperatures continue to rise.
As a result of reef ecosystem destruction, a quarter of all marine species are at risk, while the associated economic losses will expose hundreds of millions of people to decreasing food security and increased poverty.
If average global surface temperatures increase by 2°C or more, relative to the pre-industrial period, the resultant ocean warming, along with acidification, will lead to continued widespread destruction of coral reef ecosystems over the next few decades. The emission reduction pledges submitted to date by the international community fall well short of what is required to avoid this biodiversity catastrophe.”
“I accept the concensus[sic] estimate of the experts”
There you go again exposing your ignorance of how science is done. It’s not done by consensus, but by empirical data. And there is NO empirical evidence that shows that extinction of shellfish, corals or live on coral reefs
Once again, you are merely peddling snake-oil scare propaganda from your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion. You continue to peddle your scare propaganda. You have ignorantly and gullibly swallowed the propaganda of your climate cult religion, and mindlessly repeat it without the least bit of critical thinking or common sense. You have swallowed a lie, a scam, a hoax, a fraud. It’s pseudoscience, not science. It will be tossed on the rubbish heap of history along with former “consensus” pseudoscience such as Eugenics, Lysenkoism, phlogiston, bleeding to cure diseases, stress as cause of ulcers, not bacteria, etc.
Also you are the real denier, of natural climate change. So sad.
Is that a “Yes, I am revising my statement that ‘Increasing CO2 is going to cause mass extinction of shell fish, corals and the life that lives on coral reefs. the process is beginning already'”?
“Over recent decades, 33-50% of coral reefs have been largely or completely degraded by a combination of local factors and global climate change. Reefs in many regions have lost half or more of their live corals. Additional extensive degradation will inevitably occur over the next two decades as temperatures continue to rise.”
A totally baseless and evidence-free allegation.
So you are standing by your statement that human activity is causing the “mass extinction of shell fish, corals and the life that lives on coral reefs”?
Over hundreds of millions of years shellfish have had the opportunity to evolve to adjust to their new environment with less CO2 in the atmosphere. The increase in pH is relatively rapid compared to past geological history, so there is no time for organisms to evolve and adjust.
Pacific Oysters are already showing the effects of ocean acidification.
No, a good analysis of the positive benefits of CO2 are found here:http://www.thegwpf.org/content..
The gwpf leaves out the bad news. They are advocates for the fossil fuel industry, not a scientific research organization.
Sorry, you ignoring Pelejero(2005) and are merely repeating your false propaganda.
“The gwpf leaves out the bad news.”
There is no significant “bad news”, since CO2 is an insignificant factor in climate warming. This is evidenced by the fact that in the last ~19 years adding over 1/3 of all the human CO2 produced since 1750 hasn’t caused the Earth’s atmosphere to warm at all. You are merely repeating alarmist propaganda.
“They are advocates for the fossil fuel industry, not a scientific research organization.”
Wow, you are delusional, and have gullibly and ignorantly swallowed your global warming religion’s propaganda. So sad.
Odd, then, how ocean life thrived for so many hundreds of millions of years with CO2 levels much, much higher than today.
It is not odd at all. Are you aware of Darwin’s theory of evolution? It works over long time periods. The changes in the range of CO2 concentration over hundreds of millions of years have allowed evolution to produce new species that survived at different concentrations. If it takes millions or thousands of years for a transition in conditions to occur, genetic modifications that provide a survival advantage have time to occur.
The difference today is that humans are modifying the planet and its atmosphere at such a high rate that many species are rapidly becoming extinct. Evolution is too slow a process to avoid this. I realize that people who oppose regulation of CO2 emissions would prefer not to know about this problem, and try to rationalize a belief that this is not happening. The argument you make is one such argument. No serious scientist would make such an argument.
“The difference today is that humans are modifying the planet and its atmosphere at such a high rate that many species are rapidly becoming extinct.”
You are merely ignorantly repeating your usual alarmist BS propaganda talking points. Provide documented empirical evidence listing all those “many species” that have gone extinct over the alleged dangerous human-induced global warming of the late 20th century.
I’ll add this to your growing list of erroneous understanding of science that I have exposed:
1) I showed you that the late 20th century warming was caused by natural climate forcings, as they were ~10 times more than CO2 forcings. You deny that simple arithmetic. http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2439847260
2) I showed you that colder ghgs in the atmosphere don’t transfer heat into the ocean, and thus are not the cause of recent ocean warming. You deny what Columbia Univ. and fundamental thermodynamics says. http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2442563602
3) I showed you that temperature drives short term changes both up and down in atmospheric CO2 levels. You continue to deny that reality, and believe that the cause comes after the effect. http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2442087758
4) I showed you that there has not been a decrease in outgoing radiation as you claimed. http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2455770747
You haven’t presented any empirical evidence showing me wrong at all.
You say that “Increasing CO2 is going to cause mass extinction of shell fish, corals and the life that lives on coral reefs” and that “humans are modifying the planet and its atmosphere at such a high rate that many species are rapidly becoming extinct”. Then you add things like “No serious scientist would make such an argument” as to observe that life thrived in the oceans for hundreds of millions of years with CO2 levels much, much higher than today.
Yet Krief, et al, — presumably serious scientists — studied the effect on corals of high CO2 levels (low pH) and “all coral fragments survived and added new skeleton”. While calcification was reduced, “coral tissue biomass (measured as protein concentration) and zooxanthellae chlorophyll concentrations increased” — and “while reduced calcification rates have traditionally been investigated as a proxy of coral response to environmental stresses, tissue thickness and protein concentrations are a more sensitive indicator of the health of a colony”.
Please support your claim that “humans are modifying the planet and its atmosphere at such a high rate that many species are rapidly becoming extinct” because I wonder whether any serious scientist would make such a statement.
The study you quoted was for 6-14 months in laboratory conditions It certainly isn’t definitive. It doesn’t indicate that high CO2 was combined with a long term temperature increase
Observations in the natural world show that higher ocean temperatues combined with higher CO2 levels are detrimental to reefs and shell fish.
http://ocean.si.edu/blog/sneak-peek-future-coral-reefs-acidifying-ocean
There is a lot of research required to pin down the details and full effects, and not all organisms are going to be affected in the same way. Here is a comprehensive survey of the literature with contributions by about 20 experts. It tells what we do know and don’t know. There is a lot we don’t know.
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/Final_acidification.pdf
Humans are performing an experiment on the entire globe which is risky. Pacific coast oysters and other areas are beginning to show the effects. It is clearly nothing that can be dismissed on the basis of one paper.
Yes, clearly, “not all organisms are going to be affected in the same way.” And one can’t have this discussion without also noting how plant life would benefit from higher atmospheric CO2, increasing agricultural yield and helping the human species to combat poverty, etc.
Regarding natural world observations, again, there are the coral reefs thriving in unusually low pH waters in Palau.
On adaptation, one study showed sea urchins adapted quite well to lower pH and higher temperature waters. Another study showed algae was also resilient under lower pH, higher temperature conditions.
Nice of you to acknowledge “There’s a lot we don’t know.” A welcome turn from your doomsday statements about how life is incapable of adapting and ocean species are undergoing mass extinction.
“skewed piece of nonsense … such arrogant, lazy lies … behaves like a second rate magician … certainty of a pub bore … make such a lazy, arrogant and misinformed diatribe”
I’m surprised your violation of ToS is allowed, but it gives me opportunity to rebut the errors in your comment and expose some fatal flaws in your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 religion, as Giaever calls it.
1) “1. … so nearly 80 years of discussion and debate that he is either ignorant of or deliberately misrepresents.”
Your whole point 1. fails because during those 80 years, there has never been any empirical data showing that human activity was the primary cause of global warming. All you have is a correlation over a short time period during the late 20th century, and correlation is not causation. And the correlation has totally broken down since 1997, as human activity has added ~570 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere during those ~19 years, which is over 1/3 of all the human CO2 produced since 1750, and it has caused no increase in temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere as your CO2 hypothesis predicted would happen. Clearly the empirical data shows that anthropogenic CO2 is not the primary driver of global warming as you claim. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.3/to:2015.95/plot/rss/from:1997.3/to:2015.95/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.3/to:2015.95/offset:-370/scale:0.08/mean:12
I challenge you to cite just one peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the most recent climate warming in the late 20th century.
“Since the founding of the IPCC in 1988 climate change has been the subject of intensive investigation and debate”
But not a comprehensive investigation and debate because according to its own words: “ROLE 2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” Note that the IPCC was not formed to investigate IF human-induced climate change was happening or the primary cause of climate change. That was a given going in, as evidence by the fact that the very first report included Working Group 2 on impacts and Working Group 3 on adaptation and mitigation. There should have been no need for WG2 or WG3 until it was determined that humans were indeed the cause of any significant or dangerous global warming.
A rigorous investigation of natural climate change was not done because it was outside the role of the organization.
2) “2. … while ignoring 4 terrestrial datasets.”
The terrestrial datasets are inferior to determining a global average temperature because they are limited to a couple thousand ( http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/temperature/number-%20temperature-stations-ghcn-1701-2008.gif ) sparsely located ( https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/sc2006.gif ) temperature measuring stations which measure the temperature a a few m³ of the Earth’s atmosphere at each of those stations, a total of ~10,000 m³ , provide a better measure of global average temperature than the satellites which measure ~2,000,000,000,000,000,000 m³ of the Earth’s atmosphere.
3) “RSS … against GISS”
RSS is global. GISS is not, as explained above.
“Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a natural cycle of approx 30 years when the Pacific Ocean switches back and forth between warm and cool phases, aligns strongly with fluctuations in temperature rise. … ignoring the possible impact PDO “
Glad you acknowledge the natural ocean cycles impact global temperatures. Now you must also consider the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation ( https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/AMO_and_TCCounts-1880-2008_0.png ) which also impacts the climate. The AMO began its warm phase in the early 1990s. The PDO warm phase was from late 1970s to ~2007 ( http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Uploads/2014/12/AMO-PDO-1024×805.png ) .
Now add in the increase in natural solar radiative forcing reaching the Earth’s surface in the late 20th century that was ~10 times greater than the increase in CO2 forcing, to the warm phases of the ocean cycles, and you have confirmed that the late 20th century warming was caused by natural climate variability, just like every other climate warming in the history of the planet.
NEWSFLASH;
Climate change science consultants are now also 99% certain that cancer COULD cause smoking.
The answer to all these conundrums is simple really. It’s all based on a typo. Giaver has simply confused “Global Warming” with “Google Warming”. Maybe it’s his grasp of English. Or maybe he should have spent 5 hours studing the subject instead of four.
No Jeremy, I cannot provide further discussion of this. I mean I could but I won’t.
/s
Jeremy R. Hammond, the editor here, kept asking in the comments for a substantive reply to Giaever’s comments in the video (vs. just pointing out that he is not an expert in climate, and that many more laureates have had a different opinion about this.) I got carried away and wrote a long response on my blog here:
https://pressingwax.wordpress.com/2016/01/03/foreign-policy-journal-starts-the-year-with-nobel-laureate-ivar-giaver-on-climate-change/
I’ll try to post the contents as a separate comment.
Btw – “Giaver” is misspelled in this article.
Excellent response.
If Jeremy R Hammond is serious about airing all views, he could run your article as a feature.
I second that!
Me too.
Waxliberty is welcome to submit it. Submission guidelines are here:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/submission-guidelines/
This at least is welcome.
cheers, but Jeremy is probably already getting more than enough attention to his site. The content here is not particularly high-integrity.
Shameful that you aired this unscientific tripe on your site to begin with. Stain on your soul.
Thanks so much for taking the time to put that together.
Ten paragraphs in, still nothing of substance to encourage me to continue spending my valuable time reading your post. Please share what you consider your best argument: be specific about what it is that Giaever says in the video that you are challenging and then demonstrate why you think he errs in fact or logic.
I couldn’t sit through the whole half hour of nonsense, but I fast-forwarded to 10:00. He’s asking why scientists included ocean temperature data and suggests it’s because they can “fiddle with the data”.
That’s conspiracy ideation, and well-known Climate Denier dishonesty.
The reason scientists include ocean temperature data is because that’s where the vast majority of energy in the Earth’s climate system lies.
One would think a physicist would understand water has a very high energy density… that’s kindof physics 101.
Why would Dr. Giaever find a vast conspiracy of scientists a more plausible explanation if he cannot provide a shred of evidence that this conspiracy exists?
oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/oceans_weather_climate/energy_oceans_atmosphere.html
So your best argument that Giaver is wrong when he thinks that CO2 is not the strong driver of climate which the groupthink CatastrophicAGW crowd believes, is that you think Giaver doesn’t understand water has a very high energy density, and the majority of the thermal energy at the Earth’s surface is stored in the ocean.
Well, that argument fails. I’m sure that Giaever understands the heat capacity of water and that it is where the majority of the thermal energy of the Earth is stored.
And I’m sure that Giaever understands the physics of energy penetration into the ocean, which says that the ocean is heated by solar radiation which penetrates down to as deep as 200m. Another page from NOAA confirms that it is the Sun that heats the ocean: “This surface layer is also called the sunlight zone and extends from the surface to 660 feet(200 meters).It is within this zone that most of the visible light exists. With the light comes heating from the sun.” – http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/ocean/layers_ocean.htm
I’m sure Giaever also understands that the 15m wavelength of CO2 ‘backradiaion’ can’t penetrate into the ocean and is absorbed in the first few microns(milionths of a meter) of the ocean. http://bit.ly/133RtMo This is only ~1% of the ~0.5mm ocean skin, and a minuscule percentage of the ocean.
And I’m sure that Giaever understands the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which says that heat only flows in one direction, from warmer objects to cooler objects, and since the ocean surface is warmer (on a global average) than the atmosphere above it, those colder ghgs in the atmosphere don’t transfer any heat into the ocean, only the Sun does with it’s shorter wavelengths and much, much, much higher energy levels.
So the alleged ‘missing heat’ from the lack of atmospheric CO2 warming of the atmosphere over the last ~19 years is not down in the ocean. However, some of that significant increase in solar radiation reaching the surface during the late 20th century, (Hatzianastassiou(2005), Pinker(2005), Herman(2013), McLean(2014), Goode(2007) which found that the amount of solar radiative forcing reaching the Earth during the late 20th/early 21st century of 4.1W/m²(1984-2000), 2.9W/m²(1983-2001), 2.7W/m²(1979-2011), 5W/m²(1984-2009), 6.8W/m²(1984-2000), respectively) certainly is there in the oceans as evidenced by the increase in OHC.
So your best attempt at rebutting Giaever’s claim that CO2 wasn’t a powerful warmer of the planet fails.
Giaever was correct, the lack of warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the last ~19 years, even though humans have added over 1/3 of the human CO2 since 1750 is a strong argument that the ‘CO2 is the thermostat that controls the Earth’s temperature is certainly wrong. The thermostat that controls the Earth’s temperature is the clouds which moderate the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface.
You are making a bogus claim that because backradiation is absorbed in at thin surface skin, it cannot influence the heat stored in the ocean. This is total nonsense. It violates the first law of thermodynamics which says that energy is conserved and cannot be created or destroyed.
Downward long wave radiation does add energy to the ocean without a doubt just as solar energy does. It doesn’t just disappear inside the surface skin. It increases the surface temperature of the ocean and suppresses transfer of heat from the zone where the ocean absorbs sunlight below the surface, to the surface of the ocean. If the ocean did not absorb downward long wave raditaion at its surface, the heat added by the sun would come to the surface more rapidly and be radiated away as short wave radiation. The oceans would become cooler.
Any argument which conflicts with conservation of energy can’t be right. You need to reexamine your thought processes if you believe in the argument you have made. You have blinkers on and can’t see the whole picture.
“You are making a bogus claim that because backradiation is absorbed in a thin surface skin, it cannot influence that heat stored in the ocean. This is complete nonsense.”
You are making a subtle red herring argument. I’m not saying that backradiation can’t influence the heat stored in the ocean. It can, but only by reducing heat loss from the ocean, which would happen only if the mean temperature of the atmosphere increased. It can not directly transfer any heat into the ocean because the mean temperature of the atmosphere above the oceans is cooler than the surface of the ocean. In this whole discussion I’m talking about on a global average.
Also, the temperature profile of the ocean skin shows that the interface layer, which is where the ‘backradiation’ is absorbed and emitted from, is always cooler than the layer of the skin just below it, as shown in this graph from Donlon(2001): http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceans/science-focus/modis/MODIS_and_AIRS_SST_comp_fig2.jpg
so there is no conduction from the interface layer of the top few microns down into the ocean. Heat can not flow from colder objects to warmer objects.
“this would involve the spontaneous transfer of heat from a cool object to a hot one, in violation of the 2nd Law” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html , Univ of Winnipeg, Canada
“The second law of thermodynamics doesn’t say that IR radiation absorbed at the surface disappears. This would violate the first law of thermodynamics”
You are fabricating a strawman. You are correct that the IR radiation absorbed by the surface does not disappear, and I am not saying that it does. I’m saying that because the temperature of the ocean surface is warmer than the atmosphere above it, there is more radiation being emitted from the surface than being absorbed, so the heat flow is from the ocean to the atmosphere. No disappearing at all, just heat flow per the 2nd Law.
“Transfer of Energy from the Ocean to the Atmosphere. – Heat moves in predictable ways, flowing from warmer objects to cooler ones, until both reach the same temperature.” – NOAA, http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/oceans_weather_climate/energy_oceans_atmosphere.html
“On average the ocean is 1 to 2 degrees warmer than the atmosphere so on average ocean heat is transferred from ocean to atmosphere by conduction. … On global average oceanic heat loss by conduction is only 24 watts per square meter.” – Columbia Univ. lecture, Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling, http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html
“Downward long wave radiation does add energy to the ocean without a doubt just as solar energy does.”
No, because the ocean surface is warmer than the atmosphere, there is no heat “added” by DWIR because the heat flow due to radiation is from the ocean to the atmosphere.
“Net backradiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter.” – Columbia Univ lecture, ibid
The only impact backradiation can have is if it increases atmospheric temperature which would reduce the heat loss from the ocean, and we know that the atmosphere hasn’t warmed for ~19 years, so there has been no decrease in ocean heat loss because of ghgs, they haven’t warmed the atmosphere. Thus as I pointed out to CB, increases in OHC are not a valid argument for the “missing heat” from the lack of warming of the atmosphere over the “pause/hiatus”.
The Columbia Univ. lecture says that the only sea-air heat exchange process that adds heat to the ocean is solar radiation.
“Solar heating of the ocean on a global average is 168 watts per square meter.”
“If the ocean did not absorb downward long wave radiation at its surface, the heat added by the sun would come to the surface more rapidly and be radiated away as short wave radiation. The oceans would become cooler.”
That is correct, and I am not saying otherwise, nor am I arguing against the ghe in whole. I’m just stating the fact (backed up by the Columbia Lecture) that there is more LWIR being emitted from the surface of the ocean than being absorbed, by 66W/m², so the heat flow is from the ocean to the atmosphere. And I’m stating the fact that since the atmosphere hasn’t warmed in the past ~19 years, there has been no reduction in ocean cooling due to backradiation from CO2.
The Columbia Univ. lecture completes the ocean-atmosphere heat exchange process balance with: “The largest heat loss from the ocean is due to evaporation. … On a global average the heat loss by evaporation is 78 watts per square meter.” Thus the ocean heat balance is:
168W/m² in (solar radiation) = 78W/m² out (evaporation) + 66W/m² out (net backradiation) + 24W/m² out (conduction)
Thus backradiation does not transfer any heat into the ocean. The only impact it can have is to reduce the 66W/m² heat flow out of the ocean.
“Any argument which conflicts with conservation of energy can’t be right.”
That is correct, but my argument does not conflict with conservation of energy, so you are making a moot point.
“You have blinkers on and can’t see the whole picture.”
You are projecting again. I just explained the whole picture. You are the one who is not seeing the whole picture.
Here is what you said that is incorrect:
“And I’m sure that Giaever understands the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which says that heat only flows in one direction, from warmer objects to cooler objects, and since the ocean surface is warmer (on a global average) than the atmosphere above it, those colder ghgs in the atmosphere don’t transfer any heat into the ocean, only the Sun does with it’s shorter wavelengths and much, much, much higher energy levels.”
What is wrong with your statement is that IR radiation emitted by the atmosphere does transfer heat into the ocean, and more heat than is transferred by the sun. The heat gained by the ocean on average is slightly more than the heat lost by radiation, convection and evaporation. The back radiation from the atmosphere is an important component of the energy balance.
The contribution of back radiation from the atmosphere cannot be ignored because it is absorbed in a thin surface skin on top the ocean. That would be a red herring.argument.
Once again, you fail to address any of the arguments that I made I made in my comment in which I addressed all your objections. Now either point out what was flawed in what my comment said, or stop trolling.
“What is wrong with your statement is that IR radiation emitted by the atmosphere does transfer heat into the ocean, and more heat than is transferred by the sun.”
I already fully rebutted that argument in my comment. You totally avoid my comment and merely repeat your debunked argument. Either re-reply to my above comment pointing out what was wrong with my rebuttal or stop trolling.
If you refuse to re-reply to my above comment, you are admitting that everything I said was correct.
If you choose not to re-reply to that comment, and reply to this comment, then answer these 3 questions:
Questions for Eric:
1) Which is warmer on a global average?
. . . A) the surface of the ocean? or
. . . B) the atmosphere above the ocean?
2) Which direction does the Columbia Univ. lecture on Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling ( http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html ) say that the net backradiation heat flow is going?
. . . A) from from the ocean to the atmosphere or
. . . B) from the atmosphere to the ocean?
3) Which direction does net heat flow?
. . . A) from warmer objects to colder objects, or
. . . B) from colder objects to warmer objects?
Focus Eric. Answer those 3 questions Eric, and nothing more. We can move on from there after those questions are answered.
1) ____
2) ____
3) ____
If you reply and fail to answer those 3 short simple questions you are demonstrating that you are not interested in interlocution, you are only interested in trolling with pointless back and forths where you refuse to interact.
If so you should be blocked from further distracting from the serious dialogue on the blog.
If you agree that the backradiation from the atmosphere is part of the heat flow, and that it therefore participates in the warming of the ocean there is no need for the discussion. The fact that it is absorbed in a thin surface skin doesn’t prevent its participation in the warming of the ocean as I mentioned. Its flux happens to be larger than the solar flux reaching the ocean. That doesn’t imply that the sun is not the primary source of energy keeping the earth warm. It does mean that the downward radiation has an effect.
In fact the evidence from measurements down to 2000M below the surface shows that the oceans have been gaining heat, despite satellite measurements that you claim show that the troposphere is cooling. This not be happening if the back radiation disappeared.
If you agree with this there are no issues.
Nope, you lost the argument because you dodge these 3 questions:
Why won’t you answer these 3 questions Eric?
You should be banned because you are just trolling repeating refuted arguments.
This image of page 4-11 from Ozawa et al., (2003) ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System, Reviews of Geophysics’, 41,4/1018 2003, doi:10.1029/2002RG000113 shows that I am correct in my understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the Earth’s climate system when I state that colder ghgs in the atmosphere do not transfer heat to the warmer surface of the Earth/ocean. It also shows Eric Adler is wrong when he states: “IR radiation emitted from the atmosphere does add heat to the ocean and more heat than is transferred by the sun”
I don’t think Eric is willing to concede, even though you appear to have him in 3 moves!
“I already fully rebutted that argument in my comment. You totally avoid my comment and merely repeat your debunked argument. And it is ludicrous to claim that backradiation from the colder atmosphere transfers more heat into the ocean than the Sun. ”
Take a look at the Earths Heat Budget, which is based on actual measurements. Solar energy absorbed by surface 168W/M2, Back radiation 324W/M2.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/earth_rad_budget_kiehl_trenberth_1997_big.gif
So lawyer that you are, you are now asking for an injunction from the judge.
You lost the argument because you dodge these 3 questions:
Why won’t you answer these 3 questions Eric?
You should be blocked because you are just trolling now.
Dan/ROO2’s attempted impersonation of me as RealOldOne3, and his admission that it was him. His RealOldOne3 account was blocked by the Telegraph for impersonation, and later his Dan account was blocked, and then he created his ROO2 account.
Dan’s account was blocked after he impersonated me with his RealOldOne3 account, as evidenced by his comment being removed.
Dan then created the ROO2 account a couple weeks after his Dan account was blocked.
Dan’s account blocked
Dan’s account blocked:,
Dan, aka ROO2’s impersonation of me with an identical RealOldOne2 Disqus account:
Dan/ROO2’s creation of an identical RealOldOne2 Disqus account.
You don’t realize that you’re up against the CTR (the Obama/Hillary inernet police). They go on internet forums like these and troll those who argue against the regime’s agenda.
Dan has just confirmed that he is my serial impersonator who is posting as ROO2. ROO2 & I were in an extended interchange and he forgot to change to his sockpuppet account, and posted a reply as Dan. And in that comment, Dan used “I”, claiming to have done the things that ROO2 did in previous comments. Here’s a screen capture of his comment: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9927edf0554663d10b908a3f8b586b25851a8b4a2c73f20065754deb813751b2.png
During this interchange, ROO2 posted a comment with wrong math, then when I called him on his error, he edited it without showing that he had changed it. When I called him on that, he claimed that he had posted “*Numbers edited*”, but that was not true, as the screen captures of his original comment and the edited comment show. This was ROO2’s original comment: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/efd303d5d42e1b176d2e874cfd166580c5074cded790776ba3d98d89bee764b1.png
This is ROO2’s comment after he had edited it, and it does not show any indication that he had edited it. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/61acd1e259b79ff6597a28160f9a67e3d4038208bd612783b8fd0927fa8c5b21.png
ROO2/Dan has become so upset and my continued exposure of his errors and that he can’t support his climate alarmist beliefs with empirical science, that he has resorted to death threats against me and my loved ones. This is documented in this screen capture: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1f9abdf37cfe1288ea3b07cab4567b7acea7bf5e9f8fc872e38af368de6a87ac.png
My serial impersonator ROO2, aka, Dan, aka Dana, aka Real0ld0ne2, aka RealOldOne3, aka RealOldOne2 (yes, my exact same Disqus username but with only a few dozen comments) has totally discredited himself with his own comments, and he has exposed that he is just a dishonest troll.
A summary of ROO2’s serial impersonation of me can be found here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/dear_president_elect_trump_climate_change_is_not_a_hoax_please_consider_this_it8217s_raining_near_th/#comment-3011348524
and here: https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fokulaer.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F03%2F05%2Fthe-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt%2F%23comment-867%3A5J1vtR1BiResJEY2esCMp-04hMY&cuid=932754 .
I believe he was referring at that point to the recent study that argued there hasn’t been a hiatus in warming, which it arrived at by making adjustments to data from buoys and ignoring the satellite data entirely.
I can’t spare more time for the moment than to address but your first argument.
1) (With reference to 3:20 in the video.) You acknowledge the increase in temperature since 1880 has been about 1 degree, so that basic fact is not in dispute. Whereas Giaever opines this is nothing to be alarmed about, you opine that we ought to fear this since even small changes climactic temperature (as opposed to the changes in temperature that we call “weather) can cause dramatic transformation, i.e., only 5 degrees cooler and we’d be in another ice age. To support your opinion that we ought to be alarmed by this 1 degree increase, you cite the infamous “hockey stick” graph by Mann, et al. This graph is not uncontroversial. While alarmists cite it to claim that current temperatures are “unprecedented”, the fact is that reconstructing temperatures from tree rings is not reliable and Mann’s results are contradicted by a large body of scientific research indicating warmer temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period.
Well, it sounds like you are a hardcore anti-AGW partisan, and will just repeat talking points vs. address facts.
“can cause dramatic transformation, i.e., only 5 degrees cooler and we’d be in another ice age”
Are you disputing this or not? You are so eager to revisit your climategate talking points that you gloss over the most relevant physical question.
“To support your opinion that we ought to be alarmed by this 1 degree increase”
We are not alarmed by a 1 degree increase, we are alarmed by the 3-4 degree increase that is in progress and difficult to stop at this point. That is the same order of magnitude as the ~4.5 deg C change into the ice age. Why is it obvious to you this is no big deal? Is there a logical basis or purely emotional?
“you cite the infamous “hockey stick” graph by Mann, et al”
I think this is a knee-jerk reaction on your part. I in fact did not cite the “hockey stick” graph by Mann, et al, I explicitly cited the larger and more methodologically advanced – applying learning from statistical debates etc. and corroborating across a wider range of proxies – multi-proxy reconstruction from Pages 2K. The fact that it looks just like the original hockey stick is hard to avoid – *all* of the global, multi-proxy reconstructions that have been done look that way. In science this is called reproduction and validation.
The fact that you can’t even engage with what I am citing (the Pages 2K study) and instead knee-jerk leap to climategate talking points is a sign that there is no actual sentient exchange of ideas likely to happen here. Am I wrong?
“the fact is that reconstructing temperatures from tree rings is not reliable”
I know you are comfortable with your decade-old climategate talking points. The reconstructions are not done from tree rings alone, but from a combination of sediments, ice cores, tree rings, corals, stalagmites, and pollen. More info:
PAGES 2k Consortium 2013 “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia”
“78 researchers from 24 countries, together with many other colleagues, worked for seven years in the PAGES 2k project on the new climate reconstruction … based on 511 climate archives from around the world, from sediments, ice cores, tree rings, corals, stalagmites, pollen or historical documents and measurements (Fig. 1). All data are freely available”
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age”
“The global average of the new reconstruction looks like a twin of the original “hockey stick”, the first such reconstruction published fifteen years ago.”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html
Rather than accept the raft of research showing similar shape to Holocene temps, you cherry pick a controversial outlier that says what you prefer. But Soon/Baliunas is invalid for purposes of the question at hand because it took regional temperature changes as global changes without any attempt to show that they had occurred at the same time across the world. The paper received an unusually brutal round of criticisms from scientific peers:
“Some of those whose work was referenced by Soon and Baliunas were particularly critical. Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography commented that “the fact that [the paper] has received any attention at all is a result, again in my view, of its utility to those groups who want the global warming issue to just go away”. Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona, whose work on dendrochronology was discussed in the paper, said the paper was “so fundamentally misconceived and contains so many egregious errors that it would take weeks to list and explain them all.” Peter Stott, a climatologist at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, said “Their analysis doesn’t consider whether the warm/cold periods occurred at the same time”. The paper would count warm or wet conditions in one region from 800 to 850 and dry conditions in a separate region from 1200 to 1250 as both demonstrating the Medieval Warm period. He noted that regional periods of warmth or cooling do not always occur at the same time as the global average warms or cools.[20][26]
…
The memorandum developed into a more general position paper jointly authored by 13 climate scientists, which was published on 8 July 2003 in the journal Eos as an article “On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late-20th Century Warmth”.[27] Most of the paper’s authors had been cited in the Soon and Baliunas 2003 paper (SB03).[28] The Eos paper made three key points: the SB03 and Soon et al. papers had misused precipitation and drought proxies without assessing their sensitivity to temperature, they had taken regional temperature changes as global changes without any attempt to show that they had occurred at the same time across the world, and they had taken as their base period for comparison mean temperatures over the whole of the 20th century, reconstructing past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends, thus failing to show whether or not late 20th century warming was anomalous. The IPCC TAR had concluded that late 20th century northern hemisphere warmth was likely to have exceeded warmth of any time in the past 1,000 years on the basis of studies that compared temperatures for recent decades with reconstructions of earlier periods while allowing for uncertainties in the reconstructions.[27]
…
On 28 July von Storch drafted an editorial stating that “the review process of CR failed to confront the authors with necessary and legitimate methodological questions which should have been addressed in the finally printed paper”, and proposing a new system in which all new papers were to be sent to the editor in chief rather than directly to individual editors as previously.[31] While Kinne agreed that the Soon and Baliunas paper should not have been published as it was, he did not accept von Storch’s proposal and wanted prior agreement from all the other editors before von Storch’s editorial was published. When von Storch found that some of the other editors thought the Soon and Baliunas paper was acceptable, he “concluded that we have different standards”, and suspected that “some of the skeptics had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common.”.[13][15] He felt that “editors used different scales for judging the validity of an article. Some editors considered the problem of the Soon & Baliunas paper as merely a problem of ‘opinion’, while it was really a problem of severe methodological flaws. Thus, I decided that I had to disconnect from that journal, which I had served proudly for about 10 years.”[32]
Hans von Storch resigned on the same day, 28 July,[31] and condemned the journal’s review process in his resignation letter: “The review process had utterly failed; important questions have not been asked … the methodological basis for such a conclusion (that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climate period of the last millennium) was simply not given.”[33] Clare Goodess also resigned later that day.[24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy
But a paper subject to this much controversy – a journal editor known for skeptical statements(!) resigns due to concerns that the journal had become a place with lower standards, now being sought out precisely because of those lower standards, leading to a paper with such “severe methodological flaws” getting published. Not even mentioning the controversy of Soon’s undisclosed funding from the fossil fuel industry.
Per above, it sounds like you are a partisan at this point and unfortunately (given this sort of cherry picking, misdirection etc.) not authentically interested in the factual truth of the scientific questions here. Too bad, because they are interesting and important. Just answering in detail for benefit of others.
Waxliberty, no, I did not and am not disputing that 5 degrees cooler climate in the past meant ice age. What I am disputing, as is perfectly clear from my comment, is the claim that the present warming is unprecedented.
You claim that the climate is warming at a rate of 3-4 degrees. That is what the IPCC has modeled. It is not what is observed. The observed rate of increase over the past century is about 1.5 degrees.
You did in fact cite the hockey stick graph by Mann (the blue line in the graph). Yes, the graph is also compiled from other data. So turning to your source, ThinkProgress, and its source in turn, the study in question in fact notes that “the first four centuries (AD 1000-1400) were warmer than the following four centuries (AD 1400-1800) in all regions” and that “the period from around AD 830 to 1100 generally encompassed a sustained warm interval in all four Northern Hemisphere regions. In South America and Australia, a sustained warm period occurred later, from around AD 1160 to 1370.”
The paper doesn’t deny the existence of a Medieval Warm Period; rather it offers the more nuanced view that instead of a “well-defined worldwide MWP and LIA [Little Ice Age]”, “the specific timing of peak warm and cold intervals varies regionally, with mutli-decadal variability resulting in regionally specific temperature departures from an underlying global cooling trend.” See the attached image below for their visualization of this.
The Ljungqvist dataset jumped out at me, so I found that paper as well. It concludes “that during the 9th to 11th centuries there was widespread [northern hemisphere] warmth comparable in both geographic extent and level to that of the 20th century mean. Our study also reveals that the 17th century was dominated by widespread and coherently cold anomolies representing the culmination of the LIA.” This is consistent with the findings of the Soon paper.
I haven’t said anything about Climategate, so it’s puzzling you suggest otherwise.
“The paper doesn’t deny the existence of a Medieval Warm Period”
It does, as a global energy budget event, which is what is relevant to the physical theory behind AGW (the ‘G’ is for “global”). The world as a whole did not warm aggressively as we are seeing now.
I did not explicitly make the claim that the “the present warming is unprecedented”, what I wrote is that “a full degree warming in the course of a century looks pretty aggressive compared to what the climate had been doing”, which is perfectly consistent with a regional MWP. The sustained, global nature of current warming is unprecedented in human history, and *projected* warming will take us into temperatures not experienced in human history or for millions of years.
Whether today’s global energy state i.e. GMST is specifically warmer than the MWP is not a particularly important question (it happens that the available evidence says it is.) It is not the focus of why mitigation is discussed. The mitigation topic is pretty simple: we are driving warming that will cause a lot of negative impact. A rational cost/benefit analysis says it is better to not do this. What happened in the MWP has little to do with this, so the obsession with it is always a little perplexing. It just seems to work as a talking point with your target demographic, I suppose. If you think there is a rational reason it is important, perhaps you can articulate it.
Usually when people invoke the MWP they are trying to argue that Some Natural Thing (that we can’t quite detect exactly, yet is strong enough to warm the entire planet) must be causing current warming because it happened back then without anthropogenic CO2. This is a different logical error, but perhaps not the one you are applying here.
I don’t see you disputing the relevant points: projected warming is likely to impact the conditions on earth at similar scale to ice age changes just in a warming direction, and we project lots of negative impact from this. These are the points that rebut Giaever’s handwave that warming is ‘small’.
On the subjective claims of stuff “feeling” small, I always like the satire in this Science vs. the Feelies clip from about 3:20. Perhaps it hits a little close to home though. Don’t miss the chart heading, “Adapted from the International Journal of Feelings”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ&feature=kp
The real problem is the ambiguity of the unadorned “MWP”.
See LambMWP, BigMWP, SAcienceMWP in http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/01/26/medievaldeception-2015-inhofe-drags-senate-dark-ages
Folks who are in the process of emotionally rejecting scientific findings are usually pretty adamant about not allowing resolution of simple semantic disputes. Semantic ambiguity is a comfortable place for them it seems.
As in the past, it remains true that certain areas of the planet have warmed while others have cooled. I happen to live in an area that has cooler. This winter is mild due to El Nino, but the previous two were the longest, coldest winters I ever remember. This regional variance is consistent with the paper you cited, which shows a global average in which various regions of the globe experienced a warmer period starting and ending at different times, but with considerable overlap consistent with a global MWP, the existence of which in the entire Northern Hemisphere is evidenced by Ljungqvist (2012), which concludes “that during the 9th to 11th centuries there was widespread [northern hemisphere] warmth comparable in both geographic extent and level to that of the 20th century mean. Our study also reveals that the 17th century was dominated by widespread and coherently cold anomolies representing the culmination of the LIA.” There are studies indicating such in the Southern Hemisphere, as well.
I’m not convinced it is unprecedented. Again, this is something that is debated in the scientific community, with contradictory studies, an example being the very study you shared with me to support this assertion, which in turn cites the Ljungqvist (2012) study noted above and in my previous comment.
Since you’ve rejected the Soon paper, perhaps we ought to check his sources, too, and see what they say. Is it your contention that the entire paper is a fraud, that the great many studies they said provided evidence for a MWP in fact did not?
You say that the available evidence says it’s warmer today than during the MWP, but, again, that, too, is a matter of debate, with different results depending on the study.
Change “must be” in that sentence to “could be” and it’s no longer a logical fallacy, but a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
But the IPCC’s projected warming is falsified by observations! The Earth is not warming at the rate projected and, again, the satellite data show little to no net warming for 18-plus years.
Satellite data is completely secondary to land ice loss which is an actual heat indicator (not just temperature) … heat is what is important. Land ice loss has not paused at all measured globally. If you focus on temperatures then your understanding of AGW will remain like that of a child unless you can compensate for currents and weather in your head (not likely unless you are a trained atmospheric physicist like my father). Heat, and land ice … time to wake up to the real problem of rising oceans that have direct correlations to CO2 …
I’ll take that as an acknowledgement that there hasn’t been net warming for 18-plus years.
No. Using melting land ice as the most accurate measure of heat gain there is no pause at all. What you are referring to is satelite data that measures the surface of the ocean. When that data takes into account the ocean layers just below the surface there is no pause at all. And the supposed pause is just weather phenomina that mistook temperature for heat. Heat flows isn different ways in different substances. But ice is not moving and therefore is an accurate measure every year. But, of course, if you view the scientists that measure the ocean currents and corresponding heat as the enemy you would not have access to this information. Thus, we have the paranoid and uniformed right trying to talk to the scientists (right and left) but not succeeding because of the paranoia.
Not interested in continued splitting hairs about MWP, just doesn’t amount to anything of significance.
“But the IPCC’s projected warming is falsified by observations! The Earth is not warming at the rate projected and, again, the satellite data show little to no net warming for 18-plus years.”
Both of these claims are factually unsupportable, and you will not be able to cite published scientific claims of this sort. They are blog talking points devoid of substance.
Warming is perfectly consistent with IPCC projections (at least on temps, they have tended to under-predict sea level rise and that is an area where there remains less confidence in projections):
Rahmstorf et al 2012 Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011
“We analyse global temperature and sea-level data for the past few decades and compare them to projections published in the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The results show that global temperature continues to increase in good agreement with the best estimates of the IPCC, especially if we account for the effects of short-term variability due to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, volcanic activity and solar variability. The rate of sea-level rise of the past few decades, on the other hand, is greater than projected by the IPCC models. This suggests that IPCC sea-level projections for the future may also be biased low.”
Marotzke and Forster 2015, Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends
“The differences between simulated and observed trends are dominated by random internal variability over the shorter timescale and by variations in the radiative forcings used to drive models over the longer timescale. For either trend length, spread in simulated climate feedback leaves no traceable imprint on GMST trends or, consequently, on the difference between simulations and observations. The claim that climate models systematically overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations therefore seems to be unfounded…
Our conclusion is that climate models are fundamentally doing the right thing,” Forster said. “They (climate models) do in fact correctly represent these 15 year short term fluctuations but because they are inherently chaotic they don’t get them at the right time.”
You will not be able to cite published assessments which find otherwise. There are lots more studies highlighting that “models have skilfully simulated many large-scale aspects of observed climate changes, including but not limited to the evolution of the global mean surface air temperature in the 20th century” (Raisanen 2007) and that “coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere” (Reichler and Kim 2008).
The “satellites say 19 years no warming” is even more ridiculous, and addressed in my blog post in more detail. I expect you will not address this (or probably, bring yourself to look at it.) It is obviously just a cherry pick of the RSS upper air measurement.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/whats-happened-to-global-warming-in.html
You and Giaever are both just re-circulating internet urban legends. When called on it, you are likely to evade by launching a lot of non sequitur commentary or gish galloping, maybe the morass of MWP debate or any number of other sideshows. The fact that the foundational premises of your position are not factually accurate seems immune to critical examination. At some point you have to ask yourself why that is.
I fail to see how a discussion about whether the MWP existed or not is “splitting hairs”. Again, there is plenty of evidence that it did.
With regard to the IPCC’s projections, what I am referring to is the fact that the models projected continually increasing temperatures, while observed temperatures have seen a pause in warming — as the Nature paper you provided acknowledges. Here, too, Nature acknowledges that “in the past decade the climate hasn’t warmed at the rate projected…” Here’s another nature study finding that “Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models.” Your own source again states that “observations suggest a warming hiatus”. Here’s another Nature paper noting that “the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001.” The lead author of that paper here shows a graph showing observed temperature falling below even the best-case scenario of IPCC projections.
The image I just referred to in my comment above.
“Again, there is plenty of evidence that it did”
As a regional event. The evidence indicates it was not a global event. I know you would like to dispute this. It distracts from other points.
It is “splitting hairs” because it isn’t important. Even if it existed as a global event, it is no more proof that anthropogenic warming is impossible than the existence of the last ice age.
“the models projected continually increasing temperatures”
They predict nothing of the kind. They all predict periods of steeper and flatter warming, as observed. For well understood reasons.
Here is an example of a specific model run actually used in ensembles that predicts the current hiatus fairly precisely:
http://www.scilogs.de/klimalounge/files/MRIscenario1.png
You can’t evaluate models without getting into the details of what they do and don’t try to predict. Do you understand why there are ensembles in the first place? Why there is a range projected? Why ensembles depend on scenarios like what happens with human CO2 emissions?
You are not citing anything that establishes “model failure”, just bits of comments that acknowledge flatter temperature measurements. Everyone knows results were at the low end of the projected range for this period. They were at the high end of the projected range in the late 90s. What of it?
If you want to support your claim, find something that specifically concludes “model failure”. Not “flatter temperatures than expected”. Not “we’re not sure about this and looking into it”. Specific, published analysis showing that observations are inconsistent with models.
Your hysterical talking point is “IPCC’s projected warming is falsified by observations!” Exclamation point and all. And your belief is that the world’s climate scientists don’t see this, but you do. How ego affirming. Yet you can’t answer basic questions about what the models do. How do they model ENSO, Jeremy?
I have already given you published studies showing the opposite. You ignore, apparently unable to understand or address the findings, and instead preposterously pick out phrases that you think confirms the opposite. No evidence you are able or willing to have a scientifically grounded conversation on the topic.
Well written! Again, thank you for the time and effort you put into your posts.
Jeremy, you write:
“… consistent with a global MWP, the existence of which in the entire
Northern Hemisphere is evidenced by Ljungqvist (2012), which concludes
“that during the 9th to 11th centuries there was widespread [northern
hemisphere] warmth comparable in both geographic extent and level to
that of the 20th century mean”
First, it’s still only NH warming, and it’s based on a statistically fuzzy proxy record compared to the modern instrumental record. But what if it is true? Ljungqvist says the MWP was “comparable in both geographic extent and level to
that of the 20th century mean.” Yet the very same “pause” that your friend Giavaer is so jazzed up about has been characterized by average surface temperatures about 0.75 degrees C above that mean, and we’re currently pushing up against a +1 degree anomaly (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201511). That’s why the hockey stick looks like a hockey stick. Despite including all the bits that are warming slowly or barely at all (I give you 70% of the planet’s surface: the slow-to-warm, slow-to-cool oceans), net planetary surface temps have taken off in a “vertical” direction on any millennial-scale graph.
I love how if a proxy record shows the present warming as unprecedented in human history (i.e., the hockey stick), it’s taken as gospel, but if it shows that it’s not unprecedented, suddenly, it’s “statistically fuzzy” (whatever that means).
You cannot simply ignore the body of evidence showing that temperatures were similar or higher during the Medieval Warm Period.
Statistically fuzzy means the margin of error (the pale shadow surrounding the dark central, best-estimate temperature line in those “hockey sticks”; e.g. see http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2014/09/T_comp_61-90.pdf.jpg) is huge compared to the one surrounding the trend line for the years in the instrumental record – i.e., since 1850 or 1880, depending on the dataset. The longer-term reconstructions suggest that our species may have experienced warmer temperatures even during the current interglacial period, but only around 5000 years ago (http://www.igbp.net/images/18.30566fc6142425d6c911a95/1384954096860/NL81-PAGES-fig2.gif). What appears to be unprecedented – because we have a very unfuzzy instrumental record to show it – is the rapid, “vertical” (in the graphical context of these reconstructions) warming trend of the industrial era. That record suggests – I believe the IPCC gives it a probability of better than 2 to 1 – that we are warmer now than during the MWP. Certainly, if you eyeball the reconstructions, current temps clearly are higher than even the highest margin-of-error peaks of the MWP. Offhand, I don’t know if those MOEs are 67% or 95%. Regardless, the writing is on the wall.
“You claim that the climate is warming at a rate of 3-4 degrees. That is what the IPCC has modeled. It is not what is observed. The observed rate of increase over the past century is about 1.5 degrees.”
I think you are confused about what is being claimed. First of all the word rate implies a unit of time. The 3-4 degrees being referred by Waxliberty is the ultimate result of doubling of CO2, which hasn’t happened yet. Even after CO2 doubles it will take a few decades for the temperature to rise so that the flow of energy into and out of the earth atmosphere system will balance. So the 1C warming we have seen is not in conflict with the projections being made.
Your original point was that a large body of data shows the MWP was warmer than today. This was disputed by Waxliberty. Your post doesn’t show any data that showed the MWP was warmer than today. Are you going to concede that you made a mistake?
It seems to me that you are out of your depth in attempting to discuss the science to dispute the evidence produced by many posters here, that Gaiver’s talk is nonsense.
Actually there are 16 different reconstructions of the global average temperature of the last 1000 years shown in figure 6 of the following page:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
All 16 show that the MWP was not warmer than today globally.
“The Ljungqvist dataset jumped out at me..”
The data is for the Northern Hemisphere, not the globe.
extratrophttp://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/dec/15dec2010a4.htmlical
Good comments, but there is more, as the problems at CR were far more pervasive than scientists imagined, but to see that, I had to go back and look at hundreds of papers, check authors and who edited them.
Soon and Baliunas was just one of the papers that would not have survived normal peer review.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pal-review-true-story-fairy-tale.html
Please see my reply to his comment here.
No they are not, the hockey stick has been reconstructed numerous times by other scientists, and found to be essentially sound.
Conversely the large body of scientific research you link to is a single paper by Soon & Baliunas, that was immediately condemed for failures in methodology and for its misuse of data from previously published studies. The paper generated a controversy that resulted in the resignation of editors for publishing sub-standard research and an admission by the publisher that the paper should not have been published:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy
I might add that Willie Soon was largely funded by energy interests including Exxon Mobile and that he has recently been in trouble for concealing funding sources:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry
Mobius Loop, you assert that Soon and Baliunas had “failures of methodology”. Such as? You assert they misued data from previous studies. Please provide an example.
As for funding, the Soon paper in question states explicity that it was researched with funding from the American Petroleum Institute. It was also funded by NASA. Perhaps we ought to dismiss it for that reason. Michael Mann received funding from Obama’s stimulus. To be fair, ought we dismiss his research for that reason?
Did he lie about it? Do you know how much “Industry” funding is sought by and provided to PSU? I don’t begrudge the funding as long as strings aren’t attached (or funding taken back when the sponsors don’t like the results as it seems in Mann’s case).
At least the Koch Brothers didn’t ask for their money back when the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project produced results you wouldn’t expect them to want to support. My skepticism was heavily tilted (97% to 3%) against those included in the 3% we now find were paid by the industry, and lied about it.
IIRC – Soon et al. mixed their data which was zeroed around the mean temperature for the whole period (~1000) years with Mann et als data which was zeroed around the 20th century mean without applying any corrections for example.
My sources are on paper… I will try and track down something on the internet tommorrow.
Also, Exxon supports a carbon tax. Doh!
Exxon isn’t alone in supporting carbon pricing.
Most major fossil companies do, as well as most respected economists, conservative and otherwise.
It’s the right policy. Right now, it’s so overdue, even a horrible implementation would beat none at all. Lucky for us, the Whitehouse-Schatz Bill isn’t totally unpalatable.
Well.. I suspect the oil and gas companies support a carbon tax.
–
They can then seize coals share of electrical production ,by government forcing a switch to natural gas, which they control. As NG emits 1/2 the CO2 as coal a tax makes NG much cheaper..
–
Also, any tax charges are passed to consumers. And over 60% of FF use is transportation, with no viable alternative.
–
Like supporting the anti nuke hysteria in the 70s and 80s. Oil and gas execs do what works for their shareholders.
–
Clever.
“And over 60% of FF use is transportation, with no viable alternative.”
Never head of consumer choice at the Pump, have you?
http://www.fuelfreedom.org/not-just-corn-10-home-grown-feedstocks-for-ethanol/
Add Hemp to the graphic and list of feedstocks.
I believe ethanol produces more CO2 per mile driven than gasoline.
–
And requires replacing food acreage with fuel acreage ..Ivar discusses this in the video.
–
Any idea how much land it would take to replace the oil and gas used for transport and electricity ?
“I believe ethanol produces more CO2 per mile driven than gasoline.”
Hempanol is carbon neutral. The only Carbon emitted was removed from the cycle in the life of the plant.
“Any idea how much land it would take to replace the oil and gas used for transport and electricity?
Replace oil and gas?
Pathetic Straw man.
Who said anything other than the dream of having fuel freedom and “Choices at the pump”?
Hmm?
You have anything that shows Hempanol is carbon neutral ?
–
You don’t want oil and gas replaced ?
–
What is your point, exactly ?
If it isn’t neutral it’s darn close.
My point was consumer choice at the pump, in response to a silly baseless assertion. (.no viable alternative.)
Then why did you claim it was carbon neutral ?
–
How would prices compare to gasoline or diesel ?
–
How much food acreage needed for even a significant contribution to fuel supplies ?
–
And what impact on food prices could be expected ?
And the technology to power cars using blends of biofuel ethanol and petroleum-based gasoline is already out there — it was invented, in fact, in the US.
To Create Carbon-Neutral Fuels, Invest in Hemp
http://theleafonline.com/c/politics/2015/12/create-carbon-neutral-fuels-invest-hemp/
You did not answer the questions .
–
Why ?
Because it’s your turn to answer a couple.
Only fair, right?
Which part of your gish gallop should I address first?
“I believe ethanol produces more CO2 per mile driven than gasoline.”
Do you have anything that backs that up?
http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/biofuels_subsidies_eu_review.pdf
From your link-
“The negative externalities resulting from the use of fossil fuels, such as the environmental damage resulting from their extraction or carbon emissions emitted during their consumption are negative externalities borne by society and generally not reflected in their market price.”
Nothing that backs up your assertion found.
read further.
In terms of greenhouse gas emission accounting, it is necessary for the European Union to include indirect land use change (ILUC) concerns in biofuel and other bioeconomy-based policies, in order to ensure that public money does not support biofuels that increase CO2 emissions
.
Also;
–
Once land and water use is included, impacts on food prices.. Bio fuels are not competitive without subsidies . Which this report recommends against .
I read the whole thing.
I understand that.
The report doesn’t say that Hemp diesel or hempanol aren’t carbon neutral like you suggested
The report doesn’t recommend the continued socialism of fossil fuel externalities either.
Then you didn’t read it.
I read it.I understand corn definitely has problems with water usage petroleum-based fertilizers and herbicides.
I don’t condone the use of corn for any fuel feed stock .
Hemp on the other hand uses less fertilizer needs less water can grow in almost any climate and can be used for diesel and ethanol.
My original point was that the carbon absorbed when the plant grows is what is emitted when the plant is burned.
It isn’t it a shame that fascist prohibition has squelched any research on all the uses of hemp especially fuel, that we could have had after all these years?
“How much food acreage needed for even a significant contribution to fuel supplies ?”
111 million acres of farmland are abandoned in the US.
Why not grow it there?
I don’t know what you are talking about when you suggest you have no consumer choice at the pump. If ethanol was an economically viable alternative, there would be profits to be made from it and hence entrepreneurs and investors would flock to it, increasing production and supply. The fact that government has to subsidize the ethanol industry in order for it to survive is an indication that directing scarce resources towards this end is an inefficiency in the market.
You don’t know that petroleum has used market failure to be priced artificially low?
And did you not know that if the the petroleum industry couldn’t continue exploiting that classic market failure, renewable fuels wouldn’t need as much govt. help?
Do you think US consumers deserve more choices at the pump than “the Market” has given us Mr. Hammond?
Have you seen this?
http://www.fuelfreedom.org/our-work/initiatives/pump/
Please stop speaking in riddles, lest I be forced to conclude you are simply trolling. Explain.
Are you seriously saying you don’t know these economic terms?
You are disassembling Jeremy.
You really are a committed corporate socialist aren’t you?
NG is notoriously dirty.
Methane Leaks in Natural-Gas Supply Chain Far Exceed Estimates, Study Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/19/science/methane-leaks-in-natural-gas-supply-chain-far-exceed-estimates-study-says.html?_r=0
So, NG is out too ?
What else ?
“Out too”?
No.
Nobody said “out” but you.
Then, what point were you trying to make ?
That NG isn’t clean.
And ?
–
Some methane gets vented ? So what ?
–
Is nuke ..clean enough for you ?
So what ?
Do all so called conservatives shit where they sleep?
What ?
–
Are you smoking the leaf in your name ?
–
Looks like you had a little too much…hemp.
–
Have a glass of water..
–
Now, is nuke clean enough for you ?
Nuke?
They can’t get indemnified by the private sector.
Doesn’t that eliminate them from contention to a so called “Free Marketeer”?
The question was ,
–
Is nuke.. clean enough for you ?
–
Try to focus.
They can’t get indemnified by the private sector.
Is it ok if those costs are Socialized?
Are you a supporter of Nuke Corporate Socialism in addition to your support of fossil fuel corporate socialism?
Is nuke.. clean enough for you ?
–
Is it ok if those costs are Socialized?
Is nuke.. clean enough for you ?
–
We’ll get to costs.
–
I promise.
Nuke has waste, correct?
So, then No.. Nuke is not clean enough for you ?
What do you plan to do with the Nuclear waste?
Socialize it?
Why change the subject ..?
–
Do you accept nuke as an energy source, or not ?
–
Do you accept NG as an energy source or not ?
–
How about Hydro ?
–
Geo ?
I accept all of those as energy sources.
What is your Point?
Fine.
–
Dismissed.
My turn.
You ready?
Sure.
Sorry.
I had nodded off.
I need to get to bed to get up for work.
Continue later.
Well ?
Well ??
“Also, any tax charges are passed to consumers. ”
Thats the whole idea.
Eliminating the market failure in the industry and ending the socializing of the Costs.
How is passing on the costs to consumers ending the socializing of costs ?
It’s the choice of the polluters to pass on the pollution tax in higher prices.
They can choose not to.
Either way the External costs are no longer Socialized they are charged at the source to the party who produced them and market failure is corrected.
This is basic Econ 101.
How do you not know this stuff?
I think you are a little confused .
–
The oil cos provide their product to fill demand. If there was no demand ,there would be no FF use.
–
Why would FF companies not pass their costs on to consumers, including taxes. ?
–
And how is increasing the cost of fuel to consumers not socializing those costs ?
–
What External costs are you speaking of ?
Which part of your gish gallop should I address first?
Are you prepared to answer a few questions yourself?
I have to ask because lots of you folks run from direct questions.
Gish Gallop ?
–
How so ? FF cos supply demand .. Do you dispute this ?
–
FF companies pass on costs and taxes currently , do you dispute this ?
–
If you add carbon taxes to FF co. costs how is that not socializing the costs ?
–
I would be glad to answer questions after you explain the above.
Another gish gallop
How do you expect to be taken seriously?
Is credibility that unimportant to you?.
Let’s try this one at a time.
–
FF cos supply demand .. Do you dispute this ?
What is your point?
Just a simple question …
–
Trying to understand how you think carbon taxes do not socialize the added costs of energy due to those taxes being passed on to consumers..
Producers are now being charged and consumers are now paying a more correct Price that reflects External Costs that are no longer socialized onto the environment where neither the current producer nor the consumer ever paid them.
The next generations pay them.
Kind of how you socialize the costs of your wars of choice in Iraq from 2001 till Jan of 2009.
Those costs go directly to your kids.
You haven’t had to sacrifice a dime to fund any of the multi Trillion dollar cost of those years long invasions and occupations.
And you never intend to.
You socialize those costs.
What “External Costs” ?
–
External costs, determined by who ?
–
“Your wars of choice” ? You ass ume I supported wars ? Big ass umption !
–
Try to focus.. I know you like to make angry speeches. Try supporting your position with logical argument.
Are you going to pretend there isn’t obvious external costs in the fossil fuel energy industry and they haven’t been socialized for almost two hundred years?
Please.
Don’t play that silly game.
I am pretending nothing . Are you pretending there have been no benefits fro the use of fossil fuels for 200 years ?
–
A quick one from the WHO 2013 report.
–
Life Expectancy Developed (FF and Nuke using) World is.. 75- 85 years .
–
Life Expectancy Undeveloped (Lo/No energy) World is 45 -55 years.
–
The question was simple ,External costs, determined by who ?
Are you pretending there isn’t any external costs to the environment?
To the populace?
Really?
Is that So you don’t have to admit to supporting the continued Corporate Socialism of said externalities?
Nope.
I have never said there have been no benefits from fossil fuels over the years.
That would be dishonest of me.
Credibility is important to me.
How about you?
Did I ever write that there were no costs from FF use ?
–
Yet you claimed I “socialized their costs”
–
Did you write this ?
“And you never intend to.
You socialize those costs”.
–
Doesn’t seem like credibility is important to you at all .
–
Now ;
–
External costs, determined by who ?
“You socialize those costs”.
The context of that assertion related to War of Choice costs i referenced.
Not Energy industry Socialism of costs
You never intend to pay anything on those Trillions or the yearly interest they are accruing..
Ever.
Don’t pretend you do.
So yes you are Socializing those war debts onto the next generation.
Are you paying U.S taxes ?
By rational humans.
https://www.google.com/search?q=coal+ash+pictures&biw=1366&bih=657&tbm=isch&imgil=p9WjdtTQqQp4eM%253A%253BbIjl5AZCNs244M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.nytimes.com%25252F2009%25252F01%25252F07%25252Fus%25252F07sludge.html%25253Fpagewanted%2525253Dall&source=iu&pf=m&fir=p9WjdtTQqQp4eM%253A%252CbIjl5AZCNs244M%252C_&usg=__2bF_pc72WCboBBm3V4i0HYkXOJ8%3D&ved=0ahUKEwiM_r_qypHKAhUGWx4KHZroCXIQyjcILw&ei=_ySLVsyCMIa2eZrRp5AH#imgrc=p9WjdtTQqQp4eM%3A&usg=__2bF_pc72WCboBBm3V4i0HYkXOJ8%3D
We don’t hold a candle to Nature.
–
And coal cos are required to restore areas…Volcanos… are not.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/05/27/4239903.htm
“We don’t hold a candle to Nature.”
With that post, Are you trying to justify your support of Corporate Socialism of fossil fuel externalities?
Why don’t you identify the “fossil fuel externalities” and who arrived at them and then we can discuss them ?
Why don’t you quit with the nonsense and admit that you know full well that there are externalities being socialized on to the environment and the populace by the energy producers?
Why can’t you identify them ?
–
You are the one that raised the issue.
I have to conclude you’re a dishonest dissembler.
First it was all the gish gallops. now this nonsense. All to cover for the fact that you’re a committed supporter of Corporate Socialism.
Sad
The funny thing is Hammond is exactly the same without the gish gallops.
Don’t ever let me see you cry socialism that some individual might receive. That would expose you as a real hypocrite wouldn’t it?
Then you can’t, or won’t ,identify the “fossil fuel externalities” ?
–
The rest seems another political rant .. the article is about .global warming evidence.
–
Moving on , how about your claim there is no peer reviewed scientific evidence of a global Medieval Warm Period ?
–
I gave you the Rosenthal et al paper from Science.
–
Look up Oceans 2k 2015.. same conclusions.
–
MWP and LIA…. global.
I’d really like to see anything coal companies restored or improved that can match what is shown at http://www.retn.org/show/episode-53-restoring-earth
It seems the balance of sacrifice zones to areas restored like China’s Loess Plateau are horribly out of balance, especially in other countries they exploit even more carelessly.
On the whole the damage is very limited., especially in the U.S
–
And thanks to the vast wealth created by energy development , The U.S and Western Europe have reforested to levels not seen since the 1800s.
–
China will likely get there as well.
–
No energy source is without some environmental cost .
Yeah, right, I take it you don’t live in Porter Ranch where there are thousands of people told to evacuate and two schools sending students to other schools. See http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/12/27/porter-ranch-gas-leak-crisis-court-orders-5000-evacuations/
That’s just the latest uncontrolled release (1/4 of all of California’s emissions) and a little closer than BP’s big uncontrolled spill into the Gulf of Mexico.
Then there are the under publicized sacrifice zones in North America such as those that more directly affect people as described at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114843/
I spotted suspicious well pads, while flying over Arkansas, that were darker and lower contrast (harder to pick out), but which looked like something less dense than the 40 fold increase in “unconventional” fracked wells (needed to keep the flow rates adequate compared to conventional wells, which should also be considered when they brag about the cost reductions per well without mentioning they considered drilling 32 to 64 times as many wells). Those turned out to be the Faulkner County Sacrifice Zone where they are injecting waste (wonder how that affects their property values, health, etc, if they even let the buyers know much about it).
Read up on other North American zones that should be considered sacrifice zones like the Cree nations in Canada as described in the documentaries like “Heavy Metal, “One More River,” or the Navajo areas near the Four Corners, in “Yellow Fever.” Some First Nations people in positions of sufficient power (opposed by many others though) want to promote extracting coal, oil, gas, uranium, etc. I’d hope they contact the other First Nations people to get a good look at the real long term costs and damage already done in other areas, and let the rest of the world know what they are in for if the profiteers find other areas they once thought were worthless (hence providing First Nations people with tiny slices of what they formerly considered commons property).
Consider other parts of the world as they try to treat our Federal and State lands somewhat more like the corruptly accessed lands elsewhere. An example more personal to me is the damage done in Ecuador (where my neighbors came from), with billions of dollars in damage, who’s government then lost a case to Chevron, for $96 million in “lost profits,” (just imagine how much worse would be inflicted if TPP were passed). Then there are things like the Deep Water Horizon spill, an even bigger version of the Porter Ranch uncontrolled release, so far.
In other words, the “some” environmental cost you mention is intolerable at the current amounts.
The Five Billion world wide that rely on FFs for heat, light ,and transportation of goods and food…….
–
Disagree.
Wait until they see what will serve them better and more independently of profiteers (like the guys happy to use a lot of clean energy to extract dirtier stuff they can make more profit on).
Be honest.
In 2001 to around 2005 or even later you disparaged anyone who even questioned the cheeny doctrine, and called folks who did un American and worse.
And you said (I paraphrase)”We gotta fight em’ over there so we don’t gotta fight em’ over here!”
Come on sir.
Be honest.
You did a few of those things.
Didn’t you?
I advise not condescending to others about “basic Econ 101” when you arguing that government bureaucrats making decisions at best arbitrarily somehow know better than the market with its pricing system how to most efficiently direct scarce resources towards productive ends as determined by consumer demand.
Please show more respect in your comments or you will be banned for trolling.
Do you support the status quo which is the continuation of the market failure that is the Socialism of fossil fuel Externalities Mr. Hammond?
If you’d like me to answer a question, please ask one that has meaning.
Since I’m prone to logic, either you don’t understand the econ 101 terms or you just made a pathetic, ad hom dodge of a direct question.
I’m thinking the latter.
Am I correct Mr Hammond ?
That is so condescending it’s not even funny
“when you arguing that government bureaucrats making decisions at best arbitrarily somehow know better than the market with its pricing system how to most efficiently direct scarce resources towards productive ends as determined by consumer demand.”
I argued nothing of the sort.
Sir.
You just made a completely baseless assertion.
Logically, indeed you did argue that government bureaucrats making decisions at best arbitrarily somehow know better than the market with its pricing system how to most efficiently direct scarce resources towards productive ends as determined by consumer demand.
For the sake of argument let’s assume I was .
2 questions.
Are you of the opinion that a classic market failure shouldn’t be corrected?
Is it your opinion that markets should work for the people or that people should work for the markets?
Whatever do you mean?
Hello Mr Hammond.
Sure, I’ll try to explain it.
Do you know that the fossil fuel energy industry has exploited a classic economic market failure for close to two hundred years?
Do tell, what “classic economic market failure” are you saying the fossil fuel industry has been exploiting?
Really?
Not versed in economics at all ?
I think you’re putting me on Hammond.
Says the guy who in a previous articles thought he could debate economics.
You just exposed yourself as a silly dissembler Hammond.
What start with their free use of the US Navy and military all over the world.
Can we have a discussion on it?
Thanks in advance.
You apparently don’t understand how shale gas works.
That’s coal fields.
But you also appear not to be aware of LanzaTech’s deal with Branson to replace fossil with carbon neutral biofuel for jet fuel, among many ventures aimed at sweeping away fossil dependence from transportation.
Also, of course carbon prices are partly passed on to consumers. It’s them who make the purchase decision based on price. Which is why failing to price fossil dumping hurts the Market by keeping better goods — according to what the consumer would buy if they knew the real price — out of reach of consumers for short term profit to sellers.
You appear ill-equipped to use a word like ‘clever’.
Quite a speech ,
Natural gas extraction occurs in shale and other geologic formations.
–
The point being that it is cheaper in some markets than coal ,or diesel for electrical generation.
–
Your thinking is very muddy.
–
Adding artificial costs (carbon taxes) distorts the market and hurts . consumers. As does the artificial elimination of reliable low cost energy sources like coal .Forcing higher costs on consumers for energy also ignites inflation.
–
Converting Ag land to fuel production also causes food costs to rise.
–
There is a reason Australia repealed carbon taxes. The U.S. has rejected it as well.
–
No one buys the “externalized costs” or “social cost” of carbon.. this is merely the justification used by governments to increase revenues.
–
An artificial construct .Like the threat of “global warming” ,a century hence.
Keep it respectful.
Precisely.
I think folks like Hammond would prefer the status quo and the continued market failure of the pollute for free business model of Socializing the Costs onto the environment and the populace.
When it really comes down to it these kind of folks are committed Corporate Socialists.
Please refrain from speculating about my preferences. I’m all for cleaner energy. I’m certainly not in favor, however, of causing harm to the poorest among us by implementing policy that increases their cost of living. Government bureaucrats making decisions at best arbitrarily (assuming only good intentions) do not know better than the free market with its pricing system how to most efficiently direct scarce resources towards productive ends to meed consumer demand.
Evidence?
Gone missing…
“causing harm to the poorest among us by implementing policy that increases their cost of living.”
What is it you are disputing, specifically?
Show us the policy that was implemented causing “harm” and increased “… their cost of living.”
I won’t down vote an honestly held opinion, but the free market consumers seem to know far to little about the external costs to the environment, health, water security, numerous and extensive sacrifice zones, etc. The industry, sponsored academia, and media seem all to eager to keep them in the dark of doubting even the industry’s previous research.
I was absolutely right about you.
You said “carbon pricing”, but you mean taxing carbon dioxide emissions. To tax carbon emissions would cause the cost of energy to rise, which would disproportionately harm the poorest.
I meant what I wrote.
Pricing. Privatization. Treating the reserve as a resource for Market, not a Commons.
People get easily confused about this distinction.
This is the same process as happened with mobile telephone bandwidth; before privatization, you could use those bands for walkie-talkie communications. The result of failing to privatize was that the world lost out for decades on the lucrative possibilities of private mobile telecommunications networks.
Once privatized, the mobile phone business was able to turn that former shared commons into one of the most profitable resources of all time, and very few people argue it would be better to go back in time to before the days of cell phones.
Pricing carbon emissions most demonstrably would not cause the cost of energy to rise. Fossil is not the only source of energy, and renewables benefit from Economies of Scale, whereby they drop in cost rapidly the more they are developed, very similar to the way the price of computer memory and computer speed drop with technical advancement.
It’s failure to privatize, failure to uphold the first tenet of Capitalism — that you pay for what you take on — that keeps energy a market subject more to geopolitics, embargo and cartels than sensible Law of Supply and Demand.
As for harm to the poorest, the case histories of carbon pricing worldwide tell us the opposite of your transparent economic alarmism.
Where did you get your economics facts from?
I’m not sure what to make of your comment “I meant what I wrote” when what you wrote (“Exxon isn’t alone in supporting carbon pricing”) was meaningless. What you meant was taxing carbon dioxide emissions (taxing, not pricing; and carbon dioxide, not carbon). Laying a tax on something isn’t “pricing” it. Pricing is what occurs when the market is allowed to function and an equilibrium is reached between supply and demand.
And I repeat: To tax carbon emissions would cause the cost of energy to rise, which would disproportionately harm the poorest. (Where did I get that from? I applied logic.)
Seems B.C. isn’t your best example…
“To tax carbon emissions would cause the cost of energy to rise, which would disproportionately harm the poorest..”
Mann’s hockey stick is only “infamous” among the crackpot right and in the public disinformation propaganda from an industry that has a 28 trillion dollar vested interest in misinforming the public.
In the real world, the graph has been corroborated by over two dozen independent temperature proxy methods.
Your attack on human civilization on this page is far more vile than anything ISIS has attempted. Shameful.
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/10.1260/095830503322793632
There is a discussion to be had, insults and otherwise ad hominem argumentation notwithstanding.
Scientists found that the issues raised by McIntyre and McKitrick were minor and did not affect the main conclusions of MBH98 .
How do you not know this?
I assume by “Scientists” you are referring to Mann’s own acknowledgment of error. If otherwise, please point me to a source.
+1 !
1) The Soon and Baliunas paper (for which the American Petroleum Insiitute was the lead funder) only got published via a “rogue editor” See
http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-prefer-pal-review-over-peer-review-chris-de-freitas-pat-michaels-and-their-pals-1997-2003
Obviously, I have studied that paper and many others at CR.
May I ask if you had actually read that paper? and the rebuttals
2) The famous graph that shows a big MWP … was a sketch of Central England, and misusing it started no later than 1992 with Richard Lindzen in The Greening of Planet Earth, funded by the Western Fuels Association (Power River coal). See
https://youtu.be/ep5ptrPN6ns?t=833
For reality:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/01/26/medievaldeception-2015-inhofe-drags-senate-dark-ages
3) When you state that tree rings are not reliable, can you explain what that means and explain your expertise in being able to dismiss dendrochronology so thoroughly?
For example, have you studied Ray Bradley’s Paleoclimatology-Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary? (either 1999 2nd Ed,pp397-438, or 3rd Ed, 2015, pp.453-498.) Those chapters go through the challenges of extracting good signal from noisy tree ring data, and how scientists have learned to do it.
If not, perhaps you would like to meet Bradley and/or Malcolm Hughes (the B and H of MBH99 hockey stick paper)? If you were to attend AGU2016 next December, I’d
be glad to introduce you, since I’m only amateur at this, but they are two of the world’s experts. I don’t get to see them too often, but was lucky to have dinner with them a few weeks ago at AGU2105.
John,
1) Yes, I read the Soon paper. If there are rebuttals to it in the peer-reviewed literature, please point them out to me so I can familiarize myself with them. I would also point you to this comment where I address the point.
2) The existence of a MWP is indicated in a large body of research. See again this comment for cited example.
3) You are right, my comment about tree rings comes off as a blanket dismissal. I didn’t mean that they aren’t useful for the study of climate, just that they aren’t direct measurements and can be problematic as a proxy. There are other factors that affect tree growth, obviously, other than temperature, and there has been a divergence between growth rates and measured temperatures in more recent decades. I’m referring to complications such as the following:
It has recently been suggested that non-random sampling and differences in mortality between trees of different growth rates is responsible for a widespread, systematic bias in dendrochronological reconstructions of tree growth known as modern sample bias. This poses a serious challenge for climate reconstruction and the detection of long-term changes in growth. — A likelihood perspective on tree-ring standardization: eliminating modern sample bias
There is evidence for a climate-response threshold between approximately 60–80 vertical m below treeline, above which trees have shown a positive growth-response to temperature and below which they do not. Chronologies from 80 m or more below treeline show a change in climate response and do not correlate strongly with temperature-sensitive chronologies developed from trees growing at upper treeline. Rather, they more closely resemble lower elevation precipitation-sensitive chronologies. At the highest sites, trees on South-facing slopes grow faster than trees on North-facing slopes. High growth rates in the treeline South-facing trees have declined since the mid-1990s. This suggests the possibility that the climate-response of the highest South-facing trees may have changed and that temperature may no longer be the main limiting factor for growth on the South aspect. These results indicate that increasing warmth may lead to a divergence between tree growth and temperature at previously temperature-limited sites. — Changing climate response in near-treeline bristlecone pine with elevation and aspect
No, I haven’t read Bradley, but just found chapter 10 at ResearchGate and have saved a copy for future reference.
The problem is the ambiguity of the term MWP.
See LambMWP, BIgMWP and ScienceMWP disambiguations in:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/01/26/medievaldeception-2015-inhofe-drags-senate-dark-ag
BigMWP was a deliberate deception.
Soon and Baliunas. Again, see:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pal-review-true-story-fairy-tale.html
There’s a broken link to the key rebuttal, but:
http://cfa.atmos.washington.edu/2003Q4/211/articles_optional/Mann_on_Soon2003.pdf has one.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003EO270003/epdf
has image of EOS, but missing the authors
Of course, it is easy enough to just read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy
Basically, the paper was junk. See the funding discussion; personally, I think one might make a case for grant fraud for NASA $, and Soon certainly was deceptive about his grants.
Tree rings:
You made a broad negative statement, and when challenged, offered two quotes that might impress someone who knows little about this field.
The first quote was from http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/4499/2013/cpd-9-4499-2013.html Climate of the Past uses an open peer review model.
They claimed to have a better method. The 2 referees basically said they hadn’t come close, and pointed out a lot of issues. Referee 1 was fairly blunt, referee 2 was more gentle, but the bottom line was: NOT without a lot of improvement.
Did you not notice:
“This discussion paper has been under review for the journal Climate of the Past (CP). A final paper in CP is not foreseen.”
I don’t know if they tried somewhere else, but CP didn’t publish it. I do notice both papers get mentioned at WUWT; I hope that’s not your source.
On the second, do you actually understand what it means and doesn’t?
You did notice Malcolm Hughes was one of the authors, right?
I attended Malcolm;s talk about this topic at AGU2013 and talked to him about it, and of course, I studied Bradley’s book years ago, and both these guys are friends who answer emails when I have questions.
What you seem to think are major issues are the sorts of things they teach in Dendro intro classes, like:
http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/introdendro/
Of course, all this argument over tree rings is a bit silly, since one gets compatible results from studies that don’t use them.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/07/tree-rings-and-climate-some-recent-developments/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/marcott-hockey-stick-real-skepticism.html
You argue that Soon’s paper was “junk” without addressing anything of substance in it, but merely on the grounds that it was funded by API. Can I expect more of the same from the links you shared? Would you mind please providing me with a single example illustrating an error in fact or logic in the Soon paper?
If I read your blog and http://www.lindau-nobel.org/ correctly I would think that there was 1 Nobel Laureate denying AGW and 36 who signed a statement agreeing. That seems to be 2.7% denier, 97.3% agreeing, yet they chose to publicize the single one that spent from half a day to a full day researching on the internet in an area he is not an expert in.
P.S. Since my most recent reply to socalpa seems at least delayed, I’m wondering if or when this one might get posted.
Jeremy R. Hammond, since you have removed my earlier comment, here is another one for you to remove: You are an ass! Giaever’s presentation is a shameful embarrassment to science, and the fact that you chose to present it in the first place is an embarrassing revelation about your own level of intellect. Numerous commenters have pointed all this out, but no light can apparently penetrate the dense cloud surrounding your cranium, and so you keep asking for more proof, when ample detail has already been supplied.
Good post! My thoughts exactly.
Comments that violate the terms of use will be deleted. I’m not deleting this comment, despite the fact you again violate the TOU with it, in order for others to be so forewarned to keep comments relevant, substantive, and respectful.
If you produce a non-relevant non-substantive article, you expect respect? Only in Fox world.
Coward.
Thanks for demonstrating for everyone the kind of comment that will get you banned.
Not just cowardly, but childish.
Yip, exactly. Extremely evasive, literally dodgy, and childish. Oh, and let’s not forget ignorant.
:) I can only smile, since otherwise he will delete me again.
The only comment of yours that was deleted was the following (posted 1/2/16 8:34 pm):
You were subsequently banned for violating the terms of use of the comments section.
Jeremy sounds like he’s about ten years old. Just pitiful.
At 1:55, Dr. Giaever declares global warming to be a religion, “..because you can’t discuss it.”
Which substantively makes politics religion, sex religion, and the things that crawl around in trash religion; after all, you can’t always discuss those, either.
But Dr. Giaever doesn’t really mean you can’t discuss global warming; what he means is that climate scientists no longer dispute Fourier’s findings or Tyndall’s research or Arrenhius’ of over a century ago, or Callendar’s or Hubert Lamb’s 1958 findings, nor Exxon’s 1977 findings, nor Hansen’s 1988 findings, because there have been tens of thousands of independent studies since then in their specialized field that have confirmed these findings and climatologists have moved onto new topics, and it annoys him because he wasn’t part of all that and wants to re-examine all of those findings from the start with them like a schoolboy in argument by infinite regress. His claim is not substantively valid.
2:11 “I don’t know if they know what it means..” Wow. Dr. Giaever is accusing Nobel Laureates of ignorance on a topic he has just boasted he formed his opinions of from a half day on the Internet in 2008, which opinion has not altered in all the time since. On pure substance, this declaration is incredibly wrong.
2:32 “Incontrovertible” to a Physicist is a very special technical term of art regarding the inferential integrity of a conclusion. Dr. Giaever appears to be confusing that particular word with the fundamental proviso of all exact science: we hold exact or true propositions of pure inference from all observed phenomena under Lex Simpliciter, Lex Parsimoniae and Lex Universalis until new phenomena require amended or new proposition. The onus is on Dr. Giaever to demonstrate new phenomena inconsistent with the evidence for global warming present in some tens of thousands of research papers published every year. On substance, Dr. Giaever, who has published nothing substantive in climatology, and nothing substantively new in decades, fails.
3:10 “Global warming really starts with these two people: Al Gore and Pachauri (or however you pronounce it..” is simply substantively wrong on fact. Al Gore was a spokesmodel who narrated a documentary long after the evidence Dr. Giaever denounces as too religious was long established in scientific journals by thousands of climate scientists. Pachauri wasn’t even in his post until 2002, and he’s left it since. We have Dr. Giaever reduced in substance to a mere teller of tall tales.
~4:00 we don’t see the graph referred to, but what’s said by Dr. Giaever about the scale sounds completely specious; we know there are thousands of valid graphs of all fifty of the World Meteorologic Organization’s Essential Climate Variables showing hockey-stick spikes in published, peer-reviewed journals, and the PAGES 2K project has assembled substantive confirmation of this rise. If Dr. Giaever happened to find one inadequate graph, it could only be concluded he did so to procure a straw man to more easily hold up for ridicule.
4:20 “I think probably nothing.” Wow. Just wow. Argument on personal incredulity by appeal to innumeracy by a Nobel Laureate is on substance jaw-droppingly bad. At this point, I would normally dismiss as crankery anything that follows from this speaker because his premises are so badly polluted with propaganda and irrationality.
Note that every objection to this point is to the substance of what has been said; it would be a fallacy to conclude that everything that follows will be as substantively bankrupt; however, it would be irresponsible to ignore the failings of the premise of Dr. Giaever’s speech when considering them.
4:40 “I think the temperature has been amazingly stable.” Except it hasn’t. This is global temperature. What’s more, it’s global temperature as measured in the most stable 6/7’s of the globe, warming at a rate some 15 to 200 times faster than the faster than the fastest rate of change we can confirm in the paleclimate record of the last 800,000 years, and accompanied by similar shifts in all fifty essential climate variables plus ocean acidification, soil sterilization, nutrient density loss in crops all at unprecedented and dangerous rates.
Comparing as he does the total temperature range in a year in a single location to the global 30 year mean — which is how climate is found, by looking at spans greater than three decades and estimating the probabilities from all available data — we see Dr. Giaever making fundamental substantive errors in understanding of statistics which ought be impossible for a Physicist of his stature. Normally, it is prudent to blame incompetence in place of malice where such mistakes are made, but Dr. Giaever is trading on his Nobel Laureate status — if he weren’t competent, he ought have said so. We have to conclude Dr. Giaever is misleading his audience on purpose.
At which point all goodwill is lost, substantively, and we must dismiss this tired old invective as not worth wasting our time with. What sort of mind promotes fossil waste dumping?
Bart, you take issue with Giaever saying “you can’t discuss” anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis and assert that “what he means is that climate scientists no longer dispute Fourier’s findings or Tyndall’s research or Arrenhius’ of over a century ago, or Callendar’s or Hubert Lamb’s 1958 findings, nor Exxon’s 1977 findings, nor Hansen’s 1988 findings, because there have been tens of thousands of independent studies since then in their specialized field that have confirmed these findings”.
No. What he means is by saying belief in AGW is more akin to religion than science so that “you can’t discuss it” is that to raise questions about it is to invite scorn and ridicule rather than serious debate and discussion. I have to agree with him on that point, which he amply illustrates by pointing to the statement that AGW is “incontrovertible”.
He is certainly not disputing the greenhouse effect or that the Earth has warmed over the past century. This is a strawman argument.
With respect to Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri, Giaever is not saying that these two men originated AGW; he is saying they are most responsible for making belief in it the phenomenon it is today.
You allude to Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” graph and claim there are “thousands” of such graphs in peer-reviewed journals showing unprecedented warming. On the contrary, while you are in essense asserting that Mann’s graph is uncontroversial, in fact is is highly controversial and as Soon and Baliunas observe:
You take issue with Giaever describing the climate as “amazingly stable”. You assert that the temperature has been rising “15 to 200 times faster” than any time in the past 800,000 years. No, it hasn’t. As just noted, the temperatures we are experience are not unprecendented (e.g., it was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period) and neither is the rate of increase. Indeed, the satellite data shows no net warming for nearly two decades. If one considers the Holocene as a whole in the context of ice ages and interglacial periods, the argument can certainly be made that we have been in an epoch of relative stablity.
As can be seen in this graph, we have indeed been in a period of climate stability, and note the dramatic increases in temperature previously seen, e.g., the Younger Dryas, when the warming was “very abrupt and central Greenland temperatures increased by 7°C or more in a few decades… [V]ery rapid warming at the start of the Bölling-Alleröd period, or at the end of the Younger Dryas may have occurred at rates as large as 10°C/50 years for a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere.” (IPCC).
Thank you for taking the time to provide your thoughtful feedback to my substantive comments on Dr. Giaever’s polemics.
The presence of scorn and ridicule in the world — especially in the media and online, which is Dr. Giaever’s stated source of climate information — is hardly substantive evidence that turns science into religion.
The logical leap required to achieve this speculative conclusion is far-fetched in the extreme; it is an impossible standard to expect any opinion, however well-founded, to not meet such responses.
Nor is this a new phenomenon: history is rife with substantive examples of those ridiculed for speaking on many topics; history however is especially unkind to those, like Dr. Giaever, who repeatedly make invalid claims — as amply demonstrated in the first five minutes of his speech — backed up only by personality outside the field of religion. Usually such fellows as Ponzi and Madoff are scorned and ridiculed exactly for such behaviors when caught.
That you agree is belied by the massive amount of serious substantive debate that continues — over ten thousand new climate studies every year now — in science at the forefront. None of this science is scornful of nor ridicules serious scientists participating actively in the discourse with actual new evidence and reasoning, however it is received by the vast and scornful unwashed. Nor does it waste its time backtracking to coddle Dr. Giaever’s substantive ignorance.
A far likelier substantive cause for the sense of scorn and ridicule is that the very moral turpitude required of a person to disgustingly defend peeing-in-the-well behaviors of dumping fossil wastes without the consent of those who have to suffer the consequences and without paying compensation to them, without paying for the waste disposal services furnished by the air, is something that naturally turns the stomach of any market capitalist, or any moralist, or any person of moral fiber.
The late Lin Ostrom demonstrated amply that privatization of the Commons is necessary to prevent the classic ‘Tragedy’, whenever we find a reserve is scarce, excludable and rivalrous. The disposal capacity of air for fossil CO2 emissions meets all these criteria, so it is the obligation under capitalism of any government to enforce a price mechanism on this disposal service.
The Whitehouse-Schatz Bill provides a near ideal Ostrom privatization mechanism, but is held up by coal cronied and oil patronaged politicians in Washington.
That would be the better substantive explanation, more fitting the actual facts, for scorn and ridicule than, “it’s a religion.”
Further, I made no straw man argument; rather I assiduously stuck exactly and only to Dr. Giaever’s own words, in quotes and by time index. It is impossible for one to characterize the online debate Dr. Giaever obtained his opinion of climate science from without reference to exactly the progress of the development of substantive climate science Dr. Giaever seeks to make us forget.
And while you may think the world would have ignored this dire threat to our economic well-being by people who dump fossil wastes if not for Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri, the substantive evidence of COP-21 tells us an entirely different story. The world does not revolve only around US opinion, nor is a subcommittee of the UN all that influential compared to the interest of the world’s nations in preserving their coasts, agriculture and trade routes, all threatened by fossil waste dumping. The cult of personality is a spent thesis in this case.
Whatever Soon and Balliunas claimed in 2003 while on the payroll of Exxon has very much been revisited and overwhelmingly rejected by the science community, as seen in the PAGES 2K network’s substantive analyses up to the current date. http://www.pages-igbp.org/ini/wg/2k-network/intro
And again, even the Bölling-Alleröd rate was so far as paleoclimate can establish, (while regionally it matched the current global rate of change) as it covered only a fraction of the globe orders of magnitude less than current changes globally, while Younger Dryas warming took many, many times longer for the same temperature change than the current rate which in 2015 for the first time exceeded 2.0 degrees/century for the whole globe, and climbing.
On the point about science vs. religion, when it comes to the masses, most believe the AGW hypothesis as gospel as a matter of faith. Most people know nothing about the actual science, and the media, as with pretty much every other subject of importance, fails utterly to properly inform them. As for the scientific community, what science actually has to say about the matter is what we are discussing.
You assert that he repeatedly makes invalid claims in the first five minutes, yet I’ve already addressed the arguments you made to support that assertion and your reply doesn’t address the substance of what I wrote.
You did argue a strawman. You say you did not, that you “assiduously stuck exactly and only to Dr. Giaever’s own words”. But that is demonstrably false, since he nowhere disputed the greenhouse effect or that the Earth has warmed over the past century.
As for the Soon paper, again, the fact is Mann’s graph is controversial and belied by a large body of scientific evidence indicating temperatures were higher during the Medieval Warm Period. You dismiss this by asserting, without evidence, that Soon and Balliunas were “on the payroll of Exxon” (which, even if true, wouldn’t falsify their findings) and falsely asserting that the existence of the MWP is “overwhelmingly rejected by the science community”, which you support by pasting a link to a page that doesn’t even mention it. It most certainly is not, as Soon and Baliunas demonstrate with ample citations from the literature, your ad hominem argumentation notwithstanding.
Finally, you claim the planet has been warming at a rate of 2 degrees per century. The rate of warming has been about 1.5 degrees per century. You claim the Earth has been warming at a rate “many, many times longer” than the Younger Dryas warming. Even if we accept your 2 degrees per century, as I’ve already shown you, according to the IPCC, the rate of warming during that period was as high as 10 degrees per half-century. Moreover, again, the satellite data shows little to no net warming since the late 1990s. This is not to say that it won’t continue to warm in the future, but the 18-plus year pause certainly doesn’t support the AGW hypothesis.
Have you read the Soon and Baliunas paper and the rebuttals?
Ground stations measure temperatures directly..
SInce *you* cite the satellites, can *you*
a) Explain what they measure?
b) Explain how the numbers are computed?
c) Show us the UAH code?
d) DIscuss the adjustments that have occurred?
The BigMWP (i.e., global MWP warmer than today) Was already dubious in 1990, and dead by 1993/1994 after people got serious about the research. AGain:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/01/26/medievaldeception-2015-inhofe-drags-senate-dark-ages
I suggest you read the 10,000 year ocean heat reconstruction ( Rosenthal et al 2013) .
–
It was already known the Atlantic was 1C warmer .. Rosenthal showed the Pacific and Intermediate Antarctic ocean as well as connected water were also 0.65C warmer than present.
–
The paper shows both the MWP and LIA global in extant .
–
The Holocene Thermal Maximum, or African Humid Period was Much warmer than present. the effect was the Sahara became a Green Savannah, the Gobi ..forested. The Middle East .Verdant . North and South America wetter as well .
–
Greg Ladens blog ? Well .. o.k.
Is, e.g., Ljungqvist, et al (2012) not serious?
Northern Hemisphere warming isn’t Global.
You are embarrassing yourself here.
Yet there it is: a Medieval Warm Period not just in Europe but throughout the entire Northern Hemisphere. And, of course, there are studies finding this warmer period from the Southern Hemisphere, as well.
I suggest you read this post so you can see where I found the Ljungqvist study (it’s instructive).
Sir, that post you claimed was instructive is a classic non sequitur and doesn’t address the fact that the Northern hemisphere isn’t global.
And no.
Of course there are not any legitimate, peer reviewed studies that conclude a “warmer period from the southern hemisphere”.
If there were you would cite them.
Would Ocean heat in the Antarctic ocean Intermediate waters and the Pacific ocean qualify ?
Science 1 November 2013:
Vol. 342 no. 6158 pp. 617-621
DOI: 10.1126/science.1240837
Report
Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years
Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large
–
Editors summary;
Global warming is popularly viewed only as an atmospheric process, when, as shown by marine temperature records covering the last several decades, most heat uptake occurs in the ocean. How did subsurface ocean temperatures vary during past warm and cold intervals? Rosenthal et al. (p. 617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.
Who made the “Editors summary”?
The Authors of that study also said this-
“”It is clear that much of the heat that humans have put into the atmosphere through greenhouse gas emissions will be absorbed by the ocean. But the absorption time takes hundreds of years, much longer than the current rate of warming and the planet will keep warming. Our study puts the modern observations into a long-term context. Our reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures suggests that in the last 10,000 years, the Pacific mid-depths have generally been cooling by about 2 degrees centigrade until a minimum about 300 years during the period known as the Little Ice Age.
After that, mid-depth temperatures started warming but at a very slow rate. Then, since about 1950, temperatures from just below the sea surface to ~1000 meter, increased by 0.18 degrees C. This seemingly small increase occurred an order of magnitude faster than suggested by the gradual change during the last 10,000 years thereby providing another indication for global warming. But our results also show the temperature of the ocean interior is still much colder than at any time in the past 10,000 years thus, lagging the changes we see at the ocean surface.”
Well, lets start with the obvious.. Oceans were 0.65 C warmer 1,000 years ago ,and have warmed ( top 1,000 meters) by 0.18C since 1955 or 0.36C century.
–
So ~ 2 centuries to reach the temps of 1,000 years ago.
Was the paper peer reviewed ? Does it show MWP and LIA global events ?
What do they say about GW?
What does their data say about ocean warming ?
–
Oceans were warmer 1,000 years ago .Both Hemispheres .
–
Why don’t you want to discuss this ?
But the comment I just shared with you does indeed “address the fact that the Northern hemisphere isn’t global”. None of the studies using proxies to determine global temperature were global studies. They are all regional, and they aggregate the data to estimate average global temperatures. So do you have an actual argument?
Dead ?
–
A rather ..premature diagnosis ! ..And.. an exaggeration ! Oceans Pacific and Antarctic Intermediate .65C warmer 1,000 years ago.
–
Science 1 November 2013:
Vol. 342 no. 6158 pp. 617-621
DOI: 10.1126/science.1240837
Report
Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years
–
Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.
–
Editors summary;
–
Global warming is popularly viewed only as an atmospheric process, when, as shown by marine temperature records covering the last several decades, most heat uptake occurs in the ocean. How did subsurface ocean temperatures vary during past warm and cold intervals? Rosenthal et al. (p. 617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.
This is mere argument by infinite regression. What ‘the masses’ do or don’t do hasn’t been demonstrated by you, nor by Dr. Gaiever, nor by the media, in the least degree; the evidence of my own experience conflicts sharply with your account of ‘the masses’.
As for people who know something about actual science, which Dr.
Gaiever aimed his remarks at, they very much are not as described. And I don’t see very much discussion of what science has to say about climate coming from you, who seem to be fighting post-COP-21 rear guard action in the comments.
So far, the trope of ‘climate science as religion’ has been debunked, and continuing to try to sell it is beating a very dead horse.
Asked and amply answered. Your reply was lacking in valid substance, and relied on leaps to conclusion, impossible expectations, personal testimonial, and other forms of invalid argumentation and logical fallacy.
But where did I say Dr. Giaever disputed the Green House Effect?
I said it in the “Incontrovertible” passage which, if you look at the screen, was that global warming was incontrovertible.
It is too fine a hair to split to claim Dr. Giaever took issue with the incontrovertibility of global warming yet disavow that Dr. Giaever is challenging the finding of global warming’s incontrovertibility.
So not a strawman. Dr. Giaever introduced the “Incontrovertible” slide. It had to be addressed.
MBH’s “controversial” nature is irrelevant. Some people find the death of communism over a quarter century ago controversial. We call them hopelessly lost in the past.
The finding of the hockey stick shape, not just in tree rings where MBH identified it, but in all fifty essential climate variables as independently verified with consilience of timing and direction by the PAGES 2K network of scores of studies by hundreds of subject matter experts, so far supersedes questions about MBH as to render revisiting that paper at this point beyond moot. Still talking about the “Mann hockey stick” in 2016 is like still talking about the Red Menace, or when the Beatles reunion will happen. That ship has sailed. And sunk.
The evidence for Dr. Soon’s concealed financial ties to the fossil industry is a matter of public record, confirmed by the Smithsonian, Dr. Soon’s employer.
And while it doesn’t falsify their findings to be funded by a company like Exxon with supposed* adverse financial interest and which has agreed it is no longer in Exxon’s interest to fund opposition to the science as it has done in the past — also on the public record, from Exxon itself — what does falsify Soon and Baliunas is that their findings were overturned by new studies since.
*I say ‘supposed’ because Exxon produces plastics, paints, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, hydraulic fluid, binders, lubricants, industrial chemicals, construction materials — over 2,300 profitable petrochemical products — all without burning a drop of fossil. A clever company like Exxon, the world’s most profitable, will no doubt land on its feet just fine in a post-fossil-dumping world.
Ad hominem argumentation is a logical fallacy that takes the
form, “since person X has negative trait Y, their claim Z is wrong.”
Conflict of interest is not considered ad hominem; Dr.’s Soon and Baliunas aren’t wrong because they concealed payments from Exxon to do their study. Their study is wrong on its merits. And they concealed payments from Exxon to do it.
The rate of global warming is rising. Up to about a century ago it was virtually zero, and in the long term trend the best evidence suggests very slight tendency to cooling overall, at a fraction of a percent of a degree a century.
If you agree it was 1.5 degrees C per century at some point, then we know that rate has gone from zero through every rate between up to 1.5; we can fit curves to that change, and project from the data we have to today and into the near future on the figures provided by nations of their intended fossil emissions, barring some unpredictable volcano.
But we measure global warming in terms of climate, and climate time spans are thirty years. So that 1.5 degrees C per century is the rate of the past, of at least 15 years in the past — and actually somewhat longer ago.
So we can’t know what the rate of global warming is today as calculated from means of 30 years of data — the valid metric — except by statistical methods, curve fitting and calculus of probability.
“BART R” is an acronym for “Bayesian Additive Regression Trees in R”, a package of statistical tools for decision support.
When you feed everything we know about global warming trends from all datasets into BART R, the “about 1.5 degrees per century” (at some point in the past) becomes by Bayes’ Theorem as of 2015 95% likely to have surpassed 2.0 degrees C per century.
Also, you appear to have inverted my Younger Dryas statement, exchanging longer for faster and neglecting that I was discussing warming rate, not precipitous cooling, an entirely different phenomenon.
Younger Dryas was a 1,200 years long plunge. The granularity of the record in that period is about 150 years long. Speculating that YD might have cooled at the poles (where polar amplification increases rates of change) as much as 10 degrees per half century is at the extreme low end of the scale of probabilities, and the most likely global change of any significant fraction of the YD was likeliest closer to the average of the entire YD, which cooled certainly less than six degrees in certainly over a thousand years, a rate much lower than today’s warming, and in the opposite direction. What YD does amply demonstrate is that sensitivity is very high in the climate system.
Your claim that satellite data shows little to no net warming since the 1990’s is frankly absurd. The idea of an 18+ year pause is mythology, not science.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/last:360/trend/plot/rss/last:360/trend/offset:0.36/plot/uah/last:360/trend/offset:0.435/plot/gistemp/mean:204
Clearly, the satellite trends of the last 30 years are remarkably similar to the more reliable surface record, and the surface record shows unabated warming.
Believe me, this isn’t an attack on you. Your purpose appears to be to shape foreign policy. That’s a very important mission.
Undertaking that mission on simply wrong premises is harmful, and it’s harmful to the interests of those you seek to shape policy for. Who would want that?
Meanwhile, my substantive points, you simply dodge without acknowledgement, by and large. Do you have no answer for the presence of scorn in the Internet? Or moral turpitude of defending dumping of wastes? For Lin Ostrom’s economic arguments? For Capitalism? For the Whitehouse-Schatz Bill? For PAGES 2K?
A strawman, as he is speaking of the groupthink CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 religion. And no, it has never been debunked. That’s a baseless, evidence-free allegation, which is beating a very dead horse.
No, it is very relevant as it was the centerpiece of the IPCC TAR and has been thoroughly discredited as summarized here: http://web.archive.org/web/20050624130816/http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf and here: http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/
Baseless, evidence-free propaganda allegations. Your continuing to defend the discredited, debunked hokey stick is like still talking about the Red Menace, or when the Beatles reunion will happen. That ship has sailed. And sunk.
Non sequitur and dishonest propaganda talking point.
Climate alarmist propaganda-speak.
A total falsehood. The rate of global warming is decelerating: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from/trend/plot/rss/from:1995.9/to:2015.95/trend/plot/rss/from:1999.9/to:2015.95/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.95/trend/plot/rss/from:2010/to:2015.95/trend
You dishonestly leave out a critical word “late” in your “since the 1990s”, as Jeremy said “since the late 1990s”.
And your false claim that “The idea of an 18+ year pause is mythology, not science” is just a pathetic denial of reality: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.3/to:2015.95/plot/rss/from:1997.3/to:2015.95/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.3/to:2015.95/offset:-370/scale:0.08/mean:12
And you continue to misrepresent with your irrelevant graph which doesn’t include a satellite trend for 18-19 years,
The surface record is not more reliable. It has been corrupted by adjustments, the historic values change every month which makes replication meaningless as what may have been a correct conclusion last month may be an incorrect conclusion next month. Plus the land based temperature record is unsuitable for change in global temperature over time since the stations have constantly changed over time, making it an apples and oranges comparison, since as the BEST study found that 1/3 of the stations showed cooling over the century-scale study. Plus the land based surface temperatures are not representative of a global average temperature as there are only a couple thousand ( http://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjonova.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fgraphs%2Ftemperature%2Fnumber-%2520temperature-stations-ghcn-1701-2008.gif&key=FMQ8r0OF243XJloX_KkFqg&w=800&h=290 ) sparsely located ( http://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclimateaudit.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F02%2Fsc2006.gif&key=9Oye68C6mU4Mar6Jw9xxLA&w=800&h=401 ) stations each of which only measure the temperature of a few m³ of the atmosphere right at the surface.
The satellites measure the entire lower troposphere of !~97% of the surface of the Earth, measuring ~2,000,000,000,000,000,000 m³ of the Earth’s atmosphere as compared to ~10,000 m³ of the land datasets.
Believe me, this isn’t an attack on you, I’m just exposing the fallacious and vacuous arguments which are devoid of substance that you have made. Your arguments are simply a rambling repeating of propaganda talking points of your global warming religion.
I don’t expect you to admit to your mistakes, as the evidence from history of your 32 mistakes that I have previously shown you reveals that you cling to your mistakes and refuse to admit to them.
Would this be an example of ‘respectful’?
With that, I shake the dust of this place from my sandals.
There’s nothing here for decent people.
You know as well as I that all most peole know about the AGW hypothesis is what they learned watching “An Inconvenient Truth” and reading the mainstream media.
You said, “But Dr. Giaever doesn’t really mean you can’t discuss global warming; what he means is that climate scientists no longer dispute Fourier’s findings or Tyndall’s research…” If you weren’t trying to suggest Giaever rejects that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect, then what was your point? He obviously didn’t mean that you can no longer discuss the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And Giaever is correct to say that is unscientific to declare the AGW hypothesis is “incontrovertible” fact.
As for Dr. Soon being funded by Exxon, well, Exxon supports a carbon tax, so it would seem, coupled with the fact his research was also funded by the US government, that he would have had an incentive to be biased in the other direction. Regardless, I would like to see a specific example to support the claim that he misrepresented any previous studies, that, as you assert, their paper is “wrong on its merits”.
Regarding Mann’s “hockey stick”, I won’t repeat myself. Please see here.
Regarding the rate of warming, the rate was higher during the warming from 1925-1944 (.37 degrees), after which it cooled despite significantly increasing levels of CO2 due to human activity, than the warming that occurred from 1978-1997 (.32 degrees), since which temperatures have plateued according to the satellite data. You assert the rate of warming was “zero”, but the temperature has been rising since before human activity could possibly have been a significant contributing factor, and it’s been warming ever since the Little Ice Age. Again, you claimed the Earth has been warming (not cooling) at a rate “many, many times” more than the Younger Dryas warming, yet even accepting your figure of 2 degrees per century (the figure I’ve seen repeatedly in the literature 1.5, so please provide me with a source supporting your 2 degree figure), as we’ve seen, the rate of warming then reached as high as 1- degrees every 50 years.
Your statement that it is “absurd” to point out that the satellite data show little to no net warming for 18-plus years, that this is “mythology, not science”, is absurd. This is hardly controversial. Here’s the journal Nature, for example, acknowledging “a plateu in Earth’s mean surface temperature evolution, known as the recent pause in warming.”
Mr. Hammond, with all due respect, and in all humility, I’m quite sure by now you’ve realized I know better than you about pretty much everything. Because. I. Check. My. Facts. Before. Forming. My. Opinions.
Please correct that fault. I’d be delighted to have further correspondences with you on any subject, once that happy day comes to pass.
To help you out in that endeavor, I commend the very excellent Duke University online course, “How To Reason and Argue”. https://www.coursera.org/course/thinkagain
I thank you for your efforts. However, they fall far too far short to continue as matters stand.
I see you’ve given up even attempting to form an argument. You’re now on notice for trolling.
I don’t want this reply to appear before your far better one but regarding Hammond’s comment you were replying to, he said,
“…when it comes to the masses, most believe the AGW hypothesis as gospel
as a matter of faith. Most people know nothing about the actual science,
and the media, as with pretty much every other subject of importance,
fails utterly to properly inform them…”
I’d agree the ever more for profit “news” media “fails utterly to properly inform them,” as the sponsors prevent almost everything but their alternate reality to be spread. It is much harder than it should be for interested citizens to find out more (especially with the types of non-disclosure agreements signed by those that accepted better “settlements” which prevent them sharing so much of what they have seen or been a part of). The government seems to blindly accept industry self reported data with no real auditors (other than the captured ones I consider “frauditors”). Even a lot of academia accepts substantially non independently audited industry self reported “data” (not as much of a surprise when you see how much industry funding is solicited by and provided.
All these sources we used to trust, seem much less worthy of blind trust, but it takes a while for us to work through who is left that can provide us with information we can trust. Despite finding higher level industry and government entities far less trustworthy than I had imagined (mismatch with lower echelon info), I kept at it until my skepticism was solidly tipped by following the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project and meeting at least one participant face to face (I trust them).
Sorry if this seems a bit long, but I have traveled far and tried to meet personally with people on both major sides of the issue.
I’m not a scientist but was an operator technician in the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program starting in the mid 70s. I noticed visibly less year round snow cover since then all the way from Hawaii to the Rocky Mountains (leading to my greater concern for water availability and safety). Water continues to be a major concern for me, as I watch careless profiteers threaten it with everything from direct threats to it on and under the ground, to the excess use of fossil fuels effect on air quality and global warming.
Since I started I have also talked to many lower echelon people in oil industry (the ones that don’t get the talking points memos) as well as local observers that need not be experts to see something amiss, and tried to match the lower level field comments with what those that do get the talking points memos try to project. The mismatch seems to be getting worse, as well as the lower echelons being much more suppressed in what they can say (and keep their jobs).
I also went to hearings, one seemingly run more by the Western States Petroleum Association President than by the Director of the Department of Conservation or the Division of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources, and went to the areas (and a home) of other attendees, finding similar mismatches compared to industry and seemingly captured regulators versions. I met with “Fracktivists” from Colorado and New York as well as Patricia McPherson who got together NBC4’s Paul Moyers to show the poorly disguised industry/developers run around of regulators, falsifying test reports and staging phony tests on fresh dirt brought in just for the tests. For an example of how little the deregulated and gutted government agencies did, and how blatantly they got away with it (though they seem so much more careful in covering up or blocking even old information as they did when they closed regional EPA libraries, destroyed all information they could and made access to what they couldn’t destroy much harder to access0 See the series of shows they did starting with “Burning Question NBC 4 Playa Vista Safe? Part 1 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4O6jI2y_m4
Is it luck there hasn’t been a disaster like the earlier Ross Dress for less Store Explosion in the Fairfax District? See for the post (rushed) settlement analysis that identified the real causes (too late, and mostly forgotten) at http://web.stanford.edu/~meehan/class/ce2942001/rosspaper.htm
I was drawn to this article under the misapprehension it had appeared in Foreign Policy magazine.
My mistake. Carry on. Block me. Whatever.
So Giaever spending what he admits was “several hours googling on the subject” is worth more than decades of peer reviewed research by PhD scientists with many years of training in a complex field. Who knew?? Only the brain dead, science-illiterate right wing, is who.
What a sad state conservatism is mired in these days.
Bingo.
What he said is that you can spend several hours Googling this stuff and find plenty of information to dispute the kind of information the media would have us all believe is irrefutable fact — which is certainly true enough.
It is also true that it is easy to find information to support your prior beliefs by Googling, and not realize that what you are reading is wrong. His lecture and your support of it are evidence that this is so.
One shining example of this is your claim about CO2 lagging temperature changes in past ice ages, showing that today’s global warming cannot be pinned on CO2. That is an obvious blooper that can only be explained by confirmation bias.
“One shining example of this is your claim about CO2 lagging temperature changes in past ice ages, showing that today’s global warming cannot be pinned on CO2. That is an obvious blooper that can only be explained by confirmation bias.”
You are projecting. It is your confirmation bias causes you to deny the obvious fact that CO2 does follow temperature changes on both long term ice ages as Caillon(2003) found to be 800 200 years, and on short term as this graph of sea surface temperatures vs CO2: http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3015/3823/original.jpg?w=800&h
The cartoonist’s explanation for the admitted lag of CO2 following temperature can not explain these repeated increases and decreases in CO2 following temperature changes. The empirical data shows that temperature changes drive CO2 changes, not the other way around.
Emprical data is not all there is to science. You graph obscures the real picture by subtracting the annual average variation from the data to obscure the real global warming trend.
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/history_legacy/keeling_curve_lessons
There is no doubt that human emissions have been the cause of the rising trend in CO2. Human emissions are much greater than the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere as the following graph shows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Carbon_History_and_Flux_Rev.png
. On top of that are the seasonal variations in CO2 that have no trend.
“Empirical data is not all their is to science”
Without empirical data, science is not science, but belief, which is exactly why you diss empirical data now, because it shows that your belief in CatastrophicAGW caused by CO2 is wrong.
“You graph obscures the real picture by subtracting the annual average variation from the data to obscure the real global warming trend.”
It’s obvious that you don’t have a clue as to what you are looking at. There is no subtraction involved at all. It is merely a plot of a 12 month running average (to remove the significant seasonal variability of both variables) of sea surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 with 5 year trends purposefully removed of both variables to be able to see how the two variables are phased with each other. And it clearly shows that temperature change drives CO2 change, not CO2 driving temperature change as your CO2 dogma claims.
I was jt guessing because you didn’t explain your graph. I was correct that it was data with the trend removed. So you are only looking at the part of the CO2 concentration change that occurs as a result of the change in annual temperatures which are due to noise in the climate system. This can come about due to volcanoes or El Nino’s or ups and downs of solar irradiance. This will change the natural CO2 emission and absorption, which certainly exists, but it doesn’t include the constant CO2 emissions which cause the increase in CO2, since they have been removed because the data is detrended. Over the years between 1960 and 2010, the average increase in CO2 concentration has been about 2.5ppM/year. What you show is that at most 0.2ppM is a emission and absorption which follows temperature noise in the climate system. Since this is detrended data, it is incorrect to say that the emissions which cause the trend which are 10times larger are coming from outgassing from the oceans. Actually seasonal variations in the data have an amplitude of about 7ppM just eyeballing the Keeling Curve, which is 35 times larger than the size of the maximim deviation from zero of the data you have shown with seasonality removed.
The graph you have posted doesn’t change the fact that human cause CO2 emissions have been twice as large as the actual increase in atmospheric CO2, which conclusively shows that the 120ppM increase in CO2 since the industrial age began is due to humans. You are fooling yourself with the graph you posted.
I’m sorry that you are incapable of understanding that this graph shows that temperature drives CO2 changes. CO2 does not drive changes in temperature.
Do you call this a rebuttal of my argument. Sad!
No, what is sad is someone who claims that and increase of 2.7W/m to 5W/m of natural solar climate forcing reaching the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century didn’t cause any temperature rise, but an increase of 0.4W/m of CO2 forcing reaching the Earth’s surface DID cause the temperature rise. That be you.
Given that your “argument” consisted of arguing against a strawman (rather than addressing the point RealOldOne2 just made once again for you, you argued that “the 120ppM increase in CO2 since the industrial age began is due to humans”, which is irrelevant to RealOldOne2’s point and which he wasn’t denying) yes, I would say it is a sufficient rebuttal.
I understand that you are on the side of any denial of human caused global warming, so you can’t really play the part of an impartial umpire. I pointed out that RealOldone subtracted the trend of increasing CO2 due to human emissions, and left in fluctuations in the rate of increase which average zero and are a small fraction of the average annual increase in CO2 which is about 1.5ppM. That is what he is claiming follows the temperature increases. That is an insignificant part of the CO2 and averages to zero over the years. So it is irrelevant to the total increase in CO2 over the years.
Since this is an oscillatory graph and the increases in CO2 are merely out of phase with increases in temperature, We know that the rate of absorption of CO2 by the ocean decreases as temperature increases, so the ocean currently will have a slight influence on the amount of CO2 emissions that remain in the atmosphere from year to year. We know that humans are responsible for the all of the increase we have seen in CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial age began, but the amount remaining in the atmosphere will depend on the temperature of the ocean. What this indicates is that as ocean temperatures increase a larger fraction of the CO2 that humans emit will remain in the atmosphere.
Where is RealOldOne’s rebuttal. What is your version of it?
“Where is RealOldOne’s rebuttal”
My rebuttal was to expose your errors, misunderstandings, strawmen, red herrings and general ignorance of the CO2-SST graph that I posted all in one comment. You can find it below by searching for part of the character string: Exposure of Eric’s errors re: my CO2-SST graph
or by clicking here.
RealOldOne2 didn’t argue that the 120ppM increase in CO2 since the industrial era isn’t due to humans. Try not to use language like “You are fooling yourself” when it’s you who isn’t even understanding your interlocutor’s point.
RealOldone contradicts himself. He admits that he detrended the data, as I pointed out in my post. Imagine a smooth increasing curve with some wiggles added on top of it. When you detrend the data, you subtract the smooth increasing curve from the data and leave the wiggles which will pretty much average to zero over the time period. That is what he said he did,but then claims he didn’t do. It seems he is confused, and unable to understand what he did, or he is purposely trying to confuse the readers about what he has shown.
Since you are claiming that I didn’t understand the point he was making, could you state it in your own words? Please explain what he did to the data, and why it is important in assessing whether CO2 is causing global warming. Maybe you will be able to instruct me in what I have missed, since you seem the think you know I have missed something.
My rebuttal to your multiple comments was to expose your errors, misunderstandings, strawmen, red herrings and general ignorance of the CO2-SST graph that I posted all in one comment. You can find it below by searching for part of the character string: Exposure of Eric’s errors re: my CO2-SST graph
or by clicking here.
Nobody is debating that. It has nothing to do with RealOldOne2’s pont.
So what is the point RealOldOne is making with his graph of global temp vs CO2 concentration with the trends removed? He is tracking a tiny fraction, less than 13% of the annual CO2 change in the atmosphere which is a steady increase of about 1.5ppM each year. The average of the CO2 changes he is looking at is zero. I don’t see that it proves anything about the source of the temperature or CO2 trends which were subtracted from the data before graphing it.
Yes, it shows that the changes on a short term basis, and the changes in CO2 are driven by changes in temperature.
CO2 is not driving the temperature changes as your CO2 alarmist dogma claims.
It should be obvious to everyone that anthropogenic CO2 is not a strong driver of climate because in the last ~19 years we have added over 1/3 of all the anthropogenic CO2 produced since 1750 and it hasn’t caused the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere to increase at all.
The source of the additional CO2 becomes MOOT! There has been no warming, so it unnecessary to debate how warming was due to natural and how much warming was anthropogenic. That is not hard to understand. You are beating a dead horse.
You are fooling yourself. You have subtracted the major change in CO2 which is the trend and find that a small fraction which is cyclical is sensitive the detrended sea surface temperature. It is clear from simple arithmetic that human activity is responsible for the increase in CO2. We humans create twice the emissions that remain in the atmosphere, , and what you are looking at are small increases and decreases in the rate at which oceans absorb CO2. The net change of CO2 in your graph is zero. This proves nothing about the source of the increase in CO2 that you have subtracted out of your data.
This shows how some people can become so attached to an idea that logical thinking becomes impossible.
You also deny that the earth has warmed in the last 19 years, and ignore all the signs of global warming and put your faith in satellite data, which one of the creators of satellite data says is an unreliable indicator of global temperature.
Exposure of Eric’s errors re: my CO2-SST graph
Eric, please read and study the whole comment before replying.
“You are fooling yourself”
There you go again repeating what the moderator politely asked you not to do. I am not fooling myself. You just don’t understand 1) the purpose of the graph, 2) how the graph is constructed and what I am showing with it, and you end up making a fool of yourself because of your lack of that understanding.
Since you persist in in claiming that I have no rebuttal to your ramblings of ignorance purporting to rebut what I posted, I am going to post your all of your errors in your multiple posts on this in one place so that you know what they are and won’t continue to misunderstand them and introduce red herrings.
Apologies for embarrassing you in public and exposing your foolishness and sophomoric errors. I was going to allow you to keep your errors and ignorance private, but since you won’t let it lie, I find no option other than to expose them.
Hopefully you’ll learn something, but my hopes aren’t too high, for my past experience with you shows that you are pretty much immune to education if any of it is contrary to your ideology and dogmas of your CatastrophicAGW religion, as evidenced by your refusal to admit that 2.7-5W/m² of increased natural solar forcing reaching the surface of the Earth causes more warming than 0.4W/m² of increased CO2 forcing.
1) The purpose of the graph is to show the phase relationship of short term changes/variability/variance in CO2 and sea surface temperature(SST). Period. It has nothing to do with anthropogenic vs. human cause of the CO2 or long term trends in the CO2, as your repeated red herring comments alleges. Quit beating those dead horses.
2) The graph is properly constructed to show the phase relationship of short term change/variation/variance using the very helpful tools on the woodfortrees.org website, which merely graphs data.
From your words which reveal your lack of understanding the graph, you seem to think that the “Isolate” function leaves just a tiny bit of “noise”. It doesn’t. What it does is basically flatten the graph, leaving the almost all the variation, which are the signals we want to compare, for we are looking for the changes in both variables. The fact that it leaves almost all the signal can be seen by looking at these graphs of the individual variables with and without the isolation function: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1958/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1958/isolate:60 & http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/offset:-355/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/isolate:60
If you don’t believe me or your eyes that detrending leaves almost all the signal, then look at Fig. 7.9 in the UofArizona article on Detrending: http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~dmeko/notes_7.pdf
Also, doing the 12 month running average doesn’t remove any signal: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1958/mean:12/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1958/isolate:60/mean:12
The time period of both variables is the same and the same analysis tools were used on both variables.
You could do the short term phase graph without using the isolate function, but if you scaled it to get a 4″ p-p variable height as on my graph, your graph would be 16 FEET high, and you would need a 16 foot straightedge to compare the phase relationships. But they would be exactly the same phase relationship as in my graph.
You just can’t get the comparison on a single chart using the charting program without using the isolate function. This function is designed to do exactly what I used it for. I challenge you to try to do the comparison using any of the other analysis tools on the woodfortrees.org website. If you do it, please link me to it and I will be the first to congratulate you!
Now, your errors in understanding the graph:
Error #1: “You graph obscures the real picture by subtracting the annual average variation from the data to obscure the real global warming trend.”
Wrong. The graph does not subtract the annual average variation from the data. The annual average variation is ~0.4. The plot is the variation from the 60 month running average. And it’s purpose had nothing to do with a trend so saying it obscured it is a red herring.
Error #2: “The graph you link to doesn’t identify the variables”
Wrong. It did identify the variables. The lines were labeled “hadsst2gl” & “ersl-co2” which anyone conversant on climate science would recognize as HadCRUT Sea Surface Temperature global and CO2 from NOAA’s EarthSystemsResearchLab. And if they weren’t a simple google search would have given those as the first results.
Error #3: “and looks at the seasonal CO2 and temperature variations”
Wrong. It does not look at seasonal variations since it is a 12 month running mean (“mean:12” on the graph) which eliminates the seasonal variations.
Error #4: “It is the trend that is important, not the seasonal variations of CO2”
Wrong. The trend is irrelevant to seeing the concurrent changes in CO2 and SST.
Error #5: “So what lags the temperature fluctuation is only a fluctuation of at most 0.2ppM, at most less than 13% of the change in CO2”
Wrong. CO2 was scaled by 0.25 as indicated in the legend “scale:0.25”, so it was 0.9ppm, which is 60% or over half of the 1.5ppm annual average that you mention, which is significant. You can see that it is 0.9ppm here, without the 0.25 scaling: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/plot/hadsst2gl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958
Error #6: “I was correct that it was the data with the trend removed.”
Wrong. Your Error #1 had said that it was the annual average variation removed, not the trend removed.
Error #7: “Since this is detrended data, it is incorrect to say that the emissions which cause the trend which are 10times larger are coming from outgassing from the oceans.”
You are just making stuff up, fabricating a strawman/red herring. I said nothing about a trend or cause of a trend or even mentioned outgassing, because my graph was not about trends.
Error #8: “When you detrend the data, you subtract the smooth increasing curve from the data and leave the wiggles which will pretty much average to zero over the time period. That is what he said he did, but then he claims he didn’t do.”
Wrong. I never said i didn’t do what you explained. That is a lie. Since you were wallowing in ignorance of what I did, I explicitly explained it to you, and it seems that you now understand what I did, but you still persist in trying to make this into something entirely foreign to what I said the graph was showing, thus using another red herring argument.
Error #9: “It seems he is confused, and unable to understand what he did”
Wrong. I am not confused at all. You are. And I understand everything that I did, as is evident from this comment. You are the one who didn’t understand.
Error #10: “or he is purposely trying to confuse the readers about what he has shown.”
Sad that you impugn my motives with dishonest allegations which are unsupported by anything that I have written.
Error #11+++…: Your incessant, endless red herring/strawman/misrepresentation arguments of trying to make this about trends, cause of trends, etc.
So in summary, the purpose of the graph was to show the phase relationship of short term changes/variabilities/variances in CO2 and SST, together on the same scale (well technically a 1:4 scale to get the height same to make phase comparison easier). It shows the annual changesvariances with the long term trends removed to allow both variables to be compared on an equivalent scale. The signal of the variances remain. It’s not about numerical values, just phase. And examining the graph it is clear that CO2 changes (both up and donw) lag temperature changes (both up and down). That is undeniably true. To deny it is to deny reality.
A) If you are gong to reply, restrict yourself to addressing the last paragraph, ie., what the the purpose of the graph was, and what it shows about the phase relationship.
B) Admit to your mistakes and that you did not understand the graph or what I was trying to show with it. It was clear to the moderator. If you still cling to your mistakes, they become lies. Be an adult and admit your mistakes.
“When a mistake is pointed out, but still clung to, it becomes a lie.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/factual-errors-vs-lies-and-admitting-mistakes.686/
Moderator: I am addressing Alder’s multiple comments on this subject in one comment here, so please forgive the length. I thought it best to put it in one place rather than spread it out over several. ty
You can write as long a post as you want, trying to obscure the essence of my comment, but it doesn’t prove that my principle point is wrong. In addition you posted the same graph a number of times and did not include a description of the scale, as I pointed out. The reader was left to guess about it. I realized it was something to do with global sea surface temperature and CO2, but it was clear you weren’t plotting the raw data. When you initially posted the graph, claiming that it proved that CO2 follows temperature you didn’t describe what was done to the variables to produce the graph at all. You didn’t disclose that you subtracted the 60 month running mean or what the scales implied.
If you subtract the 60 month running average from the data, you are subtracting the increasing trend of both temperatures and CO2. That removes the trend from the data, leaving only a small oscillatory component which is a fraction of the increase each year. So ocean temperatures modulate the increase in CO2. That doesn’t negate the fact that the increase in CO2 since the industrial age is due to human activity. Simple arithmetic comparing the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere to the amount emitted by human activity shows that.
The multiple comments I made were the result of your failure to specify how the graph was produced, and what the vertical scale factor was.
You are a hopelessly case. You are beating the dead horses again launching into your red herring arguments again. You rebutted nothing I said. As usual when you are confronted with your mistakes, you cling to them, turning them into lies. Quite pathetic.
You ignore and are blind to the fact that the 60 month averages remove no signal as I showed you.
You ignore and are blind to the fact that what you call “small oscillatory component” is ~2/3 of the annual average change in CO2 concentration instead of the 20% that you claimed.
You ignore the fact that the natural addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is 25 times the human addition, so a small change in natural carbon exchange can offset the human addition. You are being inconsistent Eric, you argue that the 60% “small oscillatory component” of CO2 variation should be ignored, so certainly the 4% small component of the annual CO2 exchange should be ignored.
Your own IPCC says “Note that the gross amounts of carbon annually exchanged between the ocean and atmosphere, and between land and atmosphere, represent a sizeable fraction of the atmospheric content – and are many time larger than the total anthropogenic input. In consequence, an imbalance in these exchanges could easily lead to an anomaly of comparable magnitude to the direct anthropogenic perturbation.” – IPCC, TAR WG1, p.191
You assume that the natural carbon balance is in equilibrium and doesn’t itself have a natural decadal/century scale trend of its own between ocean and atmosphere and land and atmosphere. The history of the Earth shows that it is almost never in balance, it’s hugely dynamic as observed in the constantly changing CO2 levels in the atmosphere on both a short term scale and a long term scale. You have offered not empirical evidence that suddenly the Earth’s atmosphere no longer has a long term natural change in CO2 levels. You are merely making a baseless assumption.
“Simple arithmetic comparing the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere to the amount emitted by human activity shows that.”
Your using the “simple arithmetic” argument is hilarious!
Earth to Eric: Simple arithmetic comparing the 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² increase in natural solar radiative forcing reaching the surface of the Earth during the late 20th century and the 0.4W/m² increase in CO2 forcing clearly shows that the warming of the late 20th century was caused primarily by natural climate forcing not CO2 forcing.
So how about that simple arithmetic Eric? Why do you deny that simple arithmetic Eric? Why won’t you admit that 2.7 – 6.8 is larger than 0.4 Eric? Why are you is such extreme denial of reality Eric?
You should be blocked because you are just trolling now, violating the ToS by not addressing the arguments of others, just obfuscating with red herrings, strawmen, and illogical inconsistencies.
“You ignore and are blind to the fact that the 60 month averages remove no signal as I showed you.”
You showed nothing of the sort. Here is the Keeling curve. It shows an increase of 85ppM between 1960 and today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve#/media/File:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg
Your graph shows a net change of 0 in CO2 over that period. The season oscillation in the actual Keeling Curve is large, with an amplitude of 3ppM., but the annualized CO2 concentration shows an increase every year. There are some fluctuations in the rate of increase that are undoubtably influenced by ocean temperatures, but they are small factors in the general scheme of things.
“You ignore the fact that the natural addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is 25 times the human addition, so a small change in natural carbon exchange can offset the human addition.”
The Keeling Curve shows that natural factors have never stopped the increase due to human caused emissions during the course of a year since 1960. It seems that you are ignoring that and trying to cover up the annual increase in CO2 by subtracting it from the curve that you showed.
I don’t know for sure what you did for work before you retired, but I am betting that you were a lawyer. You will use any argument you can, no matter who specious in order to win your case. The longer the post the more obfuscation there is of the issue.
Sorry, you are not addressing the point of my graph.
Ban this troll for violating the ToS.
Your original point was as follows:
“The empirical data shows that temperature changes drive CO2 changes, not the other way around.”
No. The empirical data shows that human caused emissons are larger than the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in every year since systematic CO2 data has been taken. Simple arithmetic shows that human emissions are responsible for the increase in CO2 since the industrial age began. For thousands of years before that it never exceeded 284ppM.
On the basis of our discussion you modified that to.
“a small change in natural carbon exchange can offset the human addition.”
Since 1960 this hasn’t happened. It may be possible if human emissions are radically reduced,
“Ban this troll for violating the ToS.”
Translation,
I don’t have a case. It hurts me. Get this guy outta here.
As I’ve told you multiple times, the point of my argument is that the short term variations in CO2 and temperature show that temperature drives CO2.
You continue to refuse to address that argument and raise red herrings, so you should be blocked because you are violating the ToS.
I have no more to say on this issue. I will let my previous posts speak for me.
There is no need to repeat the same stuff over and over as you have been doing.
This buffoon will go on for days. It has been shown all this a hundred times, so it must buffoon on purpose to spread disinformation.
Best,
D
I have had the experience already.
Judging by his posts, I guess he is a retired attorney.
Oh…I hadn’t thought about attorney…interesting.
Best,
D
Why do you ask as though it was ambiguous?
“CO2 does follow temperature changes on both long term ice ages as Caillon(2003) found to be 800 200 years, and on short term as this graph of sea surface temperatures vs CO2 — RealOldOne
Yet you replied:
A strawman.
Not a straw man. The idea that CO2 follows temperature change is besides the point when it is used to describe the change in CO2
I pointed out that the phenomenon he has graphed is irrelevant to the source of the current trend of global warming, because human emissions are the source of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Natural systems absorb only about 1/2 of the CO2 emitted by man each year. The rest remains in the atmosphere.
His graph only shows that a small fraction of the amount of emissions remaining in the atmosphere are modulated by sea surface temperature.
For a full picture see the graph of CO2 versus time below.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
What is happening is that the fluctuations in the rate of asorption by the oceans depend on sea surface temperature as they absorb slightly more or slightly less that about 1/2 of the CO2 emitted each year.
There is no doubt that human emissions have been the cause of the rising trend in CO2 since the industrial age.
So in your opinion why is the graph shown by RealOldone2 relevant to the discussion of the cause of the current global warming? It only explains a few small wiggles in the Keeling Curve. Why isn’t RealOldOne2’s graph a red herring?
On the contrary, it is highly relevant to the point since it follows that atmospheric CO2 doesn’t drive temperature.
CO2 was a positive feedback mechanism during ice age cycles. It followed the initial temperature change and added to it as a result of the greenhouse effect.
The fact that it was followed the temperature change doesn’t prove that it didn’t add to it
Currently, CO2 is aritmetically a result of human caused emissions due to fossil fuel consumption. Humans have put about 2 times the amount of CO2 that remains in the atmosphere. The difference was removed by natural causes.
The greenhouse gas theory of global warming dates from 1824 and has been confirmed over and over by calculations and even direct observations. Outgoing radiation from the top of the atmosphere has been reduced by greenhouse gases, from what it would be if it passed directly through the atmosphere from the surface. That is what modern satellite measurements say.
ACS.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html
Greenhouse gases such as CO2 and CH4 do drive temperature changes. It doesn’t matter whether they are doing it as feedbacks to temperature changes, or as in the case of long lived GHGs like CO2 and CH4 are added to the atmosphere by humans.
It doesn’t matter how often you repeat your claim, you haven’t supported it with any scieintific arguments.
Nobody is arguing that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. It just doesn’t follow from the fact that it is that atmospheric CO2 is what drives the Earth’s temperature. Even disregarding all other factors, among the greenhouse gases, CO2 is a mere 4%, with water vapor being predominant comprising 95%. On the face of it, CO2 isn’t the predominant factor.
If you read the ACS link that I provided, which describes the action of Greenhouse gases, you would see that the fact that CO2 is a well mixed greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and has significant absorption at higher elevations where the temperature is colder, and water vapor cannot exist in significant quantities at high altitudes, CO2 is a more important greenhouse gas than the percentage you quoted would indicate. This well mixed property is very important and is neglected by the ideologically motivated people, who don’t like the idea that regulation of emissions is needed.
You are getting your science from politically biased, misguided people, who purposely or ignorantly leave out important information. If you pride yourself on intellectual prowess and integrity, you need to do better.
“This well mixed property is very important and is neglected by the ideologically motivated people, who don’t like the idea that regulation of emissions is needed.”
Actually it is you and your fellow CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 ideologues who conveniently neglect to remember that CO2 is a well mixed ghg, because it exposes your anti-2nd Law claim that CO2 transfers heat into the oceans.
So tell us why that fickle CO2 causes warming of some ocean basins but NO warming of other ocean basins if it is a well-mixed ghg and transfers more heat than the Sun down into the oceans:
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/figure-4-nodc-argo-era-vertical-mean-temp-per-basin-to-2013.png
Is CO2 prejudiced against those people from India?
No, it’s just that solar radiation heats the oceans not CO2 as I proved to you here: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2442563602
“You are getting your science from politically biased, misguided people, who purposely or ignorantly leave out important information.”
You certainly are good at projection. You are describing yourself!
Are you claiming that I said GHG IR emissions are the only source of heat for the oceans and that heat isn’t transmitted from place to place by ocean currents? That would be essential to your argument, but it isn’t the case.
“Are you claiming that I said GHG IR emissions are the only source of heat for the oceans and that heat isn’t transmitted from place to place by ocean currents?”
Of course not. Fabricating strawman arguments like that only prove that you have lost the argument.
You said: “What is wrong with your statement is that IR radiation emitted by the atmosphere does transfer heat into the ocean, and more heat than is transferred by the sun.”
Quit dodging and answer the 3 questions Eric:
1) Which is warmer on a global average?
. . . A) the surface of the ocean? or
. . . B) the atmosphere above the ocean?
2) Which direction does the Columbia Univ. lecture on Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling ( http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html ) say that the net backradiation heat flow is going?
. . . A) from from the ocean to the atmosphere or
. . . B) from the atmosphere to the ocean?
3) Which direction does net heat flow?
. . . A) from warmer objects to colder objects, or
. . . B) from colder objects to warmer objects?
Focus Eric. Answer those 3 questions Eric, and nothing more. After you admit this mistake, we can move on from there to your other mistakes.
1) ____
2) ____
3) ____
You are obfuscating and engaging in ad hominem argumentation, which would rather indicate, I would argue, your own ideologically motivated bias. You are on notice for trolling.
Again, assuming, as you say, that “CO2 is a more important greenhouse gas” than its 4% contribution to all greenhouse gases (compared to 95% for the predominant greenhouse gas, water vapor) would indicate, my point remains: Nobody is arguing that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. It just doesn’t follow from the fact that it is that atmospheric CO2 is what drives the Earth’s temperature.
Your “point doesn’t remain” when you look at the numbers.
The ACS link shows that CO2 is important, for the reason that I have described. Gilbert Plass also described the situation in the article I linked to earlier.
My adhominem remarks were made in frustration because you and realoldone2 haven’t shown any rebuttal to the science which shows that the well mixed GHG’s although sparse in the lower atmosphere, relative to H2O, make a big difference in the upper atmosphere, where the emission of IR into outer space is determined. You simply repeat your claim without rebuttal of the numbers shown on the ACS web site. To aid your understanding of the greenhouse effect, you should review the 3 layer model of the atmosphere on the ACS web site pages which explain how the GHE works.
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/earthatmosphere.html
You are merely repeating your climate cult propaganda. Your link shows no science showing that any increased CO2 caused any quantified warming.
There is not a single peer reviewed paper that shows that anthropogenic CO2 has caused any quantified warming, whether it is in the lower atmosphere or the upper atmosphere.
YOU are the one who denies reality and presents no science. I cited and quoted from several p-r papers showing 2.7-6.8W/m² of increased natural solar radiative climate forcing during the late 20th century, as compared to 0.4-0.8W/m² of increased CO2 forcing, yet you delusionally claim that CO2 caused 110% of the warming! That’s insane and lunatic talk.
YOU are the one who denies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, claiming that the colder ghgs in the atmosphere transfer more heat into the ocean than the Sun! That’s insane and lunatic talk.
You are merely a duped follower of what Giaever calls the global warming religion. So sad that you have chosen to be a believer in the flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models which is the basis of your climate alarmist religion, even though the empirical science says that climate change is still natural, just like it has been throughout the entire history of the planet.
Define “big difference” in terms of the contribution CO2 makes to climate change.
Congratulations on showing us that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Too bad nobody is disputing that with you, or you would clearly have won that debate.
The best estimate since 1956 has remained steady at 3C for a doubling of CO2. Anything bigger than 2C is a big difference in climate.
I’m more interested in real world observations, which tell us the rate of warming has been about half that.
Like all conservatives you look to the past. Science is about more than observations of the past. Science is about predicting the future based on scientific theories that are consistent with and based on observations. Paleoclimate observations of the ice ages say that increases in CO2 produced about 1/2 of the warming which ended the ice ages, and melting snow and ice produced the rest.
Conservatives want to believe the future will be exactly like the past and no changes in government activity will be needed.
“Science is about more than observations of the past. Science is about predicting the future based on scientific theories that are consistent with and based on observations.”
That rules out your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 hypothesis as being true, and exposes it as a cult religion. In science when the predictions based on your hypothesis FAILS to happen as predicted, you change your hypothesis. You climate alarmists change the DATA, which is exactly consistent with the behavior of doomsday cults whose predictions of doom fail to happen, they just move out the date, just as your climate cult religions has repeatedly done.
“Paleoclimate observations of the ice ages say that increases in CO2 produced about 1/2 the warming which ended ice ages”
A totally false and empirical evidence-free claim. Correlation is not causation. There is no empirical evidence that CO2 CAUSED any “continued warming” or “amplified” the natural warming that was going on. It merely went along for the ride.
“Conservatives want to believe the future will be exactly like the past and no changes in government activity will be needed>”
What a stupid statement. But then, we consider the source, and it makes perfect sense.
That’s just the trouble: the alarmist warnings aren’t consistent with observations. Hence my statement: I’m more interested in real world observations, which tell us the rate of warming has been about half that. Science is about recognizing that when observations don’t support your hypothesis, you reconsider your conclusions.
I don’t identify as “conservative”, BTW, but that’s neither here nor there. It’s instructive you make such assumptions.
“I’m more interested in real world observations, which tell us the rate of warming has been about half that. ”
What do you mean by “half that”? What are the real world observations you are talking about? Why aren’t Paleoclimate observations “real world” observations?
By real world observations I mean temperature measurements, which tell us that the rate of warming according to the IPCC has been about 1.3 C per century.
I wasn’t commenting on your “Paleoclimate observations” comment. But on that note, you said, “Paleoclimate observations of the ice ages say that increases in CO2 produced about 1/2 of the warming which ended the ice ages…” Please provide a source for me on that.
I should have said “greenhouse gases” instead of CO2.
See figure 2 of the following paper.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf
Also read the comment by Sveringhausen in the following Yale Climate Connections web page.
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2007/10/common-climate-misconceptions-co2-as-a-feedback-and-forcing-in-the-climate-system/
“The contribution of CO2 to the glacial-interglacial coolings and warmings amounts to about one-third of the full amplitude, about one-half if you include methane and nitrous oxide.”
“The fundamental driver [of glacial-interglacial coolings and warmings] has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth’s surface as it is modified by orbital variations.” — Jeff Severinghaus
Which brings us right back to my point about how the Al Gore version of things, that atmospheric CO2 is the driver of temperature, is a lie.
That is pathetic quote mining. Land cover changes are the process that initiate changes in climate in response to the earth’s orbital variations during ice age cycles, but no the only one. Severinghaus does not say that GHG’s have had no role in producing the climate cycles.
You repeatedly make the logical error of assuming that if another mechanism exists GHG warming must be insignificant. The paper I linked to show that quantitativel GHG’s contributed almost 1/2 of the warming, with land cover contributing the rest. The fact that land cover changes were the initial process in the cycle doesn’t show that GHG’s can be neglected.
Al Gore is not a scientist and only publicized what some scientists say about global warming. He does not originate the science and is irrelevant to a discussion of the validity of your claims about the role of GHG’s in global warming. The fact that you ascribe scientific theories to him reflects the way politics influences your own opinion about the science.
If you aspire to instruct people on any subject, you should be more careful to be sure that your logic and facts are correct. Otherwise you are doing a disservice to the public.
“You repeatedly make the logical error of assuming that if another mechanism exists GHG warming must be insignificant.”
No he doesn’t. You repeatedly make the logical error of assuming that GHG warming exists even there is no empirical evidence that it does exist in any measurable amount, because the natural climate forcings over the late 20th century (the only warming period attributed to humans per the IPCC) were ~10 times greater that CO2 forcing. You are merely believing. You are doing religion, not science.
“The paper I linked to show that quantitativel[sic] GHG’s[sic] contributed almost 1/2 of the warming”
Wrong. First of all it wasn’t a peer reviewed paper published in any journal. It was a chapter in an alarmist book that history has shown to be hyped up nonsense, rendering the scary hyped up predictions to be worthless. It was rank speculation by discredited James “Boiling Oceans” Hansen, making such blatantly false conclusions such as “implying the possibility of multi-meter sea level rise this century”, which was based on false claim of “The emerging shift to accelerating ice sheet mass loss”. The latest p-r science says “Ice, Cloud and Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003-2008) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a-¹ , reducing global sea level rise by 0.23 mm a-¹. European Remote-sensing Satellite (ERS) data (1992-2001) gave a similar gain of 112 Gt a-¹ ” Zwally(2015) ‘Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses’ The paper goes on to say that it will continue to gain ice for ~20 years if these rates continue.
Hansen’s chapter in the book was more junk pseudoscience doomsday cult propaganda based on bad data and flawed models.
Your whole CAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion is based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, NOT empirical data. There is not a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primar cause of the late 20th century warming.
And I’ve shown you numerous peer reviewed papers that show ~10 times more increased natural solar radiative forcing reaching the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century warming than there was increase in CO2 forcing.
You stubbonrly refuse to admit that 4.1W/m² is greater than 0.4W/m².
You are in denial of reality. So sad.
“”The paper I linked to show that quantitativel[sic] GHG’s[sic] contributed almost 1/2 of the warming”
Wrong. First of all it wasn’t a peer reviewed paper published in any journal.”
You are wrong Hansen has written many peer reviewed papers on the ice age cycles. Here is a citation of the paper I linked to:
Hansen J,
et al. 2008 Target atmospheric CO2: where should humanity aim?. Open Atmos. Sci. J. 2, 217–231. (doi:10.2174/1874282300802010217)
Here is one of the latest papers he has written with coauthors:
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294
“Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide
James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Gary Russell, Pushker Kharecha
Published 16 September 2013.DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2012.0294”
Your epithets don’t constitute a scientific or logic argument. They are merely opinions.
In addition, you are cherry picking quotations from the Zwally paper to claim that global warming is non existent. In fact the NASA article from which you got your quote contains the following statement by Zwally, regarding the significance of his paper.
““If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”..
Zwally’s team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
“The new study highlights the difficulties of measuring the small changes in ice height happening in East Antarctica,” said Ben Smith, a glaciologist with the University of Washington in Seattle who was not involved in Zwally’s study.
“Doing altimetry accurately for very large areas is extraordinarily difficult, and there are measurements of snow accumulation that need to be done independently to understand what’s happening in these places,” Smith said.”
You once again make a totally dishonest and idiotic reply. So sad.
“You are wrong. Hansen has written many peer reviewed papers on the ice age cycles.”
Strawman! Why are you so dishonest Eric? Serial dishonesty once again. So sad. But so typical of you lying climate cult fanatics. So fanatical and dishonest that you won’t agree that 4.1 is greater than 0.4. So fanatical and dishonest that you deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and claim that heat flows from colder objects to hotter objects.
I never said that Hansen didn’t write any peer reviewed papers on ice ages. I correctly stated that you paper YOU linked to ( http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf ) was not a p-r paper, but a chapter in a book. So sad that you have such a pathetic mental defect that you can’t admit to a single error, so you have to do you handwaving clown dance, this time creating a strawman argument that I didn’t make. And attempt to move the goalposts by citing a different paper, http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294 .
And that paper is pure rubbish as exposed in the first sentence: “Humanity is now the dominant force in driving changes in the Earth’s atmospheric composition and climate.”
That’s a total empirical evidence-free bull$hit false claim, merely parroting the dogmas of his climate cult religion. In the past ~19 years, humans have added over 1/3 of all the human CO2 produced since 1750 and it has caused NO increase in the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere.
“In addition, you are cherry picking quotations from the Zwally paper to claim that global warming is non existent.”
Strawman #2! I used Zwally’s paper to expose Hansen’s false premise of the junk psuedoscience alarmist chapter he wrote in that book. No cherry picking at all. The TITLE of the paper was “Mass GAINS of the Antarctic ice sheet EXCEED losses”. You are delusional. Just more dishonesty and lies from Eric. So sad. But so typical of delusional reality-denying climate cult zealots defending there religion with jihadist zeal.
Yet another exposure of your climate cult fanaticism. So sad.
You can’t read. Your post is just invective and bluster.The paper I cited as the source was published in the
Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics society journal
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126
Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?
J. Hansen (1 and 2), M. Sato (1 and 2), P. Kharecha (1 and 2), D. Beerling (3), R. Berner (4), V. Masson-Delmotte (5), M. Pagani (4), M. Raymo (6), D. L. Royer (7), J. C. Zachos (8) ((1) NASA GISS, (2) Columbia Univ. Earth Institute, (3) Univ. Sheffield, (4) Yale Univ., (5) LSCE/IPSL, (6) Boston Univ., (7) Wesleyan Univ., (8) Univ. California Santa Cruz)
(Submitted on 7 Apr 2008 (v1), last revised 15 Oct 2008 (this version, v3))
“You can’t read. Your post is just invective and bluster.”
No, it is 100% accurate that you are an ignorant climate cult fanatic who lies and refuses to admit when you are wrong, which is completely consistent with delusional, reality-denying doomsday cult zealots.
“The paper I cited as the source was published in the Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics society journal http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126 “
There you go LYING again. You didn’t cite that paper originally.
Why are you so dishonest?
Why do you lie like a rug?
You are a pathetic denier of reality.
Are you ready to stop denying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and admit that colder ghgs in the atmosphere do NOT transfer more heat into the oceans than the Sun like you claim?
Are you ready to admit that the Columbia Univ. lecture on Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling says that the ONLY ocean-atmosphere heat exchange process that adds heat to the ocean is solar radiation?
Are you ready to admit that 4.1W/m of increased natural solar radiative forcing during the late 20th century is greater than 0.4W/m of increased CO2 forcing?
Your refusal to admit to these facts and to your errors, proves that you are a dishonest peddler of crap pseudoscience.
“When a mistake is pointed out, but still clung to, it becomes a lie.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/factual-errors-vs-lies-and-admitting-mistakes.686/
Why are you so serially dishonest Eric?
A sad, pathetic, reality-denying cult fanatic is all you are.
There you go LYING again. You didn’t cite that paper originally.
Why are you so dishonest?
Click on the link and compare the text. You will see it is the same.
That is pathetic dismissal of the fact the very source you cited to support your position clearly making the very same central point I have been making for a very long time now. Hence worth reiterating:
“The fundamental driver [of glacial-interglacial coolings and warmings] has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth’s surface as it is modified by orbital variations.” — Jeff Severinghaus
And neither have I. Quite the contrary.
No, I don’t. Rather, I simply question what that significance actually is. The honest answer to that question is “We don’t really know.”
Al Gore is highly relevant given his influence on the public mind with his film “An Inconvenient Truth” and given the fact it is the misinformation he presented that I have been speaking to directly for as far back in this discussion as I can remember.
Please don’t be silly. I merely observed how he peddled misinformation as fact in his film. I didn’t say he originated any scientific theories behind it.
I would advise you to take your own advice. You seem rather fond of strawman argumentation, which is instructive.
“Which brings us right back to my point about how the Al Gore version of things, that atmospheric CO2 is the driver of temperature, is a lie”
There are a couple of current articles highlighting that exact point. They are spurred by the fact that is was 10 years ago that Al ‘Chicken Little’ Gore said that we were “in a true planetary emergency” and “unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return”.
Article #1, “Five Ways We Know Al Gore’s been running a Global Warming Racket”, http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/al-gore-runs-global-warming-racket/
The first article concludes “Gore will never apologize for peddling deceit, never admit he was wrong. Best thing to do is ignore him.”
Article #2, “State of the Climate: 10 Years after Al Gore declared a ‘planetary emergency’ – top 10 reasons why Al Gore was wrong”, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/25/state-of-the-climate-10-years-after-al-gore-declared-a-planetary-emergency-top-10-reasons-gore-was-wrong/
The second article concludes “Simply put: Mr. Gore is a bald faced liar. Why does anyone still listen to him? The terrible truth for Mr. Gore in this last decade is that there is no “planetary emergency”. Not one of the dire predictions he made has come to pass.”
Sadly, Eric, the resident defender of the CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion will likely appear with his usual strawmen, lies, and nonsense doing a right fine handwaving clown dance.
“CO2 was a positive feedback mechanism during ice age cycles. It followed the initial temperature change and added to it as a result of the greenhouse effect.”
There is no empirical evidence that it made any significant contribution to warming, just as there has been none recently.
“The fact that it was followed the temperature change doesn’t prove that it didn’t add to it.”
And the fact that the CO2 followed the temperature change doesn’t prove that it DID add to it.
“Currently CO2 is arithmetically a result of human caused emissions due to fossil consumption.”
That’s a sophomoric simplification as I explained in this comment:
“The greenhouse gas theory of global warming dates from 1824 and has been confirmed over and over by calculations and even direct observations.”
It’s irrelevant how old the theory is. What is relevant is that there has never been any empirically quantified amount of warming caused by human ghgs. You can’t cite a singe p-r paper that shows it has been the primary cause of warming in the late 20th century as you CO2 climate alarmists claim
“Outgoing radiation from the top of atmosphere has been reduced by greenhouse gases from what it would be if it passed directly through the atmosphere from the surface. That is what modern satellite measurements say. ” http://acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html.
Your chart merely shows that those are radiatively-active gases and shows nothing about changes over time.
This graph shows that there has been no reduction or long term change in outgoing radiation at TOA since 1974:
http://climate4you.com/images/OLR%20Global%20NOAA.gif
Over 2/3 of all the human CO2 emitted since 1750 has been added to the atmosphere during that time, and it has caused no reduction in outgoing radiation as you claim.
“Greenhouse gases such as CO2 and CH4 do drive temperature change.”
Too small to have ever been empirically quantified. They are lost in the noise of the much more significant natural climate forcings, as I have shown you with empirical data, but you sadly deny.
“It doesn’t matter how often you repeat your claim, you haven’t supported it with any scientific arguments.”
There you go projecting again. I’ve shown empirical data showing that you are wrong. You’ve provided none that shows that I am wrong or that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.
Climate forcing during the ice ages has been calculated. The following paper by Hansen and Sato studies what happened.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf
The net change in solar energy due to changes in tilt angle and orbital precession was negligible. All the change came from ice cover and vegetation as a result of the reduction in the northern hemisphere summer sunlight which increased the reflectivity of the land and oceans due to ice cover and vegetations changes, followed by temperature feedbacks due to GHG’s and further changes in ice cover and vegetation. If you look at figure 2, the forcings for GHG’s are- -3+/-0.5W/M^2 and for ice sheets and vegetation are -3.5+/-1W/M^2.
“followed by temperature feedbacks due to GHGs…”
Irrelevant speculation from climate activist “boiling oceans” Hansen.
Come on Adler, it’s simple arithmetic. 2.7-6.8W/m² is greater than 0.4-0.8W/m².
If you deny that, there’s no point in discussing anything with you because you will deny any other reality that I show you.
Why do you deny reality?
Why do you cling to your mistakes, turning them into lies?
“When a mistake is pointed out, but still clung to, it becomes a lie.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/factual-errors-vs-lies-and-admitting-mistakes.686/
As I pointed out above, the graph shown by RealOldOne2 shows that ocean temperatures modulate the amount of CO2 emitted by humans, that the ocean absorbs. The oceans are not currently emitting CO2. They are absorbing CO2 because the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is so high.
Before you take sides in a scientific argument, you need to study the science.
“As I pointed out above, the graph shown by RealOldOne2 shows that the ocean temperatures modulate the amount of CO2 emitted by humans, that the ocean absorbs.”
You continue to be blind and in denial of reality to what the graph I posted shows. The graph shows that the dynamic changes in CO2 levels are caused by temperature changes. The cause must come before the effect.
The graph also shows that there is no evidence for CO2’s alleged “positive feedback mechanism” as your climate religion claims, as the feedback isn’t strong enough to keep temperature rising. The temperature begins falling and CO2 follows.
“The oceans are not currently emitting CO2. They are absorbing CO2 because the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is so high”
As my graph shows the oceans are both emitting and absorbing CO2, so I take your statement to mean that they are a net absorber of CO2.
But you once again have the cause and effect reversed and are denying reality and fundamental science. You admit that sea surface temperature has warmed during the late 20th century and you admit that CO2 outgasses when ocean temperatures increase as my graph shows, so it follows that the oceans have been a net emitter of CO2 not a net absorber of CO2.
So it’s a fact that both humans and the oceans have been net adding CO2 to the atmosphere. The IPCC says the oceans annually emit and absorb more than 10 times more CO2 into the atmosphere every year than humans do, so a small imbalance can be significant. “Note that the gross amounts of carbon exchanged between the ocean and atmosphere, and the land and atmosphere, represent a sizeable fraction of the atmospheric CO2 content – and are many times larger than the total anthropogenic CO2 input. In consequence, an imbalance in these exchanges could easily lead to an anomaly of comparable magnitude to the direct anthropogenic perturbation.” – IPCC, TAR, WG1, p.191.
The terrestrial biosphere have obviously been the net absorber of CO2 during the late 20th century as the NASA satellites show: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/Images/npp_change_bump_lrg.jpg
We cannot measure the natural CO2 fluxes accurately enough to determine what portion of the CO2 increase has been due to natural CO2 fluxes and what portion has been due solely to anthropogenic input. Your claim of “it’s simple arithmetic” is a sophomoric over-simplification argument as it essentially argues that suddenly for the first time in the history of the planet, the natural CO2 fluxes have become constant with no long term changing trends. This is ludicrous, and a claim only made by ideologically blinded zealots.
Please don’t misrepresent me like you usually do, by claiming that I deny that humans have been part of the rise in CO2 levels. They certainly have been PART of it, but the split between human and natural has NEVER been empirically quantified because we just don’t have the data on all the natural fluxes, just as the split between human and natural warming has never been empirically quantified.
“Before you take sides in a scientific argument, you need to study the science.”
That’s hilarious coming from you, as I have exposed that you have failed to do that time and time again, such as your denial of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by claiming that colder ghgs in the atmosphere transfer more heat to the oceans than the Sun does, and your denial that the primary cause of the late 20th century warming was natural climate forcing such as more solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface and warm phases of the ocean cycles.
So to you I say, physician heal yourself.
First of all, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not “high”. You can double almost nothing and it’s still almost nothing. Second, you are still arguing that “There is no doubt that human emissions have been the cause of the rising trend in CO2 since the industrial age” as though RealOldOne2 and I were disputing that. We aren’t. Third, before you say things like “Before you take sides in a scientific argument, you need to study the science”, you need to study the science. To wit,
Naturally, what the ice cores showed was “As expected, when temperature increased, carbon dioxide followed….”
Are you an attorney quibbling over the definition of high? It is higher than it has been in the last 800,000 years. The short way to say it is “high”. If you don’t like that, I will stop using “high” , and use the long form.
So you are not really claiming that the CO2 that humans are putting into the atmosphere is a result of higher temperatures. What you are saying is that when humans have emitted so much CO2 that temperatures warm, further CO2 will be emitted by the oceans, and warming will be further enhanced.
I agree with that. It shows that global warming due to humans can be much larger than projected.
Thanks for making this clearer. I am not sure RealOldOne2 agrees.
How could any thinking person possibly mistake me for claiming something so obviously nonsensical?
Let’s not quibble.
That’s what I mean.
How could any thinking person possibly mistake me for claiming something so obviously nonsensical?
Let’s not quibble. Here’s what I mean.
Your plot obscures the real story.
Humans are about 200,000 years old as a species. CO2 hasn’t been this high in the history of human civilization. The rate of increase is unprecedented. Human civilization was built with CO2 at 280 ppM.
http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/5_2_13_news_andrew_co2800000yrs_1050_591_s_c1_c_c.jpg
You have to go back 15Million years to find CO2 levels this high.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074
103″You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.
“The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,” said the paper’s lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.
“Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth’s history,” she said.
By analyzing the chemistry of bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice, scientists have been able to determine the composition of Earth’s atmosphere going back as far as 800,000 years, and they have developed a good understanding of how carbon dioxide levels have varied in the atmosphere since that time. But there has been little agreement before this study on how to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels prior to 800,000 years ago.
Tripati, before joining UCLA’s faculty, was part of a research team at England’s University of Cambridge that developed a new technique to assess carbon dioxide levels in the much more distant past — by studying the ratio of the chemical element boron to calcium in the shells of ancient single-celled marine algae. Tripati has now used this method to determine the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere as far back as 20 million years ago.
“We are able, for the first time, to accurately reproduce the ice-core record for the last 800,000 years — the record of atmospheric C02 based on measurements of carbon dioxide in gas bubbles in ice,” Tripati said. “This suggests that the technique we are using is valid.
“We then applied this technique to study the history of carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago to 20 million years ago,” she said. “We report evidence for a very close coupling between carbon dioxide levels and climate. When there is evidence for the growth of a large ice sheet on Antarctica or on Greenland or the growth of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, we see evidence for a dramatic change in carbon dioxide levels over the last 20 million years.
“A slightly shocking finding,” Tripati said, “is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different.”
Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years — until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA’s Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new.
Prior to the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the carbon dioxide level was about 280 parts per million, Tripati said. That figure had changed very little over the previous 1,000 years. But since the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide level has been rising and is likely to soar unless action is taken to reverse the trend, Tripati said.
“During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today,” Tripati said. “Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount.”
Tripati’s new chemical technique has an average uncertainty rate of only 14 parts per million.
“We can now have confidence in making statements about how carbon dioxide has varied throughout history,” Tripati said.
In the last 20 million years, key features of the climate record include the sudden appearance of ice on Antarctica about 14 million years ago and a rise in sea level of approximately 75 to 120 feet.
“We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in carbon dioxide levels of about 100 parts per million, a huge change,” Tripati said. “This record is the first evidence that carbon dioxide may be linked with environmental changes, such as changes in the terrestrial ecosystem, distribution of ice, sea level and monsoon intensity.”
Today, the Arctic Ocean is covered with frozen ice all year long, an ice cap that has been there for about 14 million years.
“Prior to that, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic,” Tripati said.
Some projections show carbon dioxide levels rising as high as 600 or even 900 parts per million in the next century if no action is taken to reduce carbon dioxide, Tripati said. Such levels may have been reached on Earth 50 million years ago or earlier, said Tripati, who is working to push her data back much farther than 20 million years and to study the last 20 million years in detail.”
One could easily argue that the graph going back millions of years tells “the real story” at least equally well as the one going back only hundreds of thousands of years.
The point is well illustrated by the graph I posted: that to say CO2 levels are “high” is entirely relative; further e.g., is it “high” for plant life, or might not plants thrive better with even higher levels? Etc.
Relative is important for CO2 as it is for temperature. Rapid changes in both will happen too fast for many species to change locations in reaction to climate change, or evolve species that will be suited to the new conditions. In addition rising sea levels will cause humans to lose land that they live on, or entail high costs to keep the ocean from flooding it. There will also be damage to crops from floods and drought that will outweigh the advantages of higher CO2 levels for the growth of some plant species.
That is the consensus of scientists that Gaiver and AGW deniers ignore.
“Rapid changes in both will happen too fast for many species to change locations in reaction to climate change, or evolve species that will be suited to the new conditions.”
Pure rubbish scare propaganda based on predictions from your flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, not empirical evidence.
“In addition rising sea levels will cause humans to lose land that they live on, or entail high costs to keep the ocean from flooding it”
Pure rubbish propaganda based on your faulty, flawed, falsified, failed climate models!. The empirical data shows that sea level rise is decelerating. Tide gauges are the only common measurement method that can compare early 20th century vs. late 20th century SL rise rates. They show lower rise rate in the late 20th century than the early 20th century.
– “The rate of sea level rise was found to be larger during the early part of the century (2.03 +/- 0.35 mm/yr 1904-1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 +/- 0.34 mm/yr, 1954-2003).” – Holgate(2007), ‘On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century’
– “we use 1277 tide gauge records since 1807 to provide an improved global sea level reconstruction and analyze the evolution of sea level trend and acceleration … The new reconstruction suggest a linear trend of 1.9 mm-yr^-1 during the 20th century, with 1.8 mm-yr^-1 since 1970.” – Jevrejeva(2014), ‘Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807’
And most of the that increase is due to the steric (temperature) component which is caused by solar radiation not CO2.
“There will also be damage to crops from floods and drought that will outweigh the advantages of higher CO2 levels for the growth of some plant species.”
Pure rubbish scare propaganda. No droughts or floods can be empirically attributed to increased CO2 levels. CO2 is your climate cult religion’s god, as it causes everything, higher temperatures and lower temperatures, more sea ice and less sea ice, more precipitation and less precipitiation. You have been royally duped and you are too ignorant to recognize it.
You blindly ignore the fact that there is no empirical evidence that CO2 has caused any quantified portion of the late 20th century warming, which is the whole foundation of your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion.
No matter how much alarmist scare propaganda you prattle on with, it will never change that fact.
And it will never change the fact that there was ~10 times more increase in natural solar radiative climate forcing in the late 20th century than there was increase in CO2 forcing, as I showed here: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2445711542, which shows that the late 20th century warming was caused by natural climate variations, just like every other climate warming in the history of the planet.
When we can add over 1/3 of all the human CO2 ever produced since 1750 to the atmosphere during the last ~19 years and it causes NO increase in temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere, it is clear to everyone except ideologically blinded cult zealots that anthropogenic CO2 is NOT the “thermostat” that controls the temperature of the Earth’s climate as your climate cult claims.
“That is the consensus of scientists that Gaiver[sic] and AGW deniers ignore.”
Once again you reveal your ignorance of how science is done. Consensus means nothing in science. Empirical evidence does. And the empirical evidence shows that climate change is still caused by natural climate variability, not human CO2.
Peddle your climate cult religion elsewhere. We’re not buying that pseudoscientific cult religion here.
Science doesn’t work by “consensus”. Your comment begs the question by assuming as a premise the proposition to be proven; namely, that humans are predominantly responsible for causing the climate to change.
There is no absolute proof in science. Theories are tested and used if they are consistent with observations. When l some findings occur showing that a Theory is wrong, it is revised.
Presently I have seen strong evidence that humans are responsible for GHG’s and land use changes that are warming the climate. I haven’t seen real evidence that proves this is wrong. Observation of radiation escaping the earth’s atmosphere shows how greenhouse gases are reducing the amount of radiation leaving the earth.
The literature shows that forcings resulting from human activity dominate the driving forces changing the amount of heat retained by the earth. Solar intensity has been waning slightly since the 1950’s so it cant be the source. The primary uncertainty in the driving forces are aerosals. The primary uncertainty in fhe feedback mechanisms are clouds. Since the work of Gilbert Plass in 1956, using more accurate measurements of atmospheric water vapor, and spectra, his calculation of about 1C for the action of CO2 alone, and about 3.6C for climate sensitivity due to doubling of CO2, only small modifications of his numbers have been produced by even more sophisticated models.
Natural ocean oscillations such as the ENSO, PDO etc. will modify the surface temperature by exchange of surface water with deep ocean water, affecting wind vortex systems etc., but this does not cause lasting changes in the earth’s energy balance the way GHG’s do. Modelling shows that large increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will last for centuries.
“Presently I have seen strong evidence that humans are responsible for GHG’s and land use changes that are warming the climate.”
Sorry, but continuous peddling your lies won’t make them true. The fact that you are unable to cite ANY p-r paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming proves that you are blowing smoke out your tailpipe. And the fact that you can’t rebut the fact that there was ~10 times more increase in natural solar radiative climate forcing during the late 20th century warming seals the deal that you are in total denial of reality.
“I haven’t seen real evidence that proves this wrong.”
Wow, you continue to deny reality and tell that lie! I showed you the real evidence that proves it wrong over and over, but you are so delusional that you think 0.4W/m² to 0.8W/m² are greater than 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m². Here is the empirical evidence that you deny: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2445711542
“The literature shows that forcings resulting from human activity dominate the driving forces changing the amount of heat retained by the earth.”
A blatant lie. You continue to deny reality and think 0.4W/m² is greater than 4W/m².
“Solar intensity has been waning slightly since the 1950’s so it can’t be the source.”
Another blatant lie. I showed you that what happens at the TOA is not what is important. What is important is how much solar radiation reaches the surface of the Earth, and numerous p-r papers empirically show that during the last 20th century there was ~10 times more increase in solar radiation reaching the Earths surface than there was increase in CO2 forcing. So solar radiation clearly WAS the source of the warming.
“The primary uncertainty in the feedback mechanism are clouds.”
The climate models can’t accurately project future global temperatures in large part because they are unable to model clouds correctly, but it is certain that the global mean cloud amount decreased during the late 20th century, which allowed more solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface. ~10 times more increase in solar radiative forcing at the Earth’s surface than increase in CO2 forcing.
“Natural ocean oscillations such as ENSO, PDO, etc. will modify the surface temperature by exchange of surface water with deep ocean water, affecting wind vortex systems etc., but this does not cause lasting changes in the earth’s energy balance the was GHG’s do.”
The oceans cycles are multi-decadal and multi-century scale so can be totally responsible for changes in climate on those timescales.
You one seriously duped doomsday climate cult fanatic who denies reality. So sad.
No matter how many times you click your heels together and say “I believe, I believe …” it won’t change the reality that CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming. The fact that in the last ~19 years we have added over 1/3 of all the human CO2 produced since 1750 and it has not caused the Earth’s atmosphere to increase at all, shows that your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion is a false one.
Correct, there is no absolute proof in science. Ergo, you have no proof that human activity is responsible for driving the Earth’s climate. All you have is that hypothesis. Which we can put to the test through observations, such as the satellite data, which tell us that there has been little to no net warming for nearly two decades despite continuously increasing atmospheric CO2.
When your hypothesis is falsified by observations, you need to reformulate your hypothesis. That is science. Sticking to it regardless isn’t science, it is dogma.
You can’t argue on one hand that when it was warming from the dawn of the industrial revolution until the mid-forties, and then again from the late seventies until the late nineties, that this was man-made global warming; but at the same time argue that when it cooled from the mid-forties to late seventies and plateaued since the late nineties, that this is due to natural variation. This is “heads I win, tails you lose” argumentation.
I didn’t argue that human GHG emissions and land use changes have been the dominant force for global warming since the industrial revolution. Increases in solar irradiance seems to have been the major driving force until the 1950’s, when solar irradiance topped out.
It seems that you have not been following the global warming discussion very closely if you cite satellite data as convincing evidence of no warming in the past 18 years.
The satellite data is the outlier among warming indicators. Glaciers melting, sea level rising, total energy of ocean depthe down to 2000M, earlier spring and later onset of winter are evidence at odds with the satellite data. So the right question to ask is what data is likely to be more correct?
The satellite data has been unstable. It depends on complicated calculations which sort out microwave data from various heights in the atmosphere including the stratosphere and scattering from clouds. It is the least stable of all of the data bases. Looking at the comparison graphs containing satellite and surface temperature, you see that the claim that warming stopped is mainly a result of the satellite data being more sensitive to El Nino. The change of the UAH satellite data from V5.6 to V6 done this past year, enables global warming deniers to continue to say that there was no warming in the past 18 years. To see how this works look at the graphs and analysis on this page:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2016/01/satellite-temperature-readings-diverge.html#more
In addition, noise due to natural variability can influence global average temperatures over the short term to overcome the long term trend.
This noise can be removed by multivariable regression, to show the real trend. This has been done for 2 versions of the satellite temperature data along with the 3 surface temperature data bases.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/figure05.jpg?w=750&h=749
The hiatus in warming and cooling trend of the 60’s is know to be a result of increases in human emissions of sulphate aerosals, which were ultimately stopped in the developed countries by pollution controls.
Your posts show a lack of familiarity with the history of the science and the progress of research on climate change. I would hope that you would do some serious reading to improve your knowledge of this subject, if you are interested in informing the public.
“Increases in solar irradiance seems to have been the major driving force until the 1950’s, when solar irradiance topped out.”
You continue to be ideologically blinded to reality which I have shown you over and over again, which you have been unable to refute, so you merely choose to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend in your fantasy la-la land it doesn’t exist.
The increase in TSI since the LIA has contributed to the oceans accumulating solar heat (as I showed you and you continue to deny) was the cause of increased OHC, NOT ghgs. http://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.climate4you.com%2Fimages%2FSolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%2520LeanUntil2000%2520From2001dataFromPMOD.gif&key=SqwsEot1bLLLufks7zrYNA&w=800&h=316
I showed you that the oceans have a huge thermal inertia and operate on cycles of multi-decades to multi-century scales. You are blinded to the reality that the LEVEL of TSI during the late 20th century was the highest 50 year period since the LIA, so because of the huge thermal inertia of the oceans, it is entirely consistent that the natural warming that the Earth experienced as it recovered from the cold temperatures of the LIA would continue. You deny these realities, as you are wedded to your failed CO2 hypothesis.
And you also continue to be ideologically blinded to the reality that even though the TSI at TOA peaked in the late 20th century, what matters is how much solar radiation reaches the Earth’s surface. You continue to deny the reality of the peer reviewed science that I showed you that empirically shows that solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface increased by 2.7-6.8W/m² during the late 20th century, while CO2 forcing increased by only 0.4-0.8W/m².
“The satellite data has been unstable…”
LOL. Keep denying reality. It continues to expose you as an ideologically blinded climate cult fanatic.
“The noise can be removed by multivariate regression …”
No, I’ve shown you that it can NOT be.
– Foster(2011) used a flawed methodology of attempting to remove ENSO and solar effects rendering their paper wrong. They used TSI at TOA not at the surface which alone renders their results void. The process of ENSO cannot be accounted for through linear regression on an index. Fully explanation here: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/supplement-to-enso-indices-do-not-represent-the-process-of-enso-or-its-impact-on-global-temperature/ & here: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/supplement-to-enso-indices-do-not-represent-the-process-of-enso-or-its-impact-on-global-temperature/ . This too renders their paper wrong.
There is also real world data proving F&R2011’s methodology is wrong. In the paper, they state that they used the same methodology as Lean(2009). Lean(2009) used this methodology to predict: “From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic influences and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperature by 0.15 ± 0.03C, at a rate 50% higher than IPCC projections.” Well the actual temperature change from 2009 to 2014 was cooling of 0.14C, thus proving this methodology flawed. FAIL again.
“Your posts show a lack of familiarity with the history of the science and the progress of research on climate change. I would hope that you would do some serious reading to improve your knowledge of this subject, if you are interested in informing the public.”
Perfect projection there Eric!
Your posts show that you are an ideologically blinded, reality-denying climate cult fanatic, and ignorantly swallow that CAGW-by-CO2 climate pseudoscience religious dogmas.
You deny that 2.7-6.8 is greater than 0.4-0.8.
You deny that solar radiation is the source of ocean warming and ignorantly claim that colder ghgs in the atmosphere transfer more heat into the oceans than the Sun does!
You are adding nothing to the conversation. When you are shown to be wrong, you merely ignore it and regurgitate your climate cult propaganda. You’ve done a fine job of exposing the delusions and denial of reality of members of your pseudoscience climate cult.
And yes, your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 is ideologically driven pseudoscience, just as Lysenkoism was in the early 1900s.
“Lysenko was consequently embraced and lionized by the Soviet media propaganda machine. Scientists who promoted Lysenkoism with faked data and destroyed counterevidence were favored with government funding and official recognition and award. Lysenko and his followers and media acolytes responded to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists resisting the advance of the new modern Marxism.” – http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/28/the-disgraceful-episode-of-lysenkoism-brings-us-global-warming-theory/#2715e4857a0b31dcd90541e4
Replace “bourgeois fascists resisting the advance of the new modern Marxism” with “climate deniers & science deniers” and you have exactly the modern equivalent of Lysenkoism.
And your climate cult religion will be tossed on the rubbish heap of history with other pseudoscience scams/hoaxes/frauds/lies just like Lysenkoism, and Eugenics, and phlogiston, and bleeding to cure diseases was.
The increase in solar irradiation cannot account for the amount of warming we have seen based on any reasonable calculations. It has been 70 years since significant increases in solar irradiance have been recorded and the increases in the early 20th century have been small. The climate sensitivity associated with this increase in solar irradiation is too small to account for the increases in temperature we have seen. Climate sensitivity takes into account the length of time for the ocean to equilibrate. The forcing due to CO2 is way larger than the forcing due to solar irradiance increases. If the climate sensitivity of solar irradiance increases is underestimated, than so is that due to CO2.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm
“The increase in solar irradiation cannot account for the amount of warming we have seen based on any reasonable calculations. It has been 70 years since significant increases in solar irradiance have been recorded …”
Wow, you dense! As I’ve told you over and over again, what matters is the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, and Hatzianastassiou(2005), Goode(2007), Pinker(2005), Herman(2013) and McLean(2014) show that the increase in solar radiative forcing over the late 20th century has been 2.7-6.8W/m, as compared to an increase in CO2 forcing of 0.4-0.8W/m. Your ideological blindness and confirmation bias of your CAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion cause continue to deny this reality. Sad.
And you can’t dismiss the ISCCP global cloud amount data as you attempted to do in your dishonest misrepresentation of the GEWEX report. I debunked that bit of your serial dishonesty here: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2464685806
Once again, you are totally discredited.
And I don’t get my science from a cartoonist ( http://web.archive.org/web/20071213172906/www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3 ) who writes propaganda for your CAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion.
Especially when it has been proven that you can’t trust anything posted there because he is dishonest and changes peoples comments, deletes them to peddle his propaganda. Here is the evidence of his dishonest running of his website: bit.ly/Pkj847 , bit.ly/RN6I4v , bit.ly/qnhi4m , bit.ly/AgQux8 , bit.ly/pahc21 , bit.ly/n9tpeK , bit.ly/WsptzJ , bit.ly/PlTBbQ , bit.ly/154jl4z , bit.ly/Qku4E8 , bit.ly/JAVQKZ , bit.ly/Kr7etP , bit.ly/1fjxZNz
“Wow, you dense! As I’ve told you over and over again, what matters is the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, and Hatzianastassiou(2005), Goode(2007), Pinker(2005), Herman(2013) and McLean(2014) show that the increase in solar radiative forcing over the late 20th century has been 2.7-6.8W/m, as compared to an increase in CO2 forcing of 0.4-0.8W/m. Your ideological blindness and confirmation bias of your CAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion cause continue to deny this reality.”
You are confusing the action of clouds with the action of the sun. The questinable increase in solar energy reaching the earth’s surface you are quoting is based changes in cloud formation, not changes in solar output. Data on clouds is uncertain as the GEWEX report points out. In addition reduction in of clouds will increase rates of cooliing at nightime, which you neglect to mention in your quotations of papers on clouds. this would counteract the additional solar radiation reaching the surface. This makes your posts on this subject deceptive.
If I ran a scientific web site, I wouldn’t post your comments which contain so much incorrect logic and incorrect information.
“The questinable[sic] amount of solar energy reaching he Earth’s surface you are quoting is based on changes in cloud formation, not changes in solar output.”
Of course it is, exactly as what I have been saying all along. You are demonstrating a total lack of comprehension. I’m beginning to think you your IQ may be no higher than perhaps 70.
“Data on clouds is uncertain as the GEWEX report points out”
WOW, more denial of reality. Maybe I estimated to high for your IQ. Perhaps <60?
The GEWEX report confirmed the ISCCP cloud data, as I quoted the Conclusion section in its entirety to you. Yet now you delusionally deny that reality. So sad.
“In addition reduction in of clouds will increase rates of cooling at nighttime, which you neglect to mentino in your quotations of papers on clouds. this would counteract the additional solar radiation reaching the surface. This makes your posts on this subject deceptive.”
Why do you continue lie? Nothing in my posts are deceptive, as I’ve shown you before. And why do you continue to peddle arguments that I have already exposed as fallacious? You are ignoring that any increase in rate of cooling at night from the 2.7-6.8W/m² of solar warming would also increase the rate of cooling caused by whatever warming was caused by the 0.4W/m² by the same percentage too, thus the warming caused by the 4W/m² of increased solar forcing at the Earth’s surface is STILL ~10 times greater than any warming caused by the increased CO2 forcing at the Earth’s surface during that same time.
Here it is again:
You couldn’t rebut this argument which I already showed you over 2 weeks ago here: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/climate-models-have-been-wrong-about-global-warming-for-six-decades/#comment-2436292158
You are either purposefully lying and hoping that I don’t catch you out, or your IQ is even less than 50, and are unable to reason or think like a normal person or are so ideologically blinded that you can’t face reality. Any way you cut it you are a discredited foolish climate cult zealot who is flailing and thrashing as you attempt to defend your climate cult religion with jihadist zeal. So sad.
Repeating already debunked arguments is merely trolling.
Are you claiming that the scientists who developed the Greenhouse Gas Theory of Global warming, Fourier in 1824, Tyndall in 1859, Gilbert Plass in 1956, Manabe and Weatherall in the 1970’s, did so in response to a government cabal? Plass did his work during the Eisenhower presidency, and Weatherall during the Nixon presidency! This kind of conspiracy theory doesn’t seems extremely paranoid to me.
Hahaha. When you can’t rebut my arguments, you resort to your conspiracy ideation! Sorry dupe. Doesn’t fly.
It is not my conspiracy ideation. You are the one who is making the analogy between AGW and Lysenko’s biological theories supported by the Communist government of the Soviet Union.
There is no logic behind your objections to the multilevel regression Foster and Rhamsdorf used to subtract the effects of ENSO from the temperature record. It is easy to see how the Enso index correlates with year to year changes in temperature. Tisdale’s posts are about detailed sea surface temperature changes in idifferent regions of the pacific and don’t prove that past global average annual temperatures are not increased during El Nino’s. .
“You are the one who is making the analogy between AGW and Lysenko’s biological theories”
Sorry there’s no conspiracy there at all. Just comparing history of the pseudoscience of Lysenko and the pseudoscience of CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2.
“There is no logic behind your objections to the multilevel regression Foster and Rhamsdorf[sic] used to subtract the effects of ENSO from the temperature record.
Wrong. The logic is in the REALITY that the methodology has been proven not to work in the real world, as demonstrated by Lean(2009)!
Here it is again:
– Foster(2011) used a flawed methodology of attempting to remove ENSO and solar effects rendering their paper wrong. They used TSI at TOA not at the surface which alone renders their results void. The process of ENSO cannot be accounted for through linear regression on an index. Fully explanation here: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/supplement-to-enso-indices-do-not-represent-the-process-of-enso-or-its-impact-on-global-temperature/ & here: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/supplement-to-enso-indices-do-not-represent-the-process-of-enso-or-its-impact-on-global-temperature/ . This too renders their paper wrong.
There is also real world data proving F&R2011’s methodology is wrong. In the paper, they state that they used the same methodology as Lean(2009). Lean(2009) used this methodology to predict: “From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic influences and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperature by 0.15 ± 0.03C, at a rate 50% higher than IPCC projections.” Well the actual temperature change from 2009 to 2014 was cooling of 0.14C, thus proving this methodology flawed. FAIL again.
Yet again, I totally debunk your dishonest misrepresentations. You are a serial denier of reality because of your ideological blindness and confirmation bias.
You are a total JOKE!
You are wrong. Lean and Rind validated their regression method by using part of the past history to derive the regression coefficients and validated it by comparing the predictions with the remaining history. This is a standard method for validation of empirical models.
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/climat-2009-2019-2.pdf
The problem with predicting the future was not their regression method, but their prediction of the behavior the ENSO index, which is a model input. In figure 1 of their paper, they assumed ENSO was constant between 2009 and 2018 and then had a postive spike at 2019. Actually ENSO spiked positive with a strong El Nino in 2010 and then turned negative. The behavior of of the temperature actually showed that the regression model was good, because temperature spiked in 2010.
“Yet again, I totally debunk your dishonest misrepresentations. You are a serial denier of reality because of your ideological blindness and confirmation bias.
You are a total JOKE!”
I will let anyone who reads our posts decide who is blind and dishonest due to ideology. Probably no one is reading what we are writing. Lucky for you.
“You are wrong. Lean and Rind validated their regression method by using part of the past history to derive the regression coefficients and validated it by comparing the predictions with the remaining history.”
There you go again denying reality. Whatever bogus flimflam attempted correlation work they did, it was proven wrong by the FAILURE of their predictions! That is how scientific hypotheses are tested. So sad that you continue to deny reality. You have rebutted NONE of Tisdale’s exposure ( https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/supplement-to-enso-indices-do-not-represent-the-process-of-enso-or-its-impact-on-global-temperature/ & https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/supplement-to-enso-indices-do-not-represent-the-process-of-enso-or-its-impact-on-global-temperature/ )of the total failure of Foster’s methodology.
My estimate of your IQ is now <50.
I’ll amend: You can’t argue on one hand that when it was warming from the late seventies until the late nineties, that this was man-made global warming; but at the same time argue that when it cooled from the mid-forties to late seventies and plateaued since the late nineties, that this is due to natural variation. This is “heads I win, tails you lose” argumentation.
Your argument that glaciers are melting, etc., therefore there has been no pause in warming is a non sequitur.
Un-“adjusted” data (see the pause there?):
“I’ll amend: You can’t argue on one hand that when it was warming from the late seventies until the late nineties, that this was man-made global warming; but at the same time argue that when it cooled from the mid-forties to late seventies and plateaued since the late nineties, that this is due to natural variation. This is “heads I win, tails you lose” argumentation.”
In order to make that argument, it has to be true that there is only one mechanism acting to affect the climate. That is clearly wrong.
U
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/full/nature12534.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n2/full/ngeo2078.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2106.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2138.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2150.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201403
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2105.html
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/focus/slowdown-global-warm/index.html
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/focus/slowdown-global-warm/index.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2159.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7536/full/nature14117.html
It is easy to mine quotes from papers which say that the increase in surface temperatures has been below expectations since 1998. The question is how do the scientific papers account for this.
There are two answers generally given.
1 – The surface temperature underestimates the increase in the Arctic region, where it is warming twice as fast as the global average temperature, because of the lack of weather stations. Hadcrut ignores leaves out the temperature of much of the Arctic in its calculation of global average temperature, GISS’s interpolation method is not the best method, and results in an underestimate of the Arctic’s contribution to warming. Cowtan and Way use the best mathematical interpolation method called Kriging to show that the global average temperature has had an increasing trend over the years.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/
“A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared.”
Judith Curry may disagree but that doesn’t prove anything.
I suspect that many of the papers you cite, say that global warming due to CO2 is real and any slowdown in recent years is due to natural variability.
. One of the papers you cite ,
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2159.html
says this in the abstract:
“We find that when correcting for interannual variability, the past decade’s slowdown of the global mean sea level disappears, leading to a similar rate of sea-level rise (of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm yr−1) during the first and second decade of the altimetry era. Our results confirm the need for quantifying and further removing from the climate records the short-term natural climate variability if one wants to extract the global warming signal.”
One of the papers you quoted, regarding the pause says that the pause is not evidence that global warming due to GHG’s isn’t happening:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7536/full/nature14117.html
“The differences between simulated and observed trends are dominated by random internal variability over the shorter timescale and by variations in the radiative forcings used to drive models over the longer timescale. For either trend length, spread in simulated climate feedback leaves no traceable imprint on GMST trends or, consequently, on the difference between simulations and observations. The claim that climate models systematically overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations therefore seems to be unfounded.”
I don’t have the time to look into the other papers you quote right now. I think you are fooling yourself with quote mining. It is a deceptive tactic often used by global warming deniers. You should really look into this subject with more depth of thought and less prejudice. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists think that GHG increases due to human activity are real and a problem for humanity. There are a few curmudgeons motivated by a desire to be recognized as non conformists, or right wing politics who think otherwise. Scientific research demonstrates their ideas are wrong.
More BS propaganda Eric. So sad.
“Cowtan and Way…”
Pure BS denial of reality. They make up temperatures in ~1/2% of the surface of the Earth where none were measured, and reverse the trend of the other 99%. Pure BS, Bogus Science.
So sad that you deny the reality of pause. Of course when it exposes your climate cult religion as a steaming stinking pile of male bovine excrement, it’s what we would expect one of the devoted doomsday cult zealots to do in defending his religion with jihadist zeal, as Richard Lindzen says.
Here’s some more peer reviewed science to deny, you poor dupe:
• “Issues related to the pause of global warming in the last decade are reviewed.” – Wang(2010), ‘Does the Global Warming Pause in the last decade: 1999-2008?
• “Factors involved in the recent pause in the rise of global mean temperatures …” – Trenberth(2014), ‘Seasonal aspects in the recent pause in surface warming’
•”A pause in global warming since 2000 – a global warming “hiatus” – has opened up new questions about natural and human driven (anthropogenic) effects on global mean trends in surface temperature.” – Clement(2014)
• “Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000-2010 period.” – Guemas(2013)
• “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level. vonStorch(2013) 2012-2015 adds 3 more years to make 18.
• “The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has not risen over the past 15 years … Here we first show that many climate models overestimate the influence of El Nino – Southern Oscillation on GMST, thereby shedding doubt on their ability to capture the tropical Pacific contribution to the HIATUS … Yet the observed global warming is still overestimated not only over the recent 1998-2012 HIATUS period but also over former decades, thereby suggesting that the model may be too sensitive to the prescribed radiative forcing.” – Douville et al., (2015).
• “Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less stable since 2001.” – England(2014), nature climate change journal
• “Despite the continued increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century.” – (2013)
• “After a rise of 0.5°C in the 25 years starting in the mid-1970s, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero since the turn of the century (Fig.1). This hiatus in global warming has occurred …” – Held(2013) ‘The cause of the pause’
• “during the current hiatus period, the ST shows a strong fluctuation on the warming rate, with a large acceleration (0.0085°C year^-1 to 0.017°C year^-1) during 1992–2001 and a sharp deceleration (0.017°C year^-1 to 0.003°C year^-1) from 2002 onwards.” – Macias(2014)
Your post is more of the same quote mining designed to deceive the ignorant;
Some researchers look at the data and see a slowing of global warming in recent years.
I don’t have the time to read all the abstracts. The two that I have read which discuss a slowing of global warming are blaming it in on ENSO.
If you were interested in an informed discussion you would post the links, instead of forcing the reader to hunt for the link to see what else is in the paper. I am grateful that Jeremy Hammond has the courtesy to do this.
“Your post is more of the same quote mining designed to deceive the ignorant.”
You are wrong once again. No quote mining there all. Just accurately quoting peer reviewed science to show that according to peer reviewed science the pause exists and is real, and that you sad duped foolish climate cult zealots who say that there has been no pause have your head’s up your a$$es.
“The two that I have read which discuss a slowing of global warming are blaming it on ENSO.”
Very likely ENSO is contributing to the halt in warming since ~1997, just like ENSO contributed to the warming in the ~30 years prior to that. You deny that natural variability contributes to warming, but only claim it contributes to cooling. That’s a delusional denial of reality. Very common among scientifically iliterate duped doomsday climate cult fanatics like you. So sad.
Natural climate variability acts on multi-decadal, multi-centennial scales. There is NO empirical data showing that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. But there is much peer reviewed science showing that the primary cause was natural, specifically more solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth.
When are you going to admit that 4.1W/m² of increased solar forcing is greater than 0.4W/m² of increased CO2 forcing? You only make yourself out to be an idiot or a moron by refusing to admit that irrefutable fact.
And when are you going to get honest and quit denying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and admit that colder ghgs in the atmosphere do NOT transfer more heat into the ocean than the Sun does. You again make yourself out to be an idiot or a moron by making such delusional and false claims like that.
I love how you keep dismissing the plethora of statements provided from the scientific literature showing how your denial of the pause is simply ignorant as “quote mining”.
If you were interested in an informed discussion, you wouldn’t keep insisting that there is no pause when the scientific literature clearly recognizes otherwise.
I don’t “dismiss” these statements. That is a rhetorical disparagement of what I have been saying. My discussion was very informed.
I showed some scientific articles that showed that the so-called pause is not statistically significant, some articles that say that new corrections to the surface data removes the pause, and other papers that say the observed pause does is due to natural variations which can temporarily hide the warming trend due to CO2.
The very papers which you quoted to claim the pause is real conclude that the observed pause in warming is noise a warming trend caused by natural variation such as El Nino, volcanoes and solar irradiance reduction. They reject the hypothesis that CO2 is not continuing to cause global warming. .
There are papers which show by statistical trend analysis that the warming trend which began in 1975 is statistically unbroken. The data is naturally noisy due to volcanoes, solar cycles and ENSO cycles, all of which cause short term modifications of the surface temperature. I linked to a RealClimate post showing that so callled pause i.e. the data since 1998 does not alter the statistical trend of warming which began in 1975. The uncertainty in the short term behavior is high enough that the trend is not brolen. I also linked to a Grant Foster post (akaTamino) web post which showed that if these effects are removed from the surface temperature by regression analysis a robust trend appears. These are not mere dismissals; they are scientific and mathematical analysis of the data.
In addition recent corrections to the surface temperature data which take account of missing regions in the Arctic using kriging (Cowtan and Way) as well as the correcction of cooling bias of sea surface temperatures (Karl) indicate that the apparent pause in the data was not really there.
On top of that, it is clear that 2014 and 2015 are the 2 warmest years on record for the surface temperature record. Because of the strong El Nino, 1996 will be warmer than 1995 by a lot. The AGW deniers need another story to deny the reality of global warming due to CO2.
“I showed some scientific articles that showed that the so-called pause is not statistically significant.”
That is nonsense talk. You can either show that a positive or a negative trend is statistically significant, but if you can’t, then there is NO statistically significant trend, eg. a zero trend, or a PAUSE.
“Calculating Statistical Significance of Trend Slopes – Calculation Method – The measure used is the coefficient of the slope of the regression line for the time period. This coefficient is derived using the least squares method from rates for each year and then compared to zero using the student’s T test. If the t value is less than a T table value at the ninety five per cent level for the degrees of freedom, then the slope is considered to be zero” – http://www.floridacharts.com/charts/documents/TrendInfo.pdf
“The very papers which you quoted to claim the pause is real conclude that the observed pause in warming is noise a warming trend caused by natural variation such as El Nino, volcanoes and solar irradiance reduction.”
You are talking in circles.
1) El Ninos cause warming so can’t be used to explain lack of warming.
2) Only major volcanoes have been shown to cause global cooling and there have been NO major volcanic eruptions since Pinatubo in 1991.
3) And now you are arguing that the slight decrease in solar irradiance at the TOA of the last couple solar cycles is suddenly causing natural cooling, while you also argue that 2.7-6.8W/m² of increased solar radiation at the Earth’s surface can NOT be the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Totally inconsistent. You have no valid argument. You are merely denying reality.
“On top of that, it is clear that 2014 and 2015 are the 2 warmest years on record for the surface temperature record.”
The surface temperature recorded has been corrupted by adjustments, is temporally and spatially unfit to determine a global average temperature as compared to the satellite datasets. And both satellites show that 2014 was 6th warmest and that 2015 was 3rd warmest.
You have no valid arguments. You are merely repeating debunked propaganda and denying reality, like your denial of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in claiming that colder ghgs transfer heat into the warmer ocean surface, even more heat than the Sun, and your denial of 2.7-6.8W/m of increased solar radiative forcing at the Earth’s surface being greater than the 0.4W/m of increased CO2 forcing.
Oh, but you did, with your comment that by presenting them I was “quote mining”.
It’s fine to debate the explanations for the observed pause, as you’re now doing, but another thing entirely to deny that data indicate it altogether, as you did previously, before I “quote mined” for you from the literature showing how silly your denial was.
I showed that 9 of the ten papers you quote mined concluded that the apparent pause didn’t mean that human caused global warming was not happening. The claim of a “pause” is used by AGW deniers to deny that global warming is a real trend.
It is perfectly valid to claim that the “pause” is an illusion. Corrections to the data by Cowtan and Way, and Karl eliminate the so called pause. Even without the corrections, statistical analysis shows an unbroken trend of global warming since 1975. I can post links that show this if you are at all interested in discussing these points.
“you quote mined”
Your claim that Mr. Hammond quote mined is false and a dishonest obfuscation strategy of your climate cult to dismiss any science that exposes that you are wrong and that you can’t rebut. If the papers hadn’t been written by your own cult members, the strategy would have been to ad hom attack the authors of the papers.
He quoted portions of papers which support the premise of his point that the pause does exist. This is not quote mining. If you knew the least bit about peer reviewed papers, you would understand this is how it is done. When a p-r paper cites/quotes from another p-r paper it does not quote the entire paper, nor does it mean that the author agrees with everything else in the cited/quoted paper, just the portion that the author is using to support his own premise/argument.
“didn’t mean that human caused global warming was not happening.”
How can you be so dim to not understand that if there was no increase in the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere, that means that there is NO human-caused warming? Only if your confirmation bias and ideology blind you.
There is just as much evidence that aliens cause global warming as there is that CO2 causes warming:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UFO-and-OHC-time-series.png
Here is empirical evidence that aliens are more likely to have caused the warming of the oceans than CO2, since reports of UFOs have a high correlation and simultaneous relationship with ocean warming, while CO2 has a low correlation and lags, changes in ocean warming (as we’ve been telling you but you deny).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UFO-and-CO2-vs-Ocean-temp-lag-corr.png
(Disclaimer: I obviously don’t believe aliens cause global warming, and am just showing that the CO2 alarmist argument is similar to but even weaker than UFO cultists who would claim that aliens cause global warming. The enlightening story is found here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/do-aliens-cause-global-warming-the-data-say-yes/ )
“Corrections to the data..”
They aren’t “corrections”. They are just changing the data to fit the hypothesis, NOT changing the hypothesis to fit the data like real science does. If the data had shown warming, those “corrections” would have been considered or made. That is exactly the behavior of doomsday religious cults who have beliefs which they are unwilling to change regardless of any real world empirical data that shows those beliefs to be wrong. This is why more and more people such as Dr. Michael Crichton and eminent scientists such as Giaever, Lindzen, Happer have recognized that the current climate change pseudoscience groupthink has become a cult religion and is no longer science.
There has been no pause in global warming between 1970 and 2015.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/01/2015-temperatures/#more-19030
“There has been no pause in global warming between 1970 and 2015.”
ROTFLOL! You are so f-ing STUPID to be duped by fabricated numbers and deny the reality of the pause!
You’ve been shown numerous peer reviewed papers that stated that the pause was REAL. You deny that reality. Now that your climate cult leaders know that the pause is real and is likely to continue for several more years, they decided that they now had to change their dishonest talking points, and now claim that the pause never existed in the first place. That is EXACTLY what doomsday cults do when their predictions of doom fail to happen. You are a member of a doomsday climate cult hoax/scam/fraud/lie. So sad that you are too stupid to recognize it.
Sorry dupe, but no matter how many times you regurgitate your propaganda lies, it will never change the reality that the Earth’s atmosphere has NOT warmed in ~19 years, even though humans have added over 1/3 of all the human CO2 produced since 1750. The pause is REALITY.
Only scientifically illiterate morons and idiots fall for such a scam/hoax/fraud/lie. But we know why you have! LOL
Get your head out of your a$$ Eric and face reality.
Why do you deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and claim that colder ghgs in the atmosphere transfer heat to the warmer surface of the ocean, even stupidly claiming that it transfers more heat into the oceans than the Sun!
Why do you deny that 4.1W/m² of increased solar radiation reaching the surface of the ocean hasn’t been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming, and claim that 0.4W/m² of increased CO2 forcing has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming?
Why do you refuse to answer these 3 simple question Eric?
1) Which is warmer on a global average?
. . . A) the surface of the ocean? or
. . . B) the atmosphere above the ocean?
2) Which direction does the Columbia Univ. lecture on Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling ( http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html ) say that the net backradiation heat flow is going?
. . . A) from from the ocean to the atmosphere or
. . . B) from the atmosphere to the ocean?
3) Which direction does net heat flow?
. . . A) from warmer objects to colder objects, or
. . . B) from colder objects to warmer objects?
You are such a pathetic denier of reality. So sad.
Yet there has been a pause in global warming for the past nearly two decades, as clearly acknowledged in the scientific literature.
There has been no pause in global warming according the the GISS temperature record.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/01/2015-temperatures/#more-19030
“There has been on pause in warming according the the GISS temperature record.”
Of course not you stupid dupe. They FABRICATED warming where there was none. Clicking your heels together and repeating your false climate cult dogmas will never change the reality that the Earth’s atmosphere hasn’t warmed in the past ~19 years, even though humans have added over 1/3 of all the human CO2 produced since 1750! Why do you deny reality?
So sad that your are so stupid to swallow the propaganda. But that’s what they count on, ignorant scientifically illiterate fools that they can dupe. You are one of them.
There is NO peer reviewed science empirically showing that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. But there is MUCH peer reviewed empirical science showing that
You are merely an ignorant dupe, believing in your climate cult religion with NO empirical data to support it.
You deny reality. You stupidly believe that 0.4W/m of increased CO2 forcing caused 110% of the late 20th century warming, while believing that 4.1W/m of increased solar radiative forcing caused COOLING! Only idiots and morons would be so delusional.
You deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, by claiming that colder ghgs in the atmosphere transfer heat to the warmer surface of the ocean, even delusionally claiming that it transfers MORE heat than the Sun! Only sceitntifically iliterate idiots and morons would be so delusional.
Why are you such a pathetic science denier?
Why are you such a pathetic denier of reality.
Yes, it is easy to find quotes from the scientific literature acknowledging the pause in warming over the last nearly two decades, which illustrates how ridiculous and vain your denials are.
I’ll take that as an acknowledgment on your part that there has indeed been a well-recognized warming “hiatus”/”pause”.
There are also papers which say there has not really been a pause. I have cited some of them on this thread. There appeared to be a pause based on some data sets, but additional corrections show that the slowdown in global warming has not been significant in the past 18 years, even if you want to cherry pick a date.
As I pointed out above, the papers cited in your quoting post which mention the “pause”, based on my random samplinng show that it is due to natural causes, mostly El Nino, and do not claim that GHG warming is not happening. When the data from 2016 comes in, due to the super strong El Nino, the pause will certainly disappear, even without the corrections for missing Arctic region, and the cooling effect on ocean temperatures, resulting from the switch from ships’ intake to buoys.
AGW deniers who cite “the pause” as a reason to doubt AGW are” whistling Dixie”. They will soon have to look for another reason to doubt that GHG warming is happening.
So argue that it is controversial, rather than denying it outright even though a wealth of scientific literature acknowledges that a pause is indicated by the data. That would be reasonable.
Whistling Dixie.
The pause, if it really wasn’t an artifact of inadequate data, as Karl and Cowtan and Way are claiming, was produced by cyclical natural variation which adds a noise to the global warming trend which may obscure the trend in short term data. That is what 9 out of ten of the papers which you quote mined to show some researchers say there was a slow down in global warming since 1998 say. So according to them, the pause doesn’t show GHG warming has gone away.
In addition the last 2 years are the warmest on the surface temperature record, and the strong El Nino promises 2106 will be another modern temperature record year. In addition, 2 corrections to the surface temperature data have made the pause disappear. The paper by Judy Curry, is the only one out 10 papers you quoted, which makes the climate change denier case, by disputing the temperature corrections by Cowtan and Way. . Reading the discussion, I get the impression her objections are very weak and won’t stand up.
If you are claiming that a pause in global warming shows that human emissions are not causing warming, it is clear your case is weak. You need to find another reason for your denial.
“Whistling Dixie”
Yes, that is exactly what Cowtan and Way are doing, attempting to reverse the cooling trend found in 99 1/2% of the Earths surface by fabricating non-measured temperatures in 1/2% of the Earth’s surface to absurdly claim the Earth was warming. Rubbish pseudoscience.
“cyclic natural variation which adds a noise to the global warming trend”
Yes, on multi-decadal and multi-centennial timescales, which supports the empirical data which shows that the climate change over the entire past century was NATURAL, not anthropogenic in cause. You know, the fact that in the late 20th century there was an increase in natural solar radiative forcing reaching the Earth’s surface of 2.7-6.8W/m² versus an increase of CO2 forcing of 0.4W/m².
“That is what 9 out of ten papers which you quote mined”
There you go again being serially dishonest. You’re cruising to get banned aren’t you! Then you will be saved from the embarrassment of making a total a$$ of yourself as you are doing a right fine job!
“In addition, the last 2 years are the warmest on the surface temperature record.”
Come on Eric, get your head out of your a$$ and quit repeating that debunked lie based on fabricated fake temperature values by the dishonest and discredited Gavin Schmidt and his Ministry of Truth minions.
“If you are claiming that a pause in global warming shows tht human emissions are not causing warming, it is clear your case is weak.”
LOL @ your stupidity and ideological blindness.
If there is NO warming, over the most recent ~19 years when humans have added over 1/3 of all the human CO2 produced since 1750then it is obvious to all but scientifically illiterate morons and idiots that human emissions are not causing warming. Thanks for confirming exactly who and what you are.
“You need to find another reason for you denial.”
Mr. Hammond is acknowledging reality. You are denying reality. YOU re the one who is in denial. You need to come up with some empirical science which shows that your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion that you peddle is true. No one on the face of the Earth has written a peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the most recent climate warming in the late 20th century. Yet you delusionally and ignorantly believe it. So sad that you have been duped so bad and are to scientifically illiterate to recognize it.
You have exposed yourself as scientifically illiterate, as you deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by claiming that colder ghgs in the atmosphere transfer heat into that warmer surface of the ocean, stupidly claiming that it transfers even more than the 5300C Sun.
And you have exposed your dishonesty by refusing to admit that solar radiation is the cause of ocean warming, not ghgs, as the Columbia Univ. lecture states.
And you have exposed your dishonestly by claiming that 0.4W/m² of increased CO2 forcing caused 110% of the late 20th century warming while denying that 4.1W/m² of increased solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface caused any warming.
I expect that you will get your wish of being banned, so that you can whine that the “deniers” blocked you, dishonestly denying that you have been exposed as a total fool.
It’s one thing to argue, as you are now doing, that the pause is due to natural variation; it was quite another for you to deny it altogether.
Nice of you to finally acknowledge that data do indeed indicate a pause.
” “pause” … that it is due to natural causes, mostly El Nino … When the data from 2016 comes in, due to the super strong El Nino, the pause will certainly disappear … AGW deniers who cite “the pause” as a reason to doubt AGW are” whistling Dixie”. They will soon have to look for another reason to doubt that GHG warming is happening.””
Your argument makes no sense. El Ninos cause global temperatures to increase, as you indicate re: the “super strong El Nino”, so they can not be used as an excuse for the “pause” in warming from ~1997.
And even if 2016 temps are high due to a super strong El Nino, it does nothing to support your argument that AGW has caused warming, because El Ninos are a natural climate phenomenon, which is not due to anthropogenic CO2. El Ninos merely release solar heat which has been stored in the oceans back to the atmosphere. And as I have proved to you, solar heat in the oceans is caused by solar radiation, not anthropogenic ghgs. And it is looking like there will likely be a La Nina following the El Nino, and then the pause will have been extended out to two full decades! The jig is up. The natural late 20th century warming is over. The PDO turned negative ~2007, we are in the declining phase of the ~11 year solar cycle, and the AMO will turn negative in early 2020s, so it is very possible that the “pause” or even cooling will go out into the 2030s with over 3 decades of no global warming, totally debunking your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion, as we may well go through 1/3 of the entire 21st century with NO warming, not the 2-5C of warming that your climate alarmist religion warned of. Your pseudoscience hoax/scam/fraud religion will have been tossed on the rubbish heap of history and you will be the laughing stock of the world.
It’s actually quite humerous watching you CAGW-by-CO2 climate alarmists hoping and praying for a natural climate warming phenomenon El Nino to resuscitate your dying catastrophic anthropogenic global warming religion. Even a “super strong El Nino” 18 years later, is struggling to just get global temperatures back to 1998 levels. That STILL leaves the fatal problem for you climate alarmists of where that “missing” ghg heat from humans adding over 1/3 of all the human CO2 produced since 1750 has gone? Actually it’s not missing at all, because CO2 is an insignificant cause of climate warming. And as I have shown from peer reviewed science, the late 20th century warming was natural, not due to anthropogenic CO2.
1)Looking at your first link, you present the introductory sentence. The conclusion of your abstract says the following:
“Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.”
2)Your second link doesn’t claim that GHG’s are not causing global warming, based on the 2 sentence abstract. The conclusion is:
“This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.”
3)This paper is an attempt by Judy Curry to dismiss Cowtan and Way.
Here is the gist of Cowtan and Way
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/cowtan-way/
Can you explain why Judy Curry thinks it is wrong?
4)The conclusion of 4 is:
“The net effect of these anomalous winds is a cooling in the 2012 global average surface air temperature of 0.1–0.2 °C, which can account for much of the hiatus in surface warming observed since 2001. This hiatus could persist for much of the present decade if the trade wind trends continue, however rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate.”
The paper was prescient. Warming resumed and 2014 and 2015 were the warmest surface temperatures on record. A strong El Nino, which consists of the a pause in the trade winds,is going to make 2016 the warmest year on record for sure.
5)The conclusion of 5 says
” A study finds that recent strengthening of Pacific trade winds has enhanced heat transport from the surface to ocean depths, explaining most of the slowed surface warming.” He is not saying GHG’s have stopped warming the Earth. He is saying that La Nina conditions with strong trade winds have mixed the heat gained by the earth into the deeper ocean stalling the surface temperature increase.
6) This is not a scientific article. It is an article on how global warming is discussed with the public.
“We discuss how climate scientists have tried to communicate the pause and suggest that ‘many-to-many’ communication offers a key opportunity to directly engage with the public.”
7) Your quote: “Climate models projected stronger warming over the past 15 years than has been seen in observations. ”
The authors conclude that the difference is due to natural factors which have not been input into the models, and doesn’t show GHG’s are not warming the planet.
“Conspiring factors of errors in volcanic and solar inputs, representations of aerosols, and El Niño evolution, may explain most of the discrepancy.”
8)…in the past decade the climate hasn’t warmed at the rate projected, and evidence of the slowdown in temperature rise has sparked a lively scientific and public debate…”
All this says is there is a debate about this. That is what we are doing. It doesn’t present any thesis. Some people claim the slowdown doesn’t exist. That is part of the discussion.
9) Once again you present the opening sentence of an abstract and ignore the conclusions of the paper, which support the existence of continued GHG warming.
“Here we present an analysis based on sea-level data from the altimetry record of the past ~20 years that separates interannual natural variability in sea level from the longer-term change probably related to anthropogenic global warming. The most prominent signature in the global mean sea level interannual variability is caused by El Niño–Southern Oscillation, through its impact on the global water cycle13, 14, 15, 16. We find that when correcting for interannual variability, the past decade’s slowdown of the global mean sea level disappears, leading to a similar rate of sea-level rise (of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm yr−1) during the first and second decade of the altimetry era. Our results confirm the need for quantifying and further removing from the climate records the short-term natural climate variability if one wants to extract the global warming signal10.”
It’s El Nino again!
10) Once again you present the introductory sentence and ignore the conclusion of the paper. It says,
“The claim that climate models systematically overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations therefore seems to be unfounded.”
So the what 9 out of 10 of the papers you quote mined, are saying is that the pause is due to natural variation, mostly El Nino, that doesn’t get modelled. They also say this doesn’t show GHG warming is not happening. One paper, by Judy Curry disputes the Cowtan and Way analysis that uses kriging to add data on the Arctic and other areas without nearby weather stations to the temperature record, and find that the pause disappears.
Judy Curry is practically alone among climate scientists ( there is also Anthony Watts) in her dismissal of Cowtan and Way. Here is an analysis that totally destroys her objections.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncertainty-in-sst-measurements-and-data-sets/#comment-412925
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2013/11/reactions-doubling-recent-temperature-trend-judith-curry-anthony-watts-lucia.html
Here is an answer by Kevin Cowtan to Curry’s objections at Judy Curry’s blog.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncertainty-in-sst-measurements-and-data-sets/#comment-412925
1) “the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability”
Good, you agree that during a transition from warm to cool phases natural climate variability can fully offset any CO2 warming. Fail
2) “This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in
external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.”
Good, you agree that CO2 forcing may be exaggerated, the models may be bogus and that natural variability are all likely involved and fully offset any CO2 warming. Fail.
3) “Can you explain why Judy Curry thinks it is wrong.”
Curry explains it in her paper. You must show that Curry is wrong. You haven’t. Fail.
4) “The net effect of these anomalous winds is a cooling in the 2012 global
average surface air temperature of 0.1–0.2 °C, which can account for
much of the hiatus in surface warming observed since 2001.”
England’s claim of increased trade winds is climate model based, and it contradicts Vecchi(2006) ‘Global warming and the Weakening of the Tropical Circulation’ which says “This study examines the response of the tropical atmospheric and oceanic circulations to increasing greenhouse gases … Evidence suggests that the overall circulation weakens by decreasing the frequency of strong updrafts and increasing the frequency of weak updrafts”.
These updrafts are what cause the trade winds, thus Vecchi supports that ghgs cause weakening trade winds, not stronger trade winds. Your team is arguing in circles.
Plus if trade winds are stronger as England claims, it would increase evaporation, which is the largest heat exchange mechanism of heat out of the oceans.
Plus England offers no mechanism of how “CO2 heat” gets into the oceans, since the atmosphere above the oceans is a couple degrees cooler than the surface of the ocean. That pesky 2nd Law of Thermodynamics again. So even if he was correct that increased trade winds cause more circulation of upper ocean waters deeper, it is natural heat from solar radiation, not anthfopogenic ghgs. Another fail.
5) ” A study finds that recent strengthening of Pacific trade winds has
enhanced heat transport from the surface to ocean depths, explaining
most of the slowed surface warming.”
Kosaka refers to England(2014) the paper in 4). England’s paper fails as explained in 4). And Kosaka’s paper ( http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~matthew/news-and-views-Yu-Kosaka.pdf ) says “These findings suggest that the recent negative PDO trend is of internal, natural origin rather than the result of a forced response. … Consequently, the observed global-mean surface temperature trends for the past two decades is lower than all but a few of 117 simulations, which means a very low chance of the current hiatus … How can we observationally confirm that the Earth is still gaining extra heat and that the heat is stored in the ocean? … we can use observations of ocean heat content because the ocean absorbs more than 90% of the extra heat. Studies show that the heat content has kept increasing during the current hiatus”.
“He is not saying GHG’s have stopped warming the Earth. He is saying that
La Nina conditions with strong trade winds have mixed the heat gained
by the earth into the deeper ocean stalling the surface temperature
increase.”
Kosaka provides NO physical mechanism to support a claim that ghgs have warmed the ocean. His “extras heat” is solar heat, not anthropogenic ghg heat, because we know that there has been on additional heat added to the oceans from colder ghgs in the atmosphere. That pesky 2nd Law again! So another fail.
6) “This is not a scientific article”
Nonsense. It IS a scientific article ( http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/Climate/Pause%20for%20Thought.pdf ) as it discusses the IPCC reports the climate models (well you could argue that’s not science, but pseudoscience) and natural climate variability. And you totally fail to rebut Mr. Hammond’s point in citing it as p-r evidence for the reality of the pause. Nowhere in Hawkins(2014) does it deny the existence of the pause like you do. Another fail.
7) “The authors conclude that the difference is due to natural factors
which have not been input into the models, and doesn’t show GHG’s are
not warming the planet.”
Good. I’m glad that you agree that the models are inaccurate because they don’t include natural climate factors, just as I have told you. The fact that they don’t include natural factors that observationally have shown to impact global temperatures is why they can NOT be used to rule out natural climate variability as a cause for climate change and they can NOT be used to attribute warming to anthropogenic vs. natural variability.
And again you totally avoid addressing Mr. Hammond’s use of the quote to prove that the pause is real. Schmidt nowhere denies that the pause exists, as you do. Another fail.
8) “All this says is there is a debate about this.”
Exactly Mr. Hammond’s point, that the pause exists, or else there would be no debate. Once again you fail to address his point. Another fail
9) “from the longer-term change probably related to anthropogenic global warming.
No, probably NOT, as there is NO proposed physical mechanism for “ghg heat” to enter the ocean and thereby cause increased sea level due to thermostatic effect. As we know, colder ghgs in the atmosphere can not transfer any heat into the oceans. There’s that pesky 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that you deny again.
“it’s El Nino again!”
Exactly! That natural climate warming phenomenon which contributed to the late 20th century warming and is NOT caused by CO2! Glad that you agree.
10) “seems to be unfounded”
It only seems that way because he uses a flawed methodology of modeling and multi regression and interprets residuals as internal variability, but doesn’t understand the real cause or amplitude of natural climate variability.
“So the what 9 out of 10 of the papers you quote minde, are saying is that the pause is due to natural variation, mostly El Nino, that doesn’t get modeled.”
First, he didn’t quote mine. That’s just your dishonest ad hom false allegation.
Second, I’m glad that you agree that the models are incapable of modelling the real world, as they “don’t get modeled”. That is why they are useless to project future global temperatures, because they don’t include natural climate variables that significantly impact global temperature.
Once again you TOTALLY FAIL on 10 out of 10 points! Another colossal FAIL by Eric the 2nd Law denier. So sad that you continue to prattle on, regurgitating your climate cult propaganda talking points and denying reality.
Most of the papers were behind a paywall, and Jeremy Hammond quoted an introductory sentence in which the authors accepted the premise that there was a slow down in the temperature increase in the years immediately before these papers were written. I pointed out that all of the papers attributed this to something other than the idea that GHG warming is not causing climate change.
I was replying to Jeremy Hammond’s post. It seems silly that you consider the fact that I didn’t include a paper that you referenced is some post that you wrote an ad hominem attack. Or did Jeremy Hammond make an ad hominem attack on you by not quoting your paper? That is equally silly.
Curry’s paper is behind a pay wall. Judging from her blog and the discussion on it, she seems to feel the kriging is the wrong way for Cowtan and Way to have done their estimation. This is easily answered by their paper itself, which validated their method by using kriging to independenty produce results that were previously know but set aside for validation. It is a failure on Curry’s part not to have noticed this.
In your arguments you are repeatedly making up your own facts and make claims that are ridiculous and are incorrect no matter how many times you repeat them. There is no way that some of the world’s greatest scientists who discovered the fact that certain trace gases are warming the earth developed a theory that violates the second law of thermodynamics, as you claim. There is little point in discussing climate science with someone who believes something as foolish as that. Even Roy Spencer doesn’t go that far into right wing fantasy land.
Another colossal FAIL by RealOldOne2 GHG effect denier. So sad that you continue to prattle on, regurgitating your climate cult propaganda talking points and denying reality.
“the authors accepted the premise that there was a slowdown in the temperature increases”
Exactly what Mr. Hammond said, and what you deny. Once again you make an vacuous comment.
“I pointed out that all of the papers attributed this to something other than the idea that GHG warming is not causing climate change.”
There you go again making stupid statements. There has been no warming, so there IS NO GHG warming. And as you agree most attributed the lack of warming to natural causes which overpowered any miniscule amount of warming due to anthropogenic CO2. And the fact is that they attribute it to natural causes, which means that those same natural causes were primary contributors to the late 20th century warming. You know the ~10 times more increase in natural solar radiative forcing than increase in CO2 forcing during that timeframe. You know, what you are in denial of. You know what you stupidly think 0.4W/m of CO2 forcing caused 110% of the late 20th century warming while you stupidly claim that 4.1W/m of increased natural solar radiative forcing actually caused cooling! It doesn’t get any more idiotic that that!
“It seems silly that you consider that fact that I didn’t include a paper that you referenced is som post that you wrote an ad hominem attack.”
LOL! WTF are you lying and blabbering about? I never made any ad hom attack. I merely pointed out that England’s MODEL-based paper contradicted previous peer reviewed science. But that shouldn’t surprise anyone since the models can’t represent real world climate at even the 2% confidence level! You are totally insane and just making stuff up. Thanks for yet more evidence that you are a total whack job!
Your ignorant blathering about Curry and the junk pseudoscience rubbish that Cowtan and Way wrote is pure nonsense. They were just making up numbers where there were no measurements, in ~1/2% of the surface of the Earth and dishonestly trying to overturn the temperature of the 99 1/2% of the Earth’s surface. They are deniers of reality who are peddling junk rubbish pseudoscience.
“In your arguments you are repeatedly making up your own facts and make claims that are ridiculous and are incorrect no matter how many times you repeat them.”
Wow. More lies dishonesty and projection on your part! You are really doing the clown dance now! The fact that you can’t point to a single example of me doing that proves that you are lying through your teeth, like the pathetic dishonest climate cult fanatic that you are.
OTOH, I can cite irrefutable examples of where you are just making ridiculous stuff up like your claim that colder ghgs in the atmosphere actually transfer heat to the warmer surface of the ocean, even more heat than the Sun transfers into the ocean! That is a ridiculous anti-science denial of the 2nd Law of Thermodyamics, fully demonstrating your scientific illiteracy and/or your willful denial of reality because it goes against your climate cult religion.
Then there is your ridiculous claim that 0.4W/m of increased CO2 forcing during the late 20th century caused 110% of the warming during that time, while at the same time claiming that 4.1W/m of increased natural solar radiative forcing at the Earth’s surface caused cooling! Another demonstration of your just making stuff up, your scientific illiteracy and your denial of reality.
“There is no way that some of the world’s greatest scientists who discovered that fact that certain trace gases are warming the earth developed a theory what violates the second law of thermodynamics, as you claim.”
There you go again just fabricating a strawman argument again which I have already caught you out on here: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2470849801 , when we had this exchange:
“There is little point in discussing climate science with someone who believes something as foolish as that. Even Roy Spencer doesn’t go that far into right wing fantasy land.”
LOL. Well since I don’t believe that because you are dishonestly fabricating a strawman, your point is moot, except that it is actually projection on your part since it is no point discussing climate science with someone like YOU who denies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics like you do. You know you are wrong, but you are so dishonest and delusional and in denial of reality, instead of admitting it, you fabricate a total strawman argument about the 2nd Law. You aren’t fooling anyone except yourself. Everyone else can see that you are dishonest and a nutcase who lives in a fantasy la-la land of unreality.
“Another colossal FAIL by RealOldOne2 GHG effect denier.”
LOL. You’re in full clown dance mode now. Nice projection as YOU were the one who totally failed to refute anything in my comment which debunked every one of your 10 arguments that you made against Mr. Hammond’s p-r science that he cited. Aren’t you ashamed of making a total a$$ of yourself? You should be.
“So sad that you continue to prattle on, regurgitating your climate cult propaganda talking points and denying reality.”
ROTFLOL! More projection there dupe. You have failed to point out any propaganda on my part. You have failed to rebut any of the peer reviewed science that I have presented. I back up what I say with peer reviewed science, like here for example: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2465068367
and here: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2445711542
and here: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2464721719
and here: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2442563602
and here: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2439847260
You are just asking to be blocked because you are incapable of refuting any of my or Mr. Hammond’s points based on empirical evidence, so you merely prattle on with vacuous comment after vacuous comment which doesn’t address the points we make. You will note that the comment you replied to exposed every one of your 10 points as pure dodging and irrelevant to Mr. Hammond’s points.
Yes indeed, another colossal FAIL by Eric Adler, the duped dishonest doomsday climate cult fanatic who is hopping mad because there hasn’t been any warming of the whole Earth’s atmosphere during the past ~19 years even though humans have added over 1/3 of all the human CO2 produced since 1750! You have no answer. All 66 of your climate cult’s excuses are ‘dog-ate-my-homework’ lame denials of reality. Mother Nature as well as the rest of us are laughing at your pathetic clinging to a failed CO2 hypothesis, as there has NEVER been a single peer reveiewed paper that has attributed any quantified climate warming to anthropogenic CO2.
YOU said
“The greenhouse effect does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.”
ROO2: Strawman! Why are you so dishonest to fabricate strawmen? I’ve never said it did. But your claim that colder ghgs in the atmosphere transfer more heat into the oceans than the Sun, DOES violate the 2nd Law.”
The transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface is part of the greenhouse effect theory. If you claim that this is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics as you say, then you are claiming the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics. It is undeniable that a flux of radiation from the atmosphere will enter the ocean and be absorbed there. Sea water does not reflect IR radiation appreciably. Even Roy Spencer says so.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body/
The downward radiation has been measured and does enter the surface of the ocean. There is no doubt about that. If you claim it disappears you are violtating the first law of thermodynamics that energy can neither be created or destroyed.
LOL. You once again expose your total and utter scientific illiteracy.
“The transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface is part of the greenhouse effect theory. “
No it is not. The greenhouse effect works by slowing the heat loss from the surface of the Earth, NOT by transferring heat from colder ghgs in the atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth.
NO heat can be transferred from colder objects to warmer objects. Period. The 2nd Law forbids it. There has never been any experimental empirical demonstration of heat flowing from a colder object to a warmer object, as this would violate the 2nd Law.
• “this would involve the spontaneous transfer of heat from a cool object to a hot one, in violation of the 2nd Law” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html , Univ of Winnipeg, Canada
• “the second law involves the fact that processes proceed in a certain direction but NOT in the opposite direction. A hot cup of coffee cools by virtue of heat transfer to the surroundings, but heat will NOT flow from the cooler surroundings to the hotter cup of coffee.” – Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen and Sonntag, Chap.6 ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics’, p.155
• “Transfer of Energy from the Ocean to the Atmosphere. – Heat moves in predictable ways, flowing from warmer objects to cooler ones, until both reach the same temperature.” –
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/oceans_weather_climate/energy_oceans_atmosphere.html
“If you claim that this is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics as you say, then you are claiming that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics.”
No, because you are ignorant of how the ghe works. As I just explained, it works by slowing the heat loss from the surface, NOT by transferring heat from colder ghgs in the atmosphere to the warmer surface of the ocean/Earth.
“It is undeniable that a flux of radiation from the atmosphere will enter the surface of the ocean”
What you call a “flux of radiation” is not by itself a transfer of heat/energy. It is only a potential transfer of heat/energy.
It doesn’t transfer any HEAT/energy into the ocean because the “flux of radiation” from the surface is larger, and heat only transfers in one direction FROM the higher radiation flux/energy source TO the lower radiation flux/energy source. The actual amount of heat transferred is in ONE direction only, and the quantity is equal to the net difference.
“Even Roy Spencer says so”
No, he never says that heat flows from colder ghgs in the atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth. He merely says that it is “affected” by the IR radiation in the atmosphere. It is, because if the IR radiation in the atmosphere increases, it will decrease the amount of heat transferred FROM the warmer surface of the ocean/Earth. He’s not a 2nd law denier like you are. He, like I, understand that it can only warm the ocean by slowing the heat loss from it, thus causing it’s temperature increase. NO transfer of heat from the colder ghgs in the atmosphere to the warmer ocean surface.
And we know that since ~1997 the atmosphere hasn’t warmed, thus there has been NO slowing of heat loss from the ocean due to ghgs. The OHC increase has been due to solar radiation, as I have shown you, but you deny that reality.
“If you claim it disappears you are violating the first law of thermodynamics that energy can neither be created or destroyed.”
There you go again, repeating your fabricated strawman that I have already exposed and debunked here: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2442563602 .
Which brings us right back to the 3 questions that you refuse to answer because you know it proves you wrong. Here they are again:
Questions for Eric:
1) Which is warmer on a global average?
. . . A) the surface of the ocean? or
. . . B) the atmosphere above the ocean?
2) Which direction does the Columbia Univ. lecture on Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling ( http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html ) say that the net backradiation heat flow is going?
. . . A) from from the ocean to the atmosphere or
. . . B) from the atmosphere to the ocean?
3) Which direction does net heat flow?
. . . A) from warmer objects to colder objects, or
. . . B) from colder objects to warmer objects?
Answer those 3 questions Eric. They are not trick questions. They merely are fundamental science questions. You won’t because they prove you wrong in your stupid claim that colder ghgs in the atmosphere transfer heat to the warmer surface of the ocean, and they prove that you are a denier of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Since you mindlessly repeat previously debunked arguments, you either have an IQ of 50 or below, or you are purposefully trolling to incite reactions to your idiotic and moronic replies. Either way, you should be blocked, because you are adding nothing to the discussion because you are merely being a horse’s a$$. (and I commend you for doing a fine job of it!)
You are violating conservation of energy with your version of the greenhouse effect. The earth’s surface radiates IR radiation upward. It radiates more energy upward than comes to the surface from the sun. Check out the Earth’s radiation budget.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/faq-1-1-figure-1-l1.png
* Upward energy flux from the surface = Upward IR radiation + evaporation + convection = 492W/M2
* According to you the only energy absorbed by the surface is
Solar Radtion = 168W/M2.
If the Back IR radiation is not absorbed by the surface there is a net loss of energy from the surface at a rate of 324W/M^2. I know you claim the earth is not gaining heat, but there is no way the surface is cooling at that rate. We would freeze to death in a few days. It isn’t happening.
The downward IR from the atmosphere must be absorbed by the surface to satisfy conservation of energy, as the diagram indicates. The second law says that the NET transfer of energy is from a hotter surface to the colder surface. It doesn’t prevent the absorption of radiation coming from a colder body. It requires that the net flow of energy is from hotter to colder.
You are simply ignorant and keep repeating the same nonsense, without understanding how wrong your idea is. You need to do more learning and thinking and less posting.
“You are simply ignorant and keep repeating the same nonsense, without understanding how wrong your idea is. You need to do more learning and thinking and less posting.”
LOL. Perfect PROJECTION there Eric! YOU are simply ignorant. YOU keep repeating the same nonsense. YOU don’t understand how wrong your idea is. YOU need to do more learning an thinking and less posting. So you once again demonstrate that you are a fanatical climate cult zealot who is scientifically illiterate, as we will see below.
“You are violating conservation of energy with your version of the greenhouse effect.”
No, you are exposing your ignorance of heat transfer and thermodynamics. Nothing I said violates conservation of energy as you will see below. What I said has a perfect conservation of energy. You are just making up wild unfounded evidence-free claims again, something you sadly do all the time. Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of thermodynamics and heat transfer, which is why you ignorantly deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
“The earth’s surface radiates IR radiation upward.”
Yes it does.
“It radiates more radiation upward than comes to the surface from the sun.”
BZZZZZ. You are trying to move the goalposts. NOT allowed. We are talking about heat transfer, specifically your ignorant, scientifically illiterate claim, Eric:“What is wrong with your statement is that IR radiation emitted by the atmosphere does transfer heat into the ocean, and more heat than is transferred by the sun.”
The Sun is the ONLY heat source that TRANSFERS heat to the Earth’s surface. “The source of heat for our planet is the sun.” – NOAA, http://www.srh.noaa.gov/crp/?n=education-heattransfer See, it does NOT say that colder ghgs in the atmosphere are a source of heat for our planet like your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult claims. A blanket is not a heat source. It transfers no heat to the person or object it is covering. It merely slows the loss of heat from that object or person it is covering.
“Check out the earth’s radiation budget”
That diagram does NOT say that colder ghgs in the atmosphere transfer heat to the surface of the Earth. I’m sorry that you are so ignorant that you think it does. That diagram is NOT a heat budget/flow. Heat flow is thenet difference. Here is the real heat/energy flow budget diagram courtesy of NASA: http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif
The NASA diagram shows that if the Earth;s surface receives 168W/m² of heat via radiation from the Sun, it transfers ~69W/m² of heat back away from the surface via radiation; it transfers ~76W/m² of heat back away from the surface via latent heat transfer(evaporation of H2O); and it transfers ~23W/m² of heat back away from the surface via conduction. This was fundamental Climate 101 until your climate cult began peddling it’s radiation budget diagram it could use to fool scientifically illiterate dupes into believing it was showing heat transfer.
The 1975 National Academy of Sciences Report ‘Understanding Climatic Change’ showed a HEAT balance diagram confirming what I am saying. It is shown below.
“The downward IR from the atmosphere [324W/m²] must be absorbed by the surface to satisfy conservation of energy, as the diagram indicates.”
Sorry, no moving the goalposts. We are talking about heat transfer. The 324W/m² is not a heat/energy transfer/flow. The only radiation heat/energy flow is the net flow of 69W/m² from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere.
My understanding of the ghe has perfect conservation of energy:
168 W/m² in from the Sun = 69 W/m² out via radiation transfer + 76 W/m² out via latent heat transfer + 23 W/m² out via conduction/convection. Perfect balance of heat flow/energy.
“The second law says that the NET transfer of energy is from a hotter surface to the colder surface”
Exactly correct, and when heat transfers, it causes a temperature change, the hotter object cools and the cooler object warms. The ONLY heat flow is NET heat flow and that is in ONLY one direction, FROM the hotter object TO the colder object, just as the Thermodynamic textbook says:
“the second law involves the fact that processes proceed in a certain direction but NOT in the opposite direction. A hot cup of coffee cools by virtue of heat transfer to the surroundings, but heat will NOT flow from the cooler surroundings to the hotter cup of coffee.” – Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen and Sonntag, Chap.6 ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics’, p.155
If there is no temperature difference, there is NO heat transfer/flow even though both objects are radiating energy, because every object that is above absolute zero temperature radiates.
• “When you put a hot object in contact with a cold one, heat will flow from the warmer to the cooler. As a result, the warmer one will usually cool down and the cooler one will usually warm up. Eventually they will reach the same temperature and heat flow will stop.” – http://hop.concord.org/h1/phys/h1pf.html , Hands on Physics – Heat and Temperature
• “In the process of reaching thermodynamic equilibrium, heat is transferred FROM the warmer object TO the cooler object. At thermodynamic equilibrium heat transfer is zero.” – http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/Images/heat.gif , NASA – Heat Transfer
• “Heat transfer is energy in transit due to temperature difference. Whenever there exists a temperature difference in a medium or between media, heat transfer must occur. The basic requirement for heat transfer is the presence of temperature difference. There can be no heat transfer between two mediums that are at the same temperature. The temperature is the driving force for heat transfer, just as the voltage difference is the driving force for electric current flow and pressure difference is the driving force for fluid flow. The rate of heat transfer in a certain direction depends on the magnitude of the temperature gradient (the temperature difference per unit length or the rate of change of temperature) in that direction. The larger the temperature gradient, the higher the rate of heat transfer.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150528053416/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.3.1.html
Your scientifically illiterate claim that colder ghgs in the atmosphere transfer more heat to the oceans than the sun is proven wrong in the real world because you can’t experimentally demonstrate any heat collected from those 324W/m² of ‘backradiation’.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s WRONG” – Physicist Richard Feynman, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
You are WRONG.
Once again you expose your scientific illiteracy and denial of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by claiming that heat flows from colder ghgs in the atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth. You are beyond help because you are ideologically blinded by your climate cult dogmas. So sad..
You are an idiot. if you are counting solar energy as a form of heat, it is nonsense to say that IR is not a form of heat. Both are forms of electromagnetic radiation. The only difference is the wave lengths are different.
Eric:“You are an idiot”
You have lost the argument. You were unable to rebut a single thing that I said so you resort to childish name calling.
Eric:“if you are counting solar energy as a form of heat, it is nonsense to say that IR is not a form of heat.”
There you go again fabricating a strawman argument. I have never said that IR is not a form of heat. I explicitly said that it was: “it transfers ~69W/m of heat back away from the surface via radiation“. And I point out that heat only transfers in one direction, from higher temperature/energy/IR sources to lower temperature energy sources.
Come on Eric, quit fabricting your strawmen, be an adult and admit your mistake, eg:
You merely expose yourself as being scientifically illiterate by denying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as you do.
Watts/M is a flow of energy. A heater’s capacity is expressed in Watts. Are you saying that the energy flows which are quoted in the energy budget diagrams shown in peer reviewed literature are mythical and were never really measured? Is it a plot to deceive people about global warming? The second law of dynamics is about the net flow of heat. It doesn’t repeal the Stefan Boltzmann equation or Plank’s law of radiation.
“Watts/M^2 shown on the Energy Budget diagram is a rate of flow of energy per unit surface/ per unit time.”
Wrong. It is the maximum POTENTIAL flow of energy. That amount of energy flows only if the temperature of the other object is absolute zero, as can be seen from the S-B equation. In the Earth Energy balance situation that we are discussing the other object (surface of the Earth) is NOT at absolute zero, it is at a temperature HIGHER than the ghgs in the atmosphere, therefore there is heat flow only in one direction, from the warmer surface of the Earth to the colder ghgs in the atmosphere.
“The second law of dynamics[sic] is about the Net flow of heat”
Yes, and the ONLY flow of heat is the net flow, as the sources I showed.
“It doesn’t repeal the Stefan Boltzmann equation or Plank’s law”
Strawman!
“The energy doesn’t disappear after it is emitted.”
Strawman!
“I have never encountered a student of Physics as thick headed as you are.”
OMG! You’re a physics teacher?!? Those poor kids. They should get a refund of anything they paid, because they have a teacher who is a science denier of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
Of course you could prove yourself correct if you can experimentally demonstrate a working ‘backradiation’ heat collector that collects twice as much heat as a solar collector. How’s that coming for you? Hahahahaha
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s WRONG” – Physicist Richard Feynman, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
The real world proves you wrong Eric. So sad that you are too stubborn and ideologically blinded to admit it.
Here is an image of Eric’s original reply to me proving his deceptive editing without indicating that he had edited his original comment:
It’s past time to to block this dishonest troll. His calling people an idiot just because they have exposed his ignorance of science, his denial of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and general dishonesty is NOT following the rules and terms of use for commenting and is no longer contributing anything constructive to the discussion.
The only reason not to block him would be to allow Eric to continue to expose his scientific illiteracy, his stubborn refusal to admit to his mistakes, his dishonesty as it is instructional for others to see just how delusional, dishonest, duped, and in denial of reality the CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult fanatics are.
You make a good argument.
Correct. The point being to illustrate with sources from the scientific literature how your denials of this were truly vain.
“The point being to illustrate with sources from the scientific literature how your denials of this were truly vain.”
The point is that with the exception of Judy Curry, the authors did not deal with the scientific papers that demonstrate there is no pause. These arguments are based on corrections to the surface temperature data, and the statistical arguments based on change point analysis. If the papers didn’t deal with these issues, they don’t show that the arguments are wrong. It is illogical to claim that those arguments are disposed of by your links.
In the case of Cowtan and Way’s corrections for the Arctic, Judy Curry objected to kriging, but couldn’t explain away the procedure that showed kriging correctly reproduced observed data in validation demonstrations. Cowtan and Way’s paper showed how well kriging worked.
In addition, it looks like we will have 3 consecutive years in which an annual global average temperature record will be broken when 2016 is over. If there ever was a real pause, it is a good bet that it will be over with next year.
LOL! Still denying that the pause exists. So sad that you are so delusional.
Are you ready to admit that 4.1W/m² of increased natural solar radiative forcing over the late 20th century warming is greater than 0.4W/m² of increased CO2 forcing? Or are you going to cling to your dishonest denial of reality?
Are you ready to stop denying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and admit that colder ghgs in the atmosphere do not transfer heat into the oceans? Or are you going to cling to your dishonest denial of reality?
You assert that “the authors did not deal with the scientific papers that demonstrate there is no pause.”
What papers are those? I know of only one, which we’ve already discussed, about which we could just as well say that it did not deal with the scientific papers that acknowledge the pause, e.g., it doesn’t address what the satellite data show.
LOL! Quite! Thank you.
1-10) You claimed the data indicated no pause in warming. Every one of these shows you’re wrong.
I haven’t read the papers, and neither have you, but 9 of the 10 abstracts refer to the data that shows a pause and explain that the reasons for the apparent pause do not indicate greenhouse warming has ceased.
None of the abstracts deny that change point analysis of the data shows a continuous warming trend since 1975 exists. I have referred to that analysis in a post by Realclimate.org. None of them deals with the corrections to the sea surface temperatures by Karl, who noted that switching from ship’s intakes to buoys created artificial cooling of the sea surface temperature record. When this is removed, the pause is gone.
If the abstracts haven’t dealt with an argument, I don’t think it is correct to claim that they refuted it.
Only one of the abstracts, Judy Curry’s, deals with the argument that the Cowtan and Way’s correction to the data for the unaccounted for Arctic warming show the pause doesn’t exist. I pointed out that her objection has an excellent refutation.
A simple, “You’re correct, Jeremy, despite my earlier denials, the data do indicate what scientists refer to in the literature as a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in warming” would suffice.
Why do I need to say you are correct? Papers by Cowtan and Way, Karl and change pont analysis, (used in economics) all indicate there is no statistically significant pause in global warming since 1975. I am willing to have a discussion about these papers.
“there is no statistically significant pause in global warming since 1975.”
Man you are dim, continuing your strawman arguments. 1975 is not at issue. The lack of warming since ~1997 IS the issued, that you delusionally continue to deny.
But let me use your argumentation:
There is no statistically significant pause in the global cooling since the Holocene optimum several thousand years ago.
Are you ready to admit that 4.1W/m² of increased natural solar radiative forcing over the late 20th century warming is greater than 0.4W/m² of increased CO2 forcing? Or are you going to cling to your dishonest denial of reality?
Are you ready to stop denying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and admit that colder ghgs in the atmosphere do not transfer heat into the oceans? Or are you going to cling to your dishonest denial of reality?
So share them.
Fact remains you denied the data indicate a pause despite this fact being clearly recognized in the scientific literature.
It’s one thing to argue that the pause is controversial; it’s quite another to deny it altogether. I didn’t say you “need” to say I’m correct; I was merely observing that honest people, when shown to be in error, admit to it.
“This is “heads I win, tails you lose” argumentation”
The CO2-obsessed climate alarmists like Eric make that flawed argument all the time. Their argument boils down to natural climate variability only causes cooling, not warming. This is seen by Alder’s claim that 110% of the late 20th century warming was due to anthropogenic CO2. This is saying that net natural climate variability during the 1970-1998 time frame was cooling. And they also claim that the only reason we haven’t seen any warming since 1998 is because of natural climate cooling offsetting the ‘powerful’ a-CO2 warming, thus they are claiming that there has been no natural warming since 1970, which is ludicrous, since they acknowledge that the 1982, 1998, 2005, 2010 & 2015 El Ninos which release stored natural solar heat from the oceans have contributed to the warming, and as I proved to Eric, CO2 hasn’t transferred any heat to the oceans because the CO2 in the atmosphere is colder than the surface of the oceans so the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prohibits it.
“Your argument that glaciers are melting, etc., therefore there has been on pause in warming is a non-sequitur.”
Yes, it is. The CO2 climate alarmists acknowledges that the glaciers began melting back in the 1700s ( http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/07/glacierbaymap.gif ) prior to human CO2 being a possible factor. Most of the warming coming out of the LIA happened prior to ~1950 and they agree that it was natural. Even IF you accept their (false) premise that the warming from 1950-1998 was a-CO2 driven, that warmer flat 1998-2015 temperature would continue to melt the glaciers. It’s like putting a pan full of ice on the stove and heating it until the water is say 50F and the ice has begun to melt. If you turn down the heat to just maintain the water temperature at 50F (a “pause” in warming, ie., no further increase in temp), the ice will continue to melt, even though there has been a “pause” in the warming of the water.
“I’ll amend: You can’t argue on one hand that when it was warming from the late seventies until the late nineties, that this was man-made global warming; but at the same time argue that when it cooled from the mid-forties to late seventies and plateaued since the late nineties, that this is due to natural variation. This is “heads I win, tails you lose” argumentation.
Your argument that glaciers are melting, etc., therefore there has been no pause in warming is a non sequitur.”
Your argument is flawed. It assumes that there was only one force driving climate change during the 20th Century. This assumption is clearly false.
We know that solar irradiance increased during the first half of the 20th century based on sunspot proxies. We also know that sulftate particles emitted into the atmosphere as a result of post war industrialization reflected sunlight and caused global cooling. These particles do not remain in the atmosphere for more than a few years. When pollution controls reversed the sulfate particle emissions, and CO2 continued to increase in the atmosphere we had global warming beginning in the mid 1970’s. If you are skeptical of my account, I could easily find a link which cites sources which support my account.
The satellite data that you show is definitely suspect. The group leader of the RSS satellite data base, Carl Mears has admitted that surface temperature data is more reliable than the satellite data, which has large sources of error.
The fact is that sea level is the earth’s thermometer. Just like a mercury thermometer, sea level will rise as the ocean gains heat. The oceans are known to accumulate 93% of any heat gain in the earth atmosphere system. In addition melting glaciers have been adding water to the oceans at an accelerated rate. In addition the surface temperature shows that the earth is getting warmer. The satellite temperature is the odd man out.
When the satellite temperature data was new, John Christy pointed out how well the satellite data agreed with balloon temperature measurements. The satellite data consists of model calculations which look at microwave spectra measured at different angles and calculate imputed temperatures at different height ranges. There is a history of radical revisions in the UAH temperature calculation by Christy and Spencer.
An analysis of the satellite data by Grant Foster (aka Tamino) showes that the detailed month to month changes in temperature of the RATPAC balloon data are exactly mirrored by the satellite data when the long term trends are removed.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/15/drift/
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/detrend.jpeg?w=750&h=498
What is different is the trend, which is shown for the RSS satellite data, and the version 5.6 of the UAH satellite data. The latest version of the UAH , v6, looks almost exactly like RSS.
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/trend.jpeg?w=750&h=498
It is reasonable to conclude that there is drift in the equipment up there in space. It is also known that errors in time of day and altitude cause drift of the satellite data as the satellite orbits drift due to friction, and also scattering of mircowave radiation from clouds is a source of error in the temperature calculted by the algorithms used.
Satellite data is a weak reed to support your argument that it has stopped warming.
Once again we find that this Eric Adler climate cult fanatic is totally exposed as peddling false information and mindlessly repeating propaganda from his climate cult religion. So sad.
“Your argument is flawed. It assumes that there was only one force driving climate change during the 20th Century.”
Wrong. It assumes no such thing. YOU are the one who assumes that one force is driving climate change, CO2.
“We know that solar irradiance increased during the first half of the 20th century based on sunspot proxies.”
Good. You’re agreeing that the 1910-1940 warming was natural.
“We also know that sulftate particles emitted into the atmosphere as a
result of post war industrialization reflected sunlight and caused
global cooling. These particles do not remain in the atmosphere for more
than a few years.”
No we do not know that anthropogenic sulfatess caused global cooling. Human aerosol emissions stay in the lower stratosphere where they are precipitated out in just a few days. “Most
aerosols from anthropogenic sources are found in the lower troposphere (below
2km). Aerosols undergo chemical and physical transformations in the atmosphere,
especially within clouds, and are removed largely by precipitation.
Consequently aerosols in the lower troposphere typically have residence times
of a few days.” – IPCC, SAR, WG1, p.20
Once again your CAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion denies natural climate change and blames it on humans, per its ideological driven agenda.
“When pollution controls reversed the sulfate particle emissions, and CO2
continued to increase in the atmosphere we had global warming beginning
in the mid 1970’s.”
But the CO2 didn’t cause the late 20th century warming, because as I’ve shown you numerous times, and you deny reality, the late 20th century warming was also natural, since there was ~10 times more increase in natural solar radiative forcing reaching the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century than there was increase in CO2 forcing.
“The satellite data that you show is definitely suspect.”
No, it is not. It is much, much more reliable that the corrupted-by-adjustment land based data. You are just mindlessly repeating your climate cult propaganda.
“Carl Mears has admitted that surface temperature data is more reliable
than the satellite data, which has large sources of error.”
He’s a believe in your climate cult religion and is denying reality just as you are. The satellites are the only datasets that can come close to a determining a true global average temperature because they measure the entire lower atmosphere of ~97% of the Earth’s surface, ~2,000,000,000,000,000,000 m³ of the Earth’s atmosphere as compared to ~10,000 m³ of the land datasets.
“The oceans are known to accumulate 93% of any heat gain in the earth atmosphere system.”
And that heat is from natural solar radiation, NOT CO2, as I’ve shown you numerous times, but you are in too deep denial of reality to admit it. You cling to your denial of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. So sad.
“The satellite data is odd man out”
LOL @ your mindlessly repeating your climate cult dogmas. So sad that you are such a pathetic denier of reality.
“There is a history of radical revisions in the UAH temperature calculation by Christy and Spencer.”
LOL! No, small revisions like good science does. And you forget that it is the corrected data that shows the pause. You are only dissing the satellites and ad homming Christy & Spencer because they dare to speak the truth and expose your climate cult as peddling bogus pseudoscience.
The only thing radical is your continued dishonest posts and mindless regurgitation of your climate cult dogmas.
“It is reasonable to conclude that there is drift in the equipment up there in space.”
You are pathetically blinded by your ideology and devotion to your climate cult religion. So sad.
It is reasonable to conclude that you don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about.
“Satellite data is a weak reed to support your argument that it has stopped warming.”
No, it is a strong argument that you are just denying because you are ideologically blinded. and are devoted to your climate cult religion.
Once again you merely bleat your ignorance. So sad.
“In the late-1960s, Mikhail Ivanovich Budyko worked with simple two-dimensional energy-balance climate models to investigate the reflectivity of ice.[5] He found that the ice-albedo feedback created a positive feedback loop in the Earth’s climate system. The more snow and ice, the more solar radiation is reflected back into space and hence the colder Earth grows and the more it snows. Other studies found that pollution or a volcano eruption could provoke the onset of an ice age.[6][7]
In the mid-1980s, Atsumu Ohmura, a geography researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, found that solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface had declined by more than 10% over the three previous decades. His findings appeared to contradict global warming—the global temperature had been generally rising since the 70s. Less light reaching the earth seemed to mean that it should cool. Ohmura published his findings “Secular variation of global radiation in Europe” in 1989.[8] This was soon followed by others: Viivi Russak in 1990 “Trends of solar radiation, cloudiness and atmospheric transparency during recent decades in Estonia”,[9] and Beate Liepert in 1994 “Solar radiation in Germany — Observed trends and an assessment of their causes”.[10] Dimming has also been observed in sites all over the former Soviet Union.[11] Gerry Stanhill who studied these declines worldwide in many papers (see references) coined the term “global dimming”.[12]
Independent research in Israel and the Netherlands in the late 1980s showed an apparent reduction in the amount of sunlight,[13] despite widespread evidence that the climate was becoming hotter. The rate of dimming varies around the world but is on average estimated at around 2–3% per decade. The trend reversed in the early 1990s. [1] It is difficult to make a precise measurement, due to the difficulty in accurately calibrating the instruments used, and the problem of spatial coverage. Nonetheless, the effect is almost certainly present.”
Your statement about the lifetime of sulfate aerosols in the lower troposphere is correct, however a sufficient amount of aerosols reach the stratosphere, where they have a long lifetime and contributed to global cooling.
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap8.html
“The stratosphere contains however an ubiquitous H2SO4-H2O aerosol layer at 15-25 km altitude, which plays an important role for stratospheric ozone chemistry (chapter 10). This layer arises from the oxidation of carbonyl sulfide (COS), a biogenic gas with an atmospheric lifetime sufficiently long to penetrate the stratosphere. It is augmented episodically by oxidation of SO2 discharged in the stratosphere from large volcanic eruptions such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. Although the stratospheric source of H2SO4 from COS oxidation is less than 0.1% of the tropospheric source of H2SO4, the lifetime of aerosols in the stratosphere is much longer than in the troposphere due to the lack of precipitation.”
“Scattering of solar radiation by aerosols increases the Earth’s albedo because a fraction of the scattered light is reflected back to space. The resulting cooling of the Earth’s surface is manifest following large volcanic eruptions, such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, which inject large amounts of aerosol into the stratosphere. The Pinatubo eruption was followed by a noticeable decrease in mean surface temperatures for the following 2 years ( Figure 8-6 ) because of the long residence time of aerosols in the stratosphere. Remarkably, the optical depth of the stratospheric aerosol following a large volcanic eruption is comparable to the optical depth of the anthropogenic aerosol in the troposphere. The natural experiment offered by erupting volcanoes thus strongly implies that anthropogenic aerosols exert a significant cooling effect on the Earth’s climate.”
Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of logic and science as you continue to deny the reality of the increased solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century. So sad that you are so stupid about climate science and peddle your false climate cult religion here.
No wonder you are so IGNORANT of climate science, as you lifted your
quote from Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming ) and deceptively failed to cite
the source of your quote because you were ashamed that you are so
ignorant of climate science that you get your climate science from
Wikipedia. And as everyone knowlegable about the
dishonesty and fraudulent behavior of you climate cult fanatics, over
5,000 Wiki articles about climate have been dishonestly changed and
rewritten by “thought-cop” & “climate doctor” William Connolley, who
was banned as a Wiki editor because of his dishonest behavior.
https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/william-connelley-thoughtcop/
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409
Now we see some of Connolley’s biased propaganda (which sure fooled you).
“Ohmura … found that solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface had declined by more than 10% over the previous three decades. … Ohmura published his findings “Secular variation of global radiation in EUROPE“
Sorry, but Europe is only ~2% of the Earth’s surface.
Ohmura wrote another paper in 2005 ‘Observed long-term variations in solar irradiance at the Earth’s
surface’ in which he stated: “Ohmura and Lang (1989) produced
observational evidence that global radiation over Europe decreased systematically by about 8Wm⁻² during the 30 years following the International Geophysical Year (IGY). The variation was explained by the change in CLOUD COVER” Just like I told you Eric, but you are too ideologically blinded to accept reality. So sad.
“This was soon followed by others: Viivi Russack in 1990 “Changes in solar radiation, cloudiness and atmospheric transparency during recent decades In ESTONIA[9]”
Worry, but Estonia is only 0.009% of the Earth’s surface. Fail.
“and Biete Liepert in 1994 “Solar radiation in GERMANY“
Sorry, but Germany is only 0.07% of the Earth’s surface. Fail.
“Dimming has also been observed in sites all over the Soviet Union.[11]”
Your ref [11] is Abakumova(1996) and the data presented in the paper were only about two locations, Moscow & Toravore. The paper discussed NO empirical values for all of Soviet Union, but did say that 60% of the stations showed a reduction and 40% showed an increase in solar radiation, thus showing the fallacy of using a smattering of ground based data. Plus the Soviet Union is only ~4% of the Earth’s surface and almost half of it showed increasing solar radiation. Fail.
“Gerry Stanhill who studied these declines worldwide in many papers (see references) coined the term “global dimming”.[12]”
There are only TWO references listed for Stanhill:
The first [12] ‘Global radiation climate changes in ISRAEL‘ does NOT do a regression over the entire 1957-1990 time period, but selects only 4 specific years (ala Santer cherry picking?) and only uses sparse stations on land, which IGNORES over 2/3 of the Earth’s surface.
The second [16] “Global dimming: …” says “changes in the amount of cloud cover and aerosol were the two most probable causes for the variation in global solar radiation” Just like I have been telling you Eric.
“This layer arises from the oxidation of carbonyl sulfide COS), a biogenic gas with an atmospheric lifetime sufficiently long to penetrate the stratosphere.
That is more alarmist groupthink ‘blame humans’ which has taken over climate science and caused it to be climastrology, not science.
This 1984 article ‘Global sources, lifetimes and mass balances of carbonyl sulfide (COS) and carbon disulfide (CS2) in the earth’s atmosphere’ by Khalil in Atmospheric Environment (1967) said: “Anthropogenic emissions appear to be a small part (≤25%) of the yearly emission of OCS and CS2. Oceans and soils are the largest sources, representing about 50% of the yearly emissions of OCS.”
Yet another natural phenomenon which you delusional climate cult fanatics attribute totally to humans.
“It is augmented episodically by oxidation of SO2 discharged in the stratosphere from large volcanic eruptions such a Mt. Pinatubo in 1991.”
Yep, the other natural contributor that ejects sulfates into the stratosphere.
You once again demonstrated that you are one ideologically blinded, stunningly ignorant climate cult zealot believer who has been duped by your climate cult religion’s propagandists!
Once again you claim to refute what I say without having done so.
You don’t read very well and confuse troposphere and stratosphere. Enough of the sulfate particles get into the stratosphere to make a substantial cooling effect according to the links I quoted.
The drift in satellite data was clearly shown in the link I posted, The detrended data matched the balloon data exactly. The satellite data is the only data that shows global cooling.
Your post is an empty bluster.
“Once again you claim to refute what I say without having done so.”
Your post is pure BS, as you lie and deny reality that I refuted your claims.
So sad that all you can do is lie, deny, refuse to admit to your mistakes and post propaganda.
“confuse the troposphere and stratosphere.”
Why do you lie like that. I did no such thing.
“Enough of the sulfate particles get into the stratosphere to made a substantial cooling effect according to the links I quoted.”
Your links (in other comments on this) were your CO2 religious propaganda peddled by your cult’s snake oil salesmen, claiming that stratospheric cooling caused purely by human aerosols, which is a stupid claim assuming that there has never been stratospheric cooling in the history of the planet before evil men came along.
“The drift in satellite data was clearly shown in the link I posted.”
Come on, posting rubbish from a dishonest blogger that censors comments that expose he is wrong. You can’t believe a thing he posts on his ClosedMind blog. You are delusional and duped beyond belief. So sad.
Are you ready to admit that your mistake in claiming that colder ghgs in the atmosphere transfer more heat into the oceans than the Sun does? It’s stupid to deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics like you do.
Are you ready to admit that there was ~10 times more increase in natural solar radiative forcing reaching the Earth’s surface in the late 20th century than there was increase in CO2 forcing? It’s stupid to deny that 4.1W/m² is not greater than 0.4W/m² like you do.
That there is good and bad information on the internet is not a revelation. My point remains, one can learn a lot by spending a few hours Googling, which can be a great antidote to mainstream media propaganda.
I did not argue that since CO2 lags temperature, therefore CO2 cannot be a contributing factor in the recent warming. That is an obvious strawman.
Do you now claim that CO2 lags temperature has no relevance to the cause of the current global warming trend? If so, I am happy, but still curious about why you used it earlier in a discussion of whether CO2 is currently causing global warming.
Of course not. I consider it very relevant, which is of course why I brought it up. How you arrive at the conclusion I would argue it’s now irrelevant is beyond me.
Do you agree that currently annual human caused emissions are greater than the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere each year? If so, doesn’t this mean that the land an oceans are absorbing the CO2 that humans release each year, and therefore human industry is the root cause of the increase?
The Keeling curve shows that there are small fluctuations in the annual rate of increase that are due to fluctuations in the rate of increase of ocean temperature. It doesn’t prove that ocean temperatures are the cause of the increase in CO2. So it is irrelevant to the discussion of the cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
You are still arguing that human industry is causing an increase in atmospheric CO2 as though someone here was disputing that. Nobody is.
The global warming “enthusiasts” sure are good at making assumptions and putting words in your mouth aren’t they?
Thanks for posting this video, and for all the time you’ve spent moderating. I’m sure it hasn’t been easy. If you haven’t had the opportunity to interact with those whom Judith Curry calls “the tribe”, I’m sure your eyes have been opened, as the “tribe” certainly descended on your post.
One “enthusiast” Rob Honeycutt had a strategy of ganging up and getting other GW “enthusiasts” to overwhelm and silence skeptics on blogs. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/13/google-hacked-the-skeptical-science-website/
The tribe can try your patience as they fabricate strawmen, red herrings and avoid answering your questions. From my several years of interacting with them, I’ve found very few that are willing to admit to a mistake or to any ‘chinks’ in their global warming religion. When they got ridiculous, perhaps I shouldn’t have, but I would respond with ridicule or poking fun at them.
I think you’ve done an excellent job of keeping the discussions on topic, and have been very patient. It would be interesting to know what the ratio of blocking was between the GW “enthusiasts” or the GW”skeptics.
Thanks again.
Thanks for participating in the discussion.
Some tools to use when analysing the op above
How to Evaluate Resources
The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! See also Evaluating Information from a Citation
CRAAP
Questions to consider
Currency
When was the information published or last updated?
Have newer articles been published on your topic?
Are links or references to other sources up to date?
Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?
Relevance
Does the information answer your research question?
Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?
Authority
What are the author’s credentials?
Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
Do other books or authors cite the author?
Accuracy
Are there statements you know to be false?
Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
What citations or references support the author’s claims?
What do other people have to say about the topic?
Purpose
Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
Are alternative points of view presented?
Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
Does the author use strong or emotional language?
https://www.gettysburg.edu/library/research/tips/webeval/index.dot
Research Process Rubric – Middle School
https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/middlelschresearchrubric.html
A little left wing bias showing ?
–
You think only right wing people doubt the accuracy of century out climate/weather forecasts ?
–
Quite a stretch , don’t you agree ?
As a conservative, I hang my head in shame at what we have let happen to us.
But then, I look at those who aren’t conservative, and am moved to great sympathy for that worse plight still.
When quintuple bankrupt tax-dodger, draft-dodger Donald Trump is president of the USA — and I say this fully aware of how that is the worst possible outcome for conservative and muddle-of-the-road thinkers alike (there are no actual liberals left; there is no left left; the discourse long ago left that fork behind) — should his Alzheimer’s not present so clearly that he is ruled unfit for office immediately by the Surgeon General, it will only be a matter of time before his running mate (one suggests Honey Boo Boo won’t be old enough in time, so he will likely nominate one of his employees). And maybe, just maybe, that employee won’t be a raging racist homophobic misogynist science denier. Maybe they’ll be a sensible conservative who will quietly steer America away from being a collective clown product of Reality TV.
Thanks to the host for this video ! Ivar raised excellent, easy to understand points.
–
Having skimmed the comments, I was reminded of the vicious attacks on the Meteorologist Alfred Wegener, for challenging the specialists opinion that the continents were fixed, and the matching coasts …… a “Coincidence”.
–
This wrong opinion was clung to by 99.99% of the scientific community for over fifty years after Wegener proposed Continental Drift. Clung to, and taught in textbooks well into the late 1960s. Despite a large body of compelling evidence that the “Coincidence” explanation of the matching continental coasts was wrong..
–
There is now compelling and mounting evidence that the Man Made CO2 as Climate Driver hypothesis is; if not completely wrong, a greatly exaggerated threat .
–
And it really seems a kind of madness to me to even consider eliminating by government Diktat the reliable sources of energy that are largely responsible for the 25-35 year increase in Life Expectancy enjoyed in the West on the basis of what amounts to century out weather/climate forecasts.
This is a false story about Wegener, whose hypothesis was indeed (mostly) rejected by Americans, but got substantial support in Europe and Australia, at least, including from one of the UK’s top geoscientists, Arthur Holmes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Holmes
Holmes’ *1944* textbook had the right mechanism, involving seafloor spreading, and strong enough evidence arrived therafter.
For a much better history, try
The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science
http://www.amazon.com/The-Rejection-Continental-Drift-American/dp/0195117336
She describes Brtitish reaction as “cautiously receptive” pp.1`24-125,
This whole period was an era of multiple competing hypotheses about various geological processes, proposed by “schools of thought”.
The history of plate tectonics and AGW are quite different, as the latter has a much longer history and clear physical mechanisms. See Spencer Weart’s
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
or buy the (inexpensive) book.
“There is now compelling and mounting evidence that the Man Made CO2 as Climate Driver hypothesis is; if not completely wrong, a greatly exaggerated threat .”
I invite you to attend AGU2016 next December. You can walk around and tell that to each of the climate scientists you meet there. I’ll offer to video the interactions, and sicne I know quite a few, I’ll be glad to introduce you to some top scientists.
Well, I seem to have struck a nerve ,haven’t I ?
–
I think you will enjoy this anniversary article in Smithsonian magazine ..
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-continental-drift-was-considered-pseudoscience-90353214/?no-ist
–
Or, perhaps not. It does somewhat contradict your understandable defense of your apparent profession .
–
I take it you have no doubts that century out weather/climate forecast are accurate ?
Climate is not weather.
No one is doing weather forecasts 100 years into the future.”For January 5th, 2116 expect flurries by mid afternoon, with temperatures dropping to the teens by sunset in Chicago and the close suburbs.” That is a weather forecast.
“By 2116, we expect global temperature averages over the standard 30-year period to have increased 1.2 to 1.6 Celsius degrees, relative to the 2011-2040 baseline, if the rate of CO2 emissions proceeds at 1.2 ppm per year.” That is a climate projection.
Both come from models based on atmospheric physics. The former is calculated from initial conditions: temperature, moisture, etc. The latter are based on the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere, calculated using greenhouse gas concentrations, soar insolation, aerosols in the atmosphere, etc. Much the same physics, but how that physics is being applied, the data that are being used and the parameters obtained are very different.
The climate forecasts (projections) include regional changes in, Temps, heatwaves , drought frequency, duration, precipitation , storm frequency and strength,..etc.. Do they not ? Those are all weather phenomena.
–
All based on the assumptions in the RCPs and assumptions of the climates response to elevated CO2.
–
Whether they are called projections, forecasts, or predictions. they are by definition, speculations of future conditions….
–
Educated guesses.. at best.
Only on a larger-scale, regional basis. Those are averaged over a period of decades, not how the day after tomorrow is going to be different from tomorrow.
Are they projections of regional weather conditions, or not ?
–
Are they a description of conditions that will happen ,or might happen in a century ?
–
“Are they projections of regional weather conditions, or not?
Weather conditions in a day, or a moth or a yea, no.
Over a hundred square miles, not.
On a subcontinental, or, perhaps larger, scale over decades, yes,
Are they projections of conditions ?
–
Or Actual data ?
In my experience, anything about the future is very unlikely to be actual data. If you have any counter examples, please share them.
Ah.. progress !
“anything about the future is very unlikely to be actual data ” .
–
So, descriptions of conditions in 2100 are not data, they are speculations based on what are actually, other speculations.
–
So, the movement to eliminate entire sources of energy is based on …
–
Speculations, based on other speculations.
–
And you wonder why there is growing resistance to this movement ?
–
Don’t .
Tell that to those who assert every time there’s an extreme weather event or some record set that it just goes to show how humans are responsible for the change in climate.
Point out where someone did that here and I will. There is a difference between saying AGW is the cause of a particular weather event and saying that the changing nature of such events is consistent with AGW. Climate is still not weather.
I’m referring to the media, not something someone said here.
You repeat that climate is not weather. Did you take me for arguing otherwise? I wasn’t (needless to say).
My bad.
“This is a false story about Wegener”..
–
Was it the consensus for fifty years last century that the continents were fixed, and the matching coasts a coincidence …
–
Or not ?
This guys testimony is a joke. Nobel Laureate who cherry picks air temperatures that are weather sensitive and localized instead of using statistical analysis of the important heat data like land ice melting. LOL … I guess if your goal is to NOT find a correlation between CO2 and any real heat measurement data we all know how to do that now … just makes him look really stupid …
Nobel Laureate — Don’t mean much anymore …
Sure you want to go there ?
–
“land ice melting. LOL ”
–
NASA just reported that the largest (90%) repository of land ice on the planet is Increasing in mass and Decreasing sea level rise.
Oct. 30, 2015
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
–
Antarctic sea ice has been increasing for decades as well.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
–
A Nobel Prize winning Physicist does not know how to evaluate data, but My Yoga Video does ?
–
Sure.
But, But … Antarctica is gaining ice … ??
This illustrates the problem exactly. You do not understand how land ice accumulation works versus sea ice and you have some sort of agenda to prove, which seems to block your ability to see things clearly. The accumulation in Antarctica is warm ice caused by precipitation on the Eastern shelf (essentially sea ice). The Western and central regions are losing the cold ice. Replacing the cold ice with the warm ice is a big problem because it proves the overall warming trend. There is warm ice and cold ice in Antarctica. Which is exactly what the many Government politicians don’t understand … and therefore they come up with elaborate theories about how climate scientists are manipulating the data. Some politicians talks about the pause as being “unsolved” … hmmmm … I guess they choose to keep a 3rd grade level of understanding of heat.
Didn’t read the paper did you ?
–
The paper by NASA specifically states that less snow has occurred on the Antarctic Icesheets, that is, the continental land ice of both East and West . For decades now.
–
The only significant melt is occurring on the West Antarctic Ice Shelves exposed to water and Antarctic Peninsula Ice shelves 1,000 kms from the mainland.
–
“you have some sort of agenda to prove, which seems to block your ability to see things clearly” .
Globally the land ice loss has no pause and correlates with CO2 rise nearly perfectly. Stop being “political” and learn to read scientific papers all the way through. You did not read all the NASA research on this.
Pause ? The Antarctic continental icesheets have been GROWING for decades. They represent 90% of the ice on the planet.
–
Some glaciers are shrinking, some are growing. Worldwide.
–
Arctic ice extent and Greenland melts are cyclic. tied to the AMO/PMO 60 -80 year cycles.
–
The most recent science projects stable to increasing Arctic Ice extant to 2023 .The North Atlantic began cooling as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation began its negative phase years ago.
–
The most recent science projects stable to increasing Arctic Ice extant to 2023 .The North Atlantic began cooling as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation began its negative phase years ago.
–
The last time this occurred was 1945-1978, Global avg temps declined by ~0.5C and Arctic ice extant increased more than 3 million kms from 1953 (beginning of reliable records).to peak in 1968 .
Whered’ ya go, Yoga Video ?
Okay, per the persistent requests of the journal’s editor, Jeremy Hammond, that his is a discussion forum where one must argue in one’s own words that the earth is round and not fall back on citing textbooks, I will address one of the innumerable flaws in Ivar Giaever’s scattershot rant against consensus/textbook climate science.
At around 8:40, Giaevar displays a chart based on the RSS satellite dataset showing exactly zero warming from Oct. 1996 to Dec. 2014. This is what’s known in the industry as cherrypicking. Giaevar has already told us he came by his disdain for the climate change consensus following a Google-powered crash course in climate science over a one-day period in 2008. That RSS chart he now cites was another six years in the making. Had Giaevar gone on an independent cherrypicking analysis of the RSS dataset as recently as 2011, he would have discovered a cherry of roughly the same size but an entirely different colour (see pic). Had he been so inclined, he could have reported then to the world that as greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase since 1992, his one and only credible global temperature dataset, the RSS, showed that the planet’s near surface temperature, as predicted by climate scientists, also rose, and at a fairly brisk, if not alarming, statistically significant pace of 0.185 degrees C per decade, i.e. nearly 2 degrees per century.
Unfortunately, that Youtube video was only posted in an alternative universe, if t all. Which is just as well, because it, too, would have been a misleading bit of cherrypicking. Since the satellite record upon which the RSS dataset is based has only been around since 1979, and because those lower troposphere temperatures appear to be particularly sensitive to transient dips and spikes due to major volcanoes, ENSO (the rock-and-roll of EL Nino and La Nina), the 11-year solar cycle and so on, it’s an even more statistically unreliable measure of any long-term trends than the surface temperature datasets when scrutinized on time scales less than 25 or 30 years.
So had Giaever, in another, better alternative universe, opted to seek meaning rather than (perhaps) attention, he would have cast the net back as far as possible and found that since the beginning of the RSS dataset in 1979, the climatically informative warming trend that it (currently) shows is nearly 1.25 degrees per century, with a 95% probability that the warming trend lies between about 0.6 and 1.85 degrees (0.122 ±0.063 °C/decade (2σ) – source: https://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php). Since Giaever is partial only to satellite datasets, he would also have pointed out that the other one, the UAH, administered by fellow climate change consensus skeptics, shows a larger trend of 0.141 ±0.063 °C/decade. And that would only have been the beginning of an enlightened accounting of what’s going on with our climate.
The starting point on the chart he showed isn’t cherry-picked. It is calculated. It is as far back as you can go before the trend line shows increasing temperatures. So, again, there has been no net warming for 18-plus years, according to the satellite data.
Now, please refrain from arrogant, condescending, and disingenuous remarks like “Okay, per the persistent requests of the journal’s editor, Jeremy Hammond, that his is a discussion forum where one must argue in one’s own words that the earth is round”, or I shall have to ban you for trolling, which I don’t want to have to do. I’d much rather you participate in a reasoned and respectful discussion.
No, there are multiple years and months, as recently as 2012, from which you can show a dramatic warming trend using the very same RSS dataset. If it’s *statistically significant* warming (@ 95% probability) you’re searching for, the RSS interannual variation is so wobbly (so statistically noisy) that you currently need to analyze about 25 years of data before you get a significant trend line. The satellite dataset Giaever mysteriously ignores (UAH) is closer to 20. And if you’re not the type to accuse NASA and others who produce surface-based datasets of scientific fraud (“fiddling with the data” – talk about ad hominem arguments; how long would Giaever last in your comments section?), you only have to go back around 15–16 years now to get a significant warming trend in the 1.5 C per century range.
I’m talking about a decadal trend, not picking and choosing certain months to show whatever it is one wants to show with the data.
Seriously? Then why start your search for a trend in a statistically very low signal-to-noise dataset on the biggest peak warming year due to the noise of natural ENSO variation? To say “It is as far back as you can go before the trend line shows increasing temperatures” sounds kind of tautological to me. All it proves is what has already been evident of many years: the satellite datasets are too noisy with interannual natural variability to reliably show significant warming trends on time scales less than 25–30 years. 1979–1995 was also a bust for RSS warming:
[Damn. I “successfully” pasted several graphs into this comment only to discover none of them are displaying.]
But as I’ve already shown, look at the entire 36-year record, and you have statistically “incontrovertible” evidence of a moderate warming trend, even with the outlyingly cool RSS:
Also, don’t make the mistake of ending your graph at 2015. That leaves out Jan–Oct of last year. If we’re going to start during an EL Nino peak, we shouldn’t hide the peak we were at or heading for this fall. Do that with the other satellite dataset, which has fallen out of favour with the lack-of-trend pickers lately, and you do get a slight warming trend for the period: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/plot/uah/from:1998/trend [Second damn: I didn’t notice the “more” sign below your reply. I see now that you also posted the UAH graph. Again, it’s slightly steeper when most of 2015 is included.]
“But as I’ve already shown, look at the entire 36-year record, and you have statistically “incontrovertible” evidence of a moderate warming trend, even with the outlying cool RSS:”
Yes, it certainly does. But the cause of the warming is natural climate forcings. Specifically increased solar radiative solar forcing and warm phases of the ocean cycles, as I explained to you in this comment of mine: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2445711542
But the cause of the warming is natural climate forcings.
You made that up. There is no scientific evidence for that assertion, esp wrt solar forcing,
Best,
D
The RSS data owner calls out the error in choosing that start point. He frowns upon those that do.
Best,
D
“So, again, there has been no net warming for 18-plus years, according to the satellite data.”
The same was true in 1994 going back to the start of the RSS dataset in 1979: sixteen years of zero warming. That “pause” has since proven to have been completely uninformative/unpredictive of the long-term temperature trend. So has the RSS’s statistically significant *1 degree C per decade* warming trend between mid-1992 and late-1998.
That’s a logical fallacy of false analogy.
Just because earlier data was found to have problems because of orbital drift, weighting issues, that does not man that the current data is not correct.
All those problems were reviewed and corrected, just like GOOD science should do.
Unfortunately, the present groupthink global warming crowd rejects such criticisms and refuses to make corrections. When the data doesn’t fit their CO2 hypothesis, they adjust the data. Proper science adjusts the hypothesis. That is why Giaever, Lindzen, Happer and others say that global warming has become a religion and is not science.
No, you’re describing the “make the facts fit the hypothesis” behaviour of Gieaver et al., but to your specific point: The chart using earlier data uses the exact same up-to-date dataset. Are you saying they haven’t corrected for earlier data? If so, please give a source. What about the other early no warming or cooling periods in the RSS dataset? Are they invalid too? What about the UAH satellite dataset? Which part of it do you accept or do you accept it all? What about the various surface datasets: NASA, NOAA, CRU, BEST, JMO? Where has it been shown that none of them can be trusted? In “proper science” one provides evidence for one’s assertions that stands up to peer review.
You failed to address my arguments. You made a false analogy logical fallacy, as I described.
“Are you saying they haven’t corrected for earlier data?
That’s a strawman logical fallacy.
Of course they have corrected the data from earlier errors, but is correct now. You are claiming that it is not right now just because they made earlier corrections which was your false analogy logical fallacy.
“What about the other early no warming or cooling periods in the RSS dataset? Are they invalid too?”
Strawman logical fallacy. The data set has been corrected and there is no current evidence that it is erroneous. Your global warming religion is just dissing it because is shows that there has been no warming of the Earth’s atmosphere for ~19 years, even though humans have added over 1/3 of all the human CO2 produced since 1750 during that timeframe.
“What about the UAH dataset?”
Both the latest UAH and RSS datasets agree very closely and both show no warming of the Earth’s atmosphere in ~19 years.
“What about the various surface datasets: NASA, NOAA, CRU, BEST, JMO?”
They are inferior to the satellites to determine a global average temperature or changes over time because:
1) They are all derived mostly from the same basic GHCN stations.
2) The surface record has been corrupted by adjustments, the historic values change every month which makes replication meaningless as what may have been a correct conclusion last month may be an incorrect conclusion next month.
3) The land based temperature record is unsuitable for change in global temperature over time since the stations have constantly changed over time, making it an apples and oranges comparison, since as the BEST study found that 1/3 of the stations showed cooling over the century-scale study.
4) The land based surface temperatures are not representative of a global average temperature as there are only a couple thousand point locations around the entire globe: http://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=http%3A%2F%2Fjonova.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fgraphs%2Ftemperature%2Fnumber-%2520temperature-stations-ghcn-1701-2008.gif&key=FMQ8r0OF243XJloX_KkFqg&w=800&h=290
5) The land based surface temperatures are very sparsely located around the globe: http://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclimateaudit.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F02%2Fsc2006.gif&key=9Oye68C6mU4Mar6Jw9xxLA&w=800&h=401 )
6) Each station only measures the temperature of a few m³ of the atmosphere right at the surface.
The satellites measure the entire lower troposphere of ~97% of the surface of the Earth, measuring ~2,000,000,000,000,000,000 m³ of the Earth’s atmosphere as compared to ~10,000 m³ of the land datasets.
and both show no warming of the Earth’s atmosphere in ~19 years.
As you know – because you have been told this a dozen times – it is dishonest to cherry-pick the data like you do.
Therefore, you are being dishonest on purpose.
BTW, last 3 months in UAH record warmest of all their months. Last 10 years warmest 10 years in their record. 18 years, warming. 20, warming. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26…all warming.
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aaea1f9ba60abe72da8f67dc2768bef602f4da25f5808743656fe546e3139986.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7474fa6c6d22d95b7a708cd05a9870918ae9ce4068611dbfe2a656d495acd780.jpg
The data is in and it shows that anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming! ~19 years, 570 billion tons of human CO2 added to the atmosphere during that time, which is over 1/3 of all the human CO2 produced since 1750 and even nature throwing in two of the biggest El Ninos ever in 2010 & 2015 to add natural warming, and the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere is STILL lower than 1998 as you’ve shown and it has not warmed over the entire 21st century even though we are nearly 1/6th of the way through it!
Still lying about no warming. Why?
Best,
D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/182c7c526aab159d16be77294b67de0813033c7f42a312f61fa2693ecdfa3fef.png
Oh my! someone doesn’t understand 21st century!
21st century – NO warming!
Weak lying with graphs. Very weak.
Too short a time period for a valid trend. Transparent.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/to/mean:20/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/to/trend:20/plot/esrl-co2/every/normalise/plot/uah/from:1979/to/mean:20/plot/uah/from:1979/to/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to/mean:20/plot/rss/from:1979/to/trend
Best,
D
Yet it remains true that the satellite data show now significant warming in the 21st century, as RealOldOne2 has informed you.
Realoldone was either lying or duped when showing those graphs, as that is too short of a timeframe for a valid trend. As I stated, which you missed.
Best,
D
I believe you meant to say “the satellite data show no significant warming in the 21st century”, not “now” significant warming.
Yes, of course!
Are you not aware of the literature that tells the literate that this is too short for a valid trend?
Are you fibbing or ignorant?
Best.
D
“Are you not aware of the literature that tells the literate that this is too short for a valid trend?”
That is nonsense that 15 years is too short for a valid trend. And I note that for some reason you have failed to cite any of that alleged literature which states it.
It’s merely another excuse for you to deny reality because it doesn’t support your global warming religion.
And to prove that you are wrong, there are peer reviewed papers are written that predict trends of 5 years.
Lean(2009) used the climate models to predict: “From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic forcings and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperature by 0.15 +/- 0.03C, at a rate 50% higher than IPCC projections.”
Well those rises in anthropogenic forcings and solar irradiance happened but global temperature cooled by 0.14C!
The topic is lower troposphere temperature.
Do you have anything from the literature that supports your argument about the lower troposphere?
Best,
D
I don’t know how you adjusted the CO2 scale and offset (and why) to get such a contrast. When I simply normalize the CO2 data plotted against both satellite datasets (thank you for clearing up that, in their present state and as they exist in the woodfortrees database, they’re acceptable to you), what I get is clear evidence that even for your chosen period beginning at 1997.2, there is a moderate correlation between rising CO2 and rising temps in the UAH dataset (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:12/from:1997.2/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/from:1997.2/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/from:1997.2/plot/rss/from:1997.2/trend/plot/uah/from:1997.2/trend). When I use the entire satellite record (why on earth would you disregard that? More data = less uncertainty), the correlation is strikingly strong, consistent with the preponderance of other evidence supporting the hypothesis that GHG emissions are driving modern warming: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/from:1979.5/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12
And for the same reason, when we have a directly measured CO2 record dating back to 1958, why wouldn’t you be curious to see how it matches up (or fails to) with the instrumental temperature records that go back that far? The correlation in nearly 1:1: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1958.71/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/mean:12/offset:0.3/plot/gistemp/from:1958.71/trend/offset:0.5/plot/esrl-co2/trend/normalise/offset:0.7 No doubt you’ll dismiss this graph because it uses NASA’s dataset. Well, you’ve favourably cited a study by BEST. So I will also do the same temp/CO2 chart since 1958 using the BEST dataset instead: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1958.71/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/mean:12/offset:0.3/plot/gistemp/from:1958.71/trend/offset:0.5/plot/esrl-co2/trend/normalise/offset:0.7 In this one, the ~55-year warming trend is actually slightly steeper than the CO2 rise, reflecting the faster warming over land compared to the oceans.
Really, who’s doing the cherrypicking here? And by the way, I’ve never heard of any climate scientists refusing to accept the recent pause in the RSS dataset (singling it out as a definitive statement about global warming – now that, no real scientist would accept).
And now that you’ve clarified that the current RSS dataset has been adjusted so that ALL of it is correct (BTW, why do you accept the need to adjust satellite datasets but reject the same necessity for surface datasets?), let me repeat that this is the same corrected dataset I used in my earlier comment to show a 10 degree/century warming trend in the 1990s to help make my point about the scientific folly of extrapolating trends based on climatically short/”noisy” time periods. Even 18 years of no warming in the noisy RSS dataset is so statistically uninformative, it has a margin of error greater than 1.6 degrees/century, meaning there’s a 5% chance the data it’s based on actually belies a warming trend of that size. Again, this is why more data is so vital for accurate science, but surely you know that. Back up to the beginning of the RSS dataset and you get a 95% probability warming trend of 0.122 ±0.063 °C/decade.
“what I get is clear evidence that even for your chosen period beginning at 1997.2, there is a moderate correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperatures in the UAH dataset.”
The woodfortrees website is using an old version 5.6 of the UAH dataset so it is unacceptable. The current version 6 ( http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/ ) is nearly identical to RSS. So no, there is no correlation with temps and CO2 since 1997. A total lack of correlation.
“entire satellite record(Why on earth would you disregard that?)”
Strawman argument. I don’t disregard the entire satellite record. I’m looking at the pause/hiatus, so that is the period under study.
Yes, the GISS dataset does not show actual measured temperatures. It shows improperly “adjusted” temperatures. See below for why.
“You’ve favourably cited a study by BEST”
No, I merely used it because it is accepted by you warmists and stated even the BEST study found that 1/3 of the stations in their study showed cooling for ~a century. The methodology of the BEST dataset is flawed as it cuts away the signal and analyzes the noise: http://stephenrasey.com/2012/08/cut-away-the-signal-analyze-the-noise/
“BTW, why do you accept the need to adjust satellite datasets but reject the same necessity for surface datasets?”
Because the adjustments in the land based datasets are flawed, as the the adjustments are just totally unrealistic. They claim that the early 1900s temperature measurements were wrong by over 4F. There is no way on God’s green earth that every single max and min temperature reading for 365 days of those years was wrong by 4F! And the correction made for UHI is backwards, as they cool the past and warm the future.
Take Providence, RI for example.
The “raw” USHCN annual mean temp for 1900 was 52.7F.
The “adjusted” USHCN annual mean temp for 1900 was 48.4F.
So they “adjusted” the annual mean temperature 4.3F.
The Tmean raw for 1900-2013 shows a trend of 1.7F/century.
The Tmean adjusted for 1900-2013 shows a trend of 4.4F/century.
The data source was: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_PROGRAM=prog.climsite_monthly.sas&_SERVICE=default&id=376698&_DEBUG=0#write_somevars_clim_mon_yr
But don’t expect that you will get the same results, as the data changes constantly, pointing out the the “adjustment” process makes it nearly impossible to replicate science, as proper conclusions in Feb may be false conclusions now.
In 2010 NASA found 22F of UHI over Providence, RI: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html It
Do you really believe that there was MORE UHI in 1900, like 26F? That is just unbelievable. The adjustment was backwards.
And the process they use to “adjust” for station moves amplifies UHI. This chart from Zhang(2014) shows it:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/zhang_et_al_homogenization_china_fig6.png
The other significant problem with the land datasets is that the stations used is constantly changing, which means that you are comparing apples and oranges as when you look at change over time, decadal or century trends.
The satellites cover the entire lower atmosphere of ~97% of the surface of the Earth. When the periodic processing improvements are made (as explained in the UAH v.6 document that I linked to above) they apply them uniformly to the previous data. UAH just made its 5th adjustment, which is 7 1/2 years per adjustment. The land datasets change every month.
That is why the satellites are the best datasets to determine global temperature.
“when we have a directly measured CO2 record dating back to 1958, why wouldn’t you be curious to see how it matches up (or fails to) with the instrumental temperature records that go back that far?”
Well first of all, correlation doesn’t prove causation.
But if you use the actual measured (raw) temperature values I would be interested in it. And it would show that from 1958 to the mid 1970s that CO2 continuously increased, but temperatures decreased. What’ up with that? 20 years where the CO2 physics took a vacation? Just like the last 19 years where CO2 went up even faster and there was no increase in the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Those things happened because CO2 is not the primary driver of climate warming. Natural variability is, just like it has been throughout the entire history of the planet. And during the period of warming in the late 20th century CO2 was not the primary driver of temperature, natural variability such as ocean cycles PDO, AMO and more solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth was. There was only about 0.4 to 0.8W/m² increase in CO2 forcing during that time, while there was 2.7 to 6.8W/m² increase in solar radiative forcing reaching the surface of the Earth. The PDO was in its warm phase and the AMO switched to its warm phase in the early 1990s. Clearly natural forcings were the primary cause.
an old version 5.6 of the UAH dataset so it is unacceptable.
6.0 is in Beta and not peer-reviewed, so you are making it up. Especially comical cuz we’re in 6.4 now and no published paper.
Another weak flail from this lame disinformer.
Best,
D
Thank you for acknowledging the satellite data show a “pause” of little to no net warming for 18-plus years.
I didn’t argue that this pause is predictive of the long-term temperature trend.
You’re welcome. Now will you acknowledge that the satellite record shows net warming greater than 1.5 degrees C/century over the last 17 years, so why, as Giaver does, pretend one (but not the other) of these statistically uninformative results falsifies mainstream climate science?
You are cherry picking the start year of a moderate La Nina. NOT allowed.
The current endpoint, 2015, is a strong El Nino year. To get an honest trend we need to start in a strong El Nino year, 1998 as Jeremy Hammond did.
You yourself said: “If we’re going to start during an EL Nino peak, we shouldn’t hide the peak we were at or heading for this fall.”
Likewise, if we’re going to end in an El Nino year, we need to begin in an El Nino year.
My point was that neither cherrypick is statistically informative. For example, the EL Nino to El Nino (except we don’t know where the current one will peak) curve, even using the RSS, yields a 95% probability margin of error trend (or lack of trend) that, because of extreme interannual variability unrelated to the long-term warming signal, is such a fuzzy marker it could be as high as +0.162 C per decade – or as low as -0.194 (-0.016 ±0.178 °C/decade). But let me ask you, prior to the current El Nino when ENSO was in La Nina years, were you arguing that those who claimed warming had stopped shouldn’t have been putting their thumbs on the scale by starting the clock on a record El Nino year? Or were you one of the perpetrators yourself?
Good, I’m glad you agree that starting in a La Nina year and ending in El Nino year was improper.
I was merely doing the valid science test of determining how what was the longest period it had been with no increase in the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere, where the warming is supposed to be the greatest according to your CO2 hypothesis. The cause of the temperature changes is irrelevant to that. I have been consistent. I didn’t claim that your graph didn’t show warming. I pointed out that the reason it showed warming was because it started in a La Nina year and ended in an El Nino year.
Yes, it will be interesting to see how strong this El Nino will end up being and what the full effects will be. I expect that anomalies will continue to increase for a few months yet, and it may well cause the trend from ’98 to be positive by a couple hundreths of a degree per decade, but your CO2 hypothesis was that it should have been positive by 10 times that 0.2-03C per decade. And I’m confident that going out a year or two from now, the trend from ’98 will once again be negative.
And I’m glad that you are recognizing that these natural ENSO ocean cycles are significant to warming or no warming and that the ’98 El Nino was a primary factor in contributing to the late 20th century warming. This acknowledges that natural climate factors have been wnat has been determining the trends of warming or no warming. Those natural ocean cycles moderate and dampen the primary factor that is the primary cause of warming, which is the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, which is primarily moderated by the variation in cloud amount, as I showed you in my previous comment to you.
The alleged strong & controlling “thermostat” effects CO2 have been MIA.
This is nothing new. In 1969 one of the principal early climate scientists said: “It follows from the analysis of observation data that the secular variation in the mean temperature of the Earth can be explained by the variation of short wave radiation arriving at the surface of the Earth.” – Budyko(1969), ‘The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth’
the valid science test
Hoot! I LOLzed!
You can’t justify your mendacious cherry-picking. Anyone with a semester of statistics at uni can see through your bu—t.
Best,
D
Let me just register my protest that you’re not really understanding me at all and that my appreciation of the influence of ENSO and other sources of internal climate variability is nothing new, e.g. http://sydbaumel.blogspot.ca/2015/05/global-warming-pause-warmest-17-years.html.
I’m glad that you accept El Ninos are a strong driver of increased temps.
And the fact that the last 18 years has been the warmest period is irrelevant to the fact that the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere has not warmed (zero trend) over that time period. That same thing has happened at every other period of natural climate warming in the history of the planet.
Your blog article show no p-r empirical science showing anthropogenic causation.
You still can’t rebut the fact that p-r empirical science shows that there was ~10X more increase in natural solar radiative forcing during warming periods of the late 20th century than there was increase in CO2 forcing.
Climate change is still primarily caused by natural climate forcings, just like every other warming in the history of the planet. I hold the accepted null climate hypothesis of natural causation.
You hold the new alternative hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause. The burden of proof is on you to empirically falsify the null climate hypothesis and empirically show that your new alternative CO2 hypothesis is true. You have done neither. That’s how science works. Period. End of story.
To get an honest trend we need to start in a strong El Nino year, 1998
You mean a dishonest trend.
Best,
D
Nobody denies that the satellite data concur with the surface temperature data that temperatures were rising from the late seventies through the late nineties. Yet it remains true that since then, the satellite data show no significant warming.
Why is it that deniers keep moving their own goalposts, and that of others????
“It’s not warm ! It’s not hot!, it’s cold , Ok it’s warm-ish, it’s changing climate not climate change , it’s not changing etc..etc.. now there is “climate change” but it’s nothing to be “alarmed” about” . .
Please feel free to rejoin the discussion when you have come to your senses “Deniers” . .
And please feel free to post again … when you sober up !
What an empty post , with nothing of note!
Post when you have something to add , until then, scram, the adults are talking!
You think your rant above is “adult” discussion ?
–
Ho ! Ho ! Ho !
it’s the new year social pa! ho ho ho was last year. sheesh what a maarrooonnn!
So , I take it “deniers” (like you) have made up their mind that AGW is an “Eco Scam”?
So all the evidence is “IN” on that opinion?
An opinion that rags like this have stated many times . .like it was a fact!
Where is their consensus, their overwhelming facts and evidence, of it being a scam?
Ya that’s what I thought, just a steaming pile of Bull$#!T!
Well , since a noted scientist like you says the century out weather/climate forecasts are accurate … they must be accurate !
–
Ho ! Ho ! …. you know the rest .
What was that in English?
Oh never mind, I can see I upset you , you phucking dikhead . .
Have to go “Ho ! Ho ! .” as a distraction because you’ve got nothing . .
Sad little Dikhead . .
In English ?
–
Sure, typical know nothing Believer in century out weather/climate forecasts ( to 2100) criticizes opinion of Nobel Prize winning physicist ..
–
Sad little troll .
In English “I looked at google” . . Sad little troll! Sad little physicist!
In English . . Nobel Prize winning “physicist” not “climate scientist” . .
In English . .His prize for “Physics” was only 43 years ago , GHG theory is almost 200 and he questions the use of “incontrovertible”??
They said the “Evidence” is “incontrovertible” , no where did they say “don’t discuss it” or global warming is “incontrovertible” . .
In English “Believer in century out weather/climate forecasts” that’s not a thing!
You are totally entitled to your own opinion , you are NOT entitled to your own facts and you are NOT entitled to run into a room and yell fire or harm anyone with your Phucking Dikhead ideology . .
“since a noted scientist like you says the century out weather/climate forecasts are accurate”
Trolls do not answer questions . . the use weapons of mass distraction . .
It’s like saying the movie Star Wars “is about a guy kissing his sister” . .
That’s all you got, you phucking dikhead troll!
Ivar Giaever now works for the Heartland Institute , a CONservative “Think Tank” !
the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of second-hand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.
Holly $#!T talk about being a hypocrite ! “Incontrovertible” my A$$!
I see this simple and clear talk by a Nobel Prize winning scientist has really seemed to upset the staunch “Believers” in the century out weather/climate forecasts of the IPCC .
–
Judging by the tone of some of the comments, upset to a “foaming at the mouth” reaction
–
The talk destroys the impression that is portrayed that the science is settled, and Man Made ,Dangerous or Catastrophic Global Warming is accepted by ALL scientists.
–
It is Not , As Ivar Giaever makes abundantly clear ..
–
The Believers have received some very upsetting news from Nature recently. (aside from the Paris agreement not being Binding).
–
…NASA showed that contrary to the IPCC, the largest ice reservoir on the planet, Antarctica ,is Not melting and raising sea levels. Its icesheets have been increasing and Decreasing sea level rise.
–
The Atlantic has been Cooling as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation entered its negative phase, which has caused global temps to drop .5C in the previous 35 year negative phase and massive growth in Arctic Ice extant. Arctic ice is now projected to be stable and increase till 2023, end of the study.
–
The predictions of an Ice free Arctic..by 2013/14/15/16 . headlined …Failed.
–
There is much more evidence developing that the effect of CO2 is negligible to non existent. That decades of cooling may be ahead ( 5 or 6) as the Suns energy decreases .
–
No wonder the Believers are upset.
He is 1 of 37, the other 36 thought otherwise and signed a statement to that effect. The amazing statistic of 3% (rounded up in this case of 1/37) denier(s), 97% agreeing in this case, and rounded down) seems to hold. Of course that is not readily apparent from MSM coverage, though.
Too bad a hypothesis is not validated by “show of hands ” or, pounds of paper ,isn’t it ?
–
The MSM doesn’t mention that fact.. ..either.
What are you implying, that there aren’t many more pounds of peer reviewed papers agreeing that AGW is real, compared to a tiny percentage that say it isn’t.
On second thought, you must be implying that massive piles of propaganda (Paper being just one of the media mechanisms) released through essentially “owned” mass media, and political snow jobs are somehow more valid than 97% of the real experts.
I did not “imply” anything.
–
I merely stated the fact that a hypothesis is not validated by a show of hands, nor pounds of paper supporting one side of a hypothesis .
–
Science is not…democratic.
–
Google; scientific method.
The scientific method is not immune to scientific fraud, or deliberate and artificial creation of doubt about what the scientists, or seemingly more often, their sponsors, know to be the more valid data, and hypothesis.
By far, most PhDs I know personally, and by far (I’d estimate 97%) most Nobel Laureates I know of do not buy into the promotion of doubt that you seem to support.
Guess which side I believe should be more suspected of fraud (also investigated and prosecuted).
Claiming a hypothesis is validated by a show of hands or pounds of paper is Fraud.
–
The doubts come from the peer reviewed literature and the data of the past 20+ years.. Showing CO2 having nowhere near the effect predicted.
–
Climate history as well shows nothing is occurring that is outside the range of natural variability.
Says you and whom else, a celebrity in another field (Nobel Laureate in what) that 36 times as many other peers attending the same event (admittedly in fields not known to me at this time) pointedly do not agree with?
Scientific method, scientific consensus may not be perfect, but seems to be growing even further from what you try to project, especially throughout the rest of the world.
The denier dark side seems to be losing, even here in it’s last stronghold.
Speaking of the “rest of the world” ..
–
The UN 9.8 million response . 3 year global poll has “climate action” at the bottom for 3 years running .. 16th out of 16 .
http://data.myworld2015.org/
–
Seems the “rest of the world” .. is not too concerned.
Awareness and perception of risk seem a better match (the more they know, the more risk they perceive in this case). See http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/29/people-worldwide-want-a-global-emissions-agreement/
“Awareness” ?
–
25 years of worldwide headlined claims like ;
–
Arctic ice gone by 2013 ,2014 , 2015 , 2016 ? (BBC 2007 ,Al Gore etc..)
–
Feet of sea level rise by 2008, 2020 , 2050 Hansen . Actual rise since 1990 ~2.3 inches ?
–
Increasing storms after ,Katrina ? Lowest Global storm counts (ACE) in 45 years since 2005 .
–
Collapsing farm yields ? 1-3 % per acre yearly yield increases since 1970 .
–
The Cry of Wolf is no longer ..Believed.
We’ll see. Ask those who’s insurance shot up, or suffered the worst of Sandy (with the type flooding even Al Gore was surprised by, or flooding even up in Vermont). Wild fires out west? island nations, Bangladesh, etc being flooded, saltwater intrusion, worse Typhoons than ever in areas like the Philippines.
Funny you should mention the above.
–
The UN was so upset by the results of their global poll showing that 25 years of alarmist headlines had failed, ..
–
The UN hired an International PR firm and changed the message from CO2 causes global warming (someday dangerous) to CO2 causes “extreme weather” .
–
Which also failed based on the following 3 years of Decreasing concern shown in the ongoing global poll. .
–
The fact that Global ACE ,( accumulated cyclonic energy) ,hurricanes, typhoons,tornados ,have declined to levels below those 45 years ago.
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/accumulated_cyclone_energy.asp?basin=gl
Sure did not help the “CO2 causes “extreme weather”, as the opposite has occurred during the “hottest decade ever” and highest CO2 levels in recent history.
–
As to Sandy ,that was two storms combined, that were tropical storms at landfall that rode in on a high tide syzygy several extra feet and wind direction right into mouth of the NY harbor
–
Insurance Cos will use any justification to raise rates BTW.
And who campaigned against lawyers back in the Clinton reelection races, only to higher the very best lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, and PR people they could to try to crush the evermore under resourced legal and other representatives of the other 99% of the ever more extreme differential accumulation of power and wealth spectrum?
Al Capone was more popular than most would expect, as was Goebbels’s sponsor (even among some Jews). Go figure.
I see we are done here …
–
Thank you for the exchange .
–
Adios,
Thank you for your time, too, even if you haven’t changed my mind about 36 Nobel Laureates to 1 (out of his field and with less than a day of internet research).
Perhaps you should compare notes with Jeremy R. Hammond regarding his Jan 3,2016 7:41 reply:
“…when it comes to the masses, most believe the AGW hypothesis as gospel as a matter of faith. Most people know nothing about the actual science, and the media, as with pretty much every other subject of importance, fails utterly to properly inform them…”
Seems that “faith” is in line with the surprisingly high percentage (97%) of real experts that believe the same thing, from much more intensive investigation of it. This at the same time that those who have faith in the 3% deniers should be reconsidering that “faith” given the much more believable conflicts of interest and secret funding (lied about by some of the otherwise assumed to be trustworthy academics) than in the much more open funding of so many other publicly funded scientists.
The latest poll is in and only 27% of Americans think that climate change is caused mostly by human activity.
I imagine that is quite disappointing to the IPCC and other promoters of the CatastrophicAGW by CO2 leaders that their $100+ billion of promotion money hasn’t been successful at swaying the public.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/climatepoll.png?w=720
So, by which polling organization does there seem to be such a serious mismatch between what the overwhelming majority of experts in the field believe, and what “…Most people know nothing about the actual science, and the media, as
with pretty much every other subject of importance, fails utterly to
properly inform them…” believe?
If the poll results are true, Goebbels would be proud of similar poll results.
“the media, as with pretty much every other subject of importance, fails utterly to properly inform them”
Exactly, all that promotion of the catastrophicAGW religion that MSM has done has been totally ineffective.
Then why does the poll try to indicate so few of the public agree with the experts? It seems the poll indicates the public is seriously uninformed or misinformed, as the MSM owners and sponsors seem to want to do. I personally don’t believe the poll, but if I did believe it was an accurate reflection of adequately informed public opinion, I’d think the monied interests had succeeded in a most amazing propaganda campaign.
Anyway, I believe the tide is changing, and nonsense like Rick Scott (1st Amendment be damned by him) banning the even milder term “Climate Change” from being spoken by state officials, or North Carolina amazingly outlawing reporting of anything over a politically decided maximum level of annual sea rise (which anybody that owns stock in insurance companies should be concerned about), only hasten the day when the 3% deniers have to shed so many of their obviously corrupted members (the ones who took the money and lied about it, for example). I wonder when the Jack Abramoffs among them will start coming clean.
“It seems the poll indicates the public is seriously uninformed or misinformed”
No, even though the public is bombarded by the MSM global warming propaganda they aren’t fooled because they live in the real world and they’re not seeing anything unusual that is outside the previously experienced climate, and they understand “follow the money” and have experienced snake oil salesmen and scammers before.
Am I supposed to wonder why the smartest (if not most ethical) industry types have been relishing the thought of being so much more able to navigate the northern ocean passages (LNG ships for one example), and exploit the longer drilling seasons the global warming will enable? What do they know that the public doesn’t?
P.S. I do agree the public should “follow the money,” and see who the real “super snake oil” salesmen are.
“Am I supposed to wonder why the smartest (if not most ethical) industry types have been relishing the thought of being so much more able to navigate the northern ocean passages…?”
No you aren’t supposed to wonder at all. Of course they would relish it because it would shorten shipping times and costs, which would be a good thing for them.
But predictions of the open summer passage have been as reliable as the doomsday religious cultists predicting the end of the world: http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/predictions-of-an-ice-free-arctic-ocean.html & https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/
So since the predictions that the Arctic could be ice-free by
2000,2008,2012,2013, (all of which failed), how many ships made it through the NW Passage in 2015? Zero?A 2014 paper said “our survey of recent Canadian and international studies and data reaffirms that the much-hyped Northwest Passage routes will remain inhospitable to international shipping for the forseeable future.
– http://www.cdfai.org.previewmysite.com/PDF/On%20Uncertain%20Ice.pdf
The problem is the current global warming alarmists fail to consider natural climate cycles and trust too much in their flawed, faulty climate models which aren’t able to accurately predict future global temperatures at even the 2% confidence level (vonStorch(2013)) let alone regional temperatures. And then of course there is the incentive for them to keep up the hype to keep the grants and climate change funding coming, ie., follow the money.
Seems the industry does believe the passages will be possible sooner than later, no matter what unintended consequences comes with that supposed advantage, and despite other denier claims that the ice is increasing. What is it, again, that we are supposed to believe, and what we are supposed to doubt by those paragons of unselfish interests?
Since you didn’t document any, I take it that my thought that no ships made the NW Passage in 2015 was correct.
“Seems the industry does believe the passages will be possible sooner than later”
Belief doesn’t make it reality.
“What is it that we are supposed to believe…?”
Believe the reality that climate is cyclical and there is nothing whatsoever
catastrophic happening now.
“data are used to quantitatively to evaluate the normal seasonal cycle of ice extent … The time series of total Arctic ice extent shows a statistically significant positive trend and correlates negatively with recent high-latitude temperature fluctuations.” – Walsh(1979) ‘An Analysis of Arctic Sea Ice Fluctuations, 1953-1977’
The paper also found that the mean seasonal maximum Arctic ice extent over the 25 year period of study was just over 14 million km². Well over the 1979-2014 satellite record, the mean maximum mean Arctic ice extent is also 14 million km². Mean minimum did decrease by 2-2.5 km² so overall ice is a little less, but certainly no “death spiral”.
This followed a period of unusual Arctic warming over the early 1900s, “The huge warming which started in the 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the 20th century.” – Bengtsson(2004) ‘ The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic – A Possible Mechanism’
The natural increasing Arctic ice cover from 1953-1977 was the cyclical recovery from the natural decreasing Arctic ice cover of the 1920s to 1940s.
The Earth’s climate is cyclical, and climate change is natural. We have just been through a natural warming cycle, and indications if you aren’t a denier of natural climate change, we are likely due for a cooling cycle. The PDO began its ~30yr cool phase in ~2007 and the AMO will begin its cool phase in the early 2020s, and the last couple solar cycles have shown lower solar activity, so it will be interesting over the next decade or two to see if the alleged anthropogenic CO2 can prevent any cooling.
How about some earlier trips, like the one described to me personally by a witness who asked about the strange scratches he saw on the St. Roch II hull after its passage (thinking they looked unlike anything he would expect from ice).
See http://www.athropolis.com/news/st-roch.htm part of which reads:
“…The St. Roch II has crossed through the Northwest Passage in just three weeks! When the original St. Roch went through, it spent two years trapped in Arctic ice, and it took the vessel 27 months to do what the St. Roch II did in
a matter of days.
There was so little ice that most of the trip was smooth sailing except for the occasional iceberg floating by.
The ship’s trip though one of the world’s most feared routes has raised
questions about whether or not global warming is to blame for the
changing climate in the Arctic…”
He said the crew member grew pale as he revealed the scratches were from a polar bear trying to find something solid to climb aboard, more substantial than the little piece of ice the bear abandoned before it totally disappeared.
I believe the trend is greater and faster than the deniers want to admit.
No, I asked about 2015. Come on, the ice surely should be all gone in those last 15 years are Arctic Ice “death spiral”, after all the “experts” said it was going to be all gone in the summer by 2000, then 2008, then 2012, then 2013. Surely they made it in 2015.
So how many cargo ships made it through the NW Passage in 2015?
Please quit dodging and moving the goalposts and answer my simple question.
I don’t know about 2015 (though Shell thought they could drill up there in the longer and better weather), but see some of the more frequent passages from 2010on at https://www.skepticalscience.com/northwest-passage-has-been-navigated-in-the-past-intermediate.htm
Sorry, I’ve not found that I can trust anything climate related on that website run by a cartoonist who admits “I’m not a climatologist or a scientist, but a self employed cartoonist … and professional scrawler”. – http://web.archive.org/web/20071213172906/www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3
This is somewhat interesting but I have to go do some things more productive around the house. Maybe later, if too many responses don’t crowd out others I care about.
I was going to look for the cartoons but all I found were things like
this list of skeptics arguments and their frequency. Is that a cartoon
to you?
“but all I found were things like this list of skeptics arguments”
Yep, the rebuttal to those arguments were the funnies.
I’ll stick to the 36 Nobel Laureates to 1 (outside his field, and with less than a days internet “research”0 odds that were at the event.
You still haven’t learned that voting doesn’t determine what is true in science. Empirical data does.
How in the world can you believe that most all (Eric Adler actually says 110%!) of the late 20th century warming is caused by CO2 when the increase in CO2 forcing reaching the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century was only 0.4W/m² to 0.8W/m² , and the increase in solar radiative forcing reaching the Earth’s surface is 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² ? That makes no sense at all. It defies logic.
the increase in CO2 forcing reaching the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century was only 0.4W/m² to 0.8W/m² , and the increase in solar radiative forcing reaching the Earth’s surface is 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m²
You can’t show that is true. You made it up.
Best,
D
You can’t show all the “experts” said . You have zero evidence for that assertion. Nothing. Zip. Zilch, Nada. Null set. Squat. Jack. Bupkis.
Best,
D
Anyone that believes century out weather/climate forecast are likely to be accurate is operating on “Faith” ,alone.
–
And anyone that believes warming and CO2 elevation is dangerous is completely ignorant of the actual evidence .
–
Which clearly shows higher CO2 and warmer have been Beneficial to Life for the past 3 million years of Glacial/Interglacial history.
–
Without ..exception .
Hmmm, you are calling 97% of the experts ignorant. Am I supposed to ignore what I find with almost all lower echelon people and local observers that I talk to when what they see doesn’t match the industry propaganda and captured regulators restriction to unverifiable (independent auditors) industry self-reported “data”?
Have you seen any actual evidence that CO2 and warmth have ever been detrimental to life in the past 3 million years ?
–
The evidence that life benefitted from both is in all the science journals and the fossil and archaeological records.
–
Do you suggest the FF industry faked that data ?
–
And you presume that the “97%” also are convinced that the century out weather/climate forecasts are accurate, and the predicted warming “dangerous” to life ?
–
Were those questions asked by Cook & Co. in their “poll” ?
–
And does Faith imply ignorance ? Perhaps , gullibility, is more likely.
–
After all, the entire scientific community accepted the specialist view that the continents were fixed, and the matching continental coasts a coincidence” .for fifty years after the meteorologist Alfred Wegener proposed Continental Drift.
There is lots of evidence that more CO2 and warmth is very net beneficial. Here’s a good article: http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf
The Foreward by the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson is outstanding, and his take on climate science is very similar to Giaever’s.
Dyson says about this paper with extensive evidence that CO2 is net beneficial,
Of course the global warming “enthusiasts” here will search high and low to find some study to cherry pick and tell us how terrible that CO2 and warmth will be. Must be very discouraging to have such a negative view of the future. Perhaps that is why they are such angry congregants.
My life experience tells me that warm is good, cold is bad for life. Every year as winter comes my grass goes brown and everything outside appears dead. And every year as the warmth of spring and summer appears, everything turns green and springs to life again. I’m very thankful for those fossil fuel companies (even though they haven’t paid me one red cent for being their shill ) and coal generation that helps keep my home warm.
Disinformation site!
Drink!
Best,
D
Try convincing Katherine Hayhoe (and others worked on some of the EXXON research) http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/science-advisor/katharine-hayhoe-ph-d/
By the way, I was a grade school student that did question my teachers’ seemingly too dogmatic resistance to accepting continental drift (with inadequate explanations of why it “couldn’t” be true). Wegener may have been a bit dogmatic, and without adequate evidence, I would have questioned him even more, as all rational skeptics should. Ask the questions, but demand prove of the answers. The deniers lose that test in my view.
Was the “consensus’ position the continents were fixed and the matching coasts a “coincidence” ,…
–
Or not ?
–
Smithsonian had a great article for the 100th anniversary.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-continental-drift-was-considered-pseudoscience-90353214/?no-ist
–
I wouldn’t know what the consensus was back then, I just thought the ones trying to tell me it wasn’t possible didn’t provide any convincing evidence at all, just a firm dogmatic belief that it couldn’t possibly be true. Then explanations like the mid Atlantic spreading (and later geologically matching features on both sides of the ocean) started strengthening the case.
I think I was 11 by the time I thought I saw enough evidence to convincingly refute those “experts” who said it couldn’t be true, and continued looking for more critical thinking, open minded, skeptics.
It was nearly the unanimous consensus of the “specialists” .
–
Read the article.
OK, I read it again (for the second time in 2 days, and believe I saw it once before, too). It describes the earlier times than when I encountered it in the 50s, when there was not such a consensus, especially in the current news.
The older literature I suspect I found in the local library looked more like what they described, the older the documents you looked at. I still don’t know what the accepted consensus was when I decided it was more likely that Wegener had somehow guessed right.
By the way, I guessed, even back then, that there might once have been life on Mars, but I’ll withhold judgement until I see enough credible evidence one way or the other.
Who knows, a real far stretch would be to guess that there was once more intelligent life there, but not smart enough to prevent the loss of habitability there either.
As an old mentor once told me, imagine the extremes then look for the more likely balance. One extreme,inspired by the actions of the unconventional happy extractors, would be their trying to get unconventional gas and oil even from Mars.
“I just thought the ones trying to tell me it wasn’t possible didn’t provide any convincing evidence at all, just a firm dogmatic belief that it couldn’t possibly be true.”
Yep, just like today’s “climate scientists” haven’t provided any convincing empirical evidence that natural climate forcings being the primary cause of the late 20th century warming couldn’t possibly be true, even though their own calculations show that increased CO2 forcing reaching the Earth’s surface was only 0.4W/m² to 0.8W/m² and peer reviewed science shows that increased solar radiative forcing reaching the Earth’s surface was 2.7W/m² to 6,8W/m², and the ocean cycles were in their warm phases during the late 20th century.
I admit that I was a lot older than 11 when I, as a critical thinking open minded skeptic, saw enough evidence to convincingly refute those “experts” who said natural climate forcing couldn’t have caused the late 20th century warming. The empirical data showing ~10 times more natural forcing than CO2 forcing, plus the fact that the climate models that the “experts” based their dogmatic belief on proved that they were incapable of accurately projecting future global temperatures at even the 2% confidence level, convinced me that they were wrong.
Willful ignorance (or, possibly, LoInfo disinformer) aside,
today’s “climate scientists” haven’t provided any convincing empirical evidence that natural climate forcings being the primary cause of the late 20th century warming couldn’t possibly be true
The rest of the world is convinced. A single-digit minority of antediluvian science deniers is irrelevant.
Best,
D
At around 9:30, Giaever accuses climate scientists of suddenly adding the ocean into their surface temperature record so they can “fiddle with the data” in order to show continuing warming. This, he emphasizes, is in suspicious contrast to the ~18-year flatline since October 1996 that he’s just displayed, using one of the two satellite datasets (the other satellite dataset also “goes up,” just like the surface datasets, but Giaever doesn’t show it to his audience). That dataset shows 1998 towering above every other year in temperature and so Giaever concludes by emphatically asserting that Obama is wrong (not to mention actual climate scientists) to have claimed 2014 was the warmest year on record.
First falsehood: The global surface datasets (NASA, NOAA, Met Office CRU) have, since as long as I’ve been following them, been … global, i.e., they combine land and sea surface data.
Second falsehood: The woodfortrees database allows anyone to chart the land and ocean subsets of the Met Office CRU dataset independently. This is what it shows as of April 1 and May 1, 2015, respectively (as far as their database goes as of this writing), a few months before Giaever gave his lecture on July 1 (source: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:12/to/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:12/to). Clearly, the 12-month running average temperatures of both land (green) and oceans (red) were already hitting new peaks early in 2015 (since exceeded). Ironically (in light of Giaever’s accusation of data “fiddling”), if anything it’s the land temperature trend that has most definitively left the RSS peak year of 1998 in the dust, notably in 2010. While 2014 was only a nominal, but not statistical, record hot year (it had lots of very recent competition; http://sydbaumel.blogspot.ca/2015/05/global-warming-pause-warmest-17-years.html), given the continued warming in 2015 there likely will be no statistical doubt that 2014-2015 is the hottest period in the instrumental record, which dates back to 1850.
I’ve found one other reasonably up-to-date land record: NOAA’s. Here it is from Oct. 1996 thru Oct. 2015. Again, “it goes up,” very decidedly and with a peak during the past year or so, without the need of ocean data to “fiddle with.” It indicates a statistically significant warming trend over land (the earth’s land surface is warming much faster than the ocean surface) of close to 2 degrees C per century.
As has been pointed out ad nauseam here, Giaever’s lecture is rife with misinformation like this, a great deal of which has been tackled here: https://pressingwax.wordpress.com/2016/01/03/foreign-policy-journal-starts-the-year-with-nobel-laureate-ivar-giaver-on-climate-change/
He’s talking about this.
In principle, perhaps yes. But the graph he displayed, which was produced by one of the denial groups – CFACT, I think – was cherrypicked for maximum rhetorical effect to show exactly zero warming, hence from October 1996 to Dec 2014. A couple of years earlier they cherrypicked a different time series using the Met Office HADCRUT4 surface dataset to show “no [again, zero] global warming for 16 years!” (http://sydbaumel.blogspot.ca/2013/07/global-warming-stopped-15-or-16-or.html). As I’ve pointed out already, they clearly had no problem with at least one surface dataset until that cherry started to go sour. This is what it looks like now, from the same starting date:
And you accuse people like me of cherrypicking.
Again, Disqus pretending to paste my image. Here it is from my Dropbox.
He was presumably referring to the recent study that has been cited to challenge the data showing a hiatus in warming, the findings of which were arrived at by adjusting the data from buoys while ignoring the satellite data.
The findings weren’t arrived at by simply adjusting the data from buoys. The findings were arrived at by correcting a clear calibration difference between ship and buoy readings (know by virtue of analysis of co-located ship and buoy readings), something NOAA noted it was tracking over 5 years in advance. There is no relevant satellite data they could have used – for anti-science activists, it probably seems ‘fair’ to throw away direct measurements of sea surface temperatures in favor of microwave-based temperature estimates from 1,000m above the ground, but this is obviously nonsense n science.
I recognize that amplifying conspiracy theories appears to be a goal of your site, just commenting on your continuing misrepresentation of factual issues in passing.
“I recognize tht amplifying conspiracy theories appears to be the goal of your site, just commenting on your continuing misrepresentation of factual issues in passing.”
Totally false. The moderator is not amplifying conspiracy theories. That’s pure conspiracy ideation relating to anything that doesn’t agree with your global warming religion. Presenting data isn’t a conspiracy, except in the minds of doomsday cultists who can’t stand people to point out that their predictions of doom failed to happen as predicted.
And the moderator misrepresented no factual issues. You are mistaking your dogmas for facts.
It is a shame that the anti-science global warming activist “scientists” continue to corrupt good ocean temp data with bad data, like Watt’s found with the surface temp data. But when you have an agenda to advance …
“Presenting data isn’t a conspiracy”
He’s not presenting data. He’s hand-waving about how scientists fudged the numbers. It’s conspiracy theory. Perhaps you just think that way so pervasively that it’s hard for you to accept that’s what it’s called. Even referring to mainstream scientists as “cultists” is part of this conspiracy theorist culture that defines your movement.
“And the moderator misrepresented no factual issues”
I’ve corrected an enormous number of factual errors of his in this forum. His statement in this particular comment is incorrect, as I stated. As usual, you are long on invective and short on well-supported factual argument that sticks to the topics at hand. Do not expect a lot of engagement with your posts as a result.
For any newcomers, ROO2 is a veteran anti-AGW commenter who subscribes to many fringe ideas, generally in wild contradiction of the laws of physics, including (if I recall) belief that the greenhouse effect is a contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics (a popular crank internet claim, but one even the main leaders of the anti-AGW movement try to distance themselves from), that radiation striking the ocean cannot cause heat accumulation there, and who knows (or cares) what else…
Sure, graphs of temperature data and CO2 data aren’t data.
Your typical dodging, denial of reality.
Only in your delusional mind. The only thing enormous is your ego and ignorance of climate science.
That’s hilarious. Nice projection there wax, as people can see from your comment.
Why do you tell such blatant lies and fabricate strawmen to dishonestly attack me?
Answer: Because you are angry that I’ve exposed your mistakes and misunderstanding of science numerous times and have showed empirical data that you can’t refute, so you misrepresent me, and spin your lies about me. It just exposes you as a dishonest climate cult zealot who can’t refute my solid, empirical scientific arguments. so you resort to dishonest ad hom attacks. Quite pathetic.
1) I don’t deny AGW, so I’m not “anti-AGW”. That’s just your way to dishonestly ad hom attack me. I’ve just stated the fact that there is no empirical evidence for your CatastrophicAGW claims of disaster for the planet if we don’t take drastic actions to reduce anthropogenic CO2. Humans impact the climate on a localized basis, but there’s no empirical evidence that they have made any significant impact on the global climate by being the primary (110% according to Eric Adler) cause of the late 20th century warming as your global warming groupthink claims.
2) I’ve never denied the ghe or claimed that the ghe is a contradiction of the 2nd Law. That’s another dishonest misrepresentation. I hold the fundamental principle of the 2nd Law that net heat flow is in only one direction, from warmer objects to colder objects. The ghe merely slows the heat loss from the Earth’s surface.
3) I’ve never said that radiation striking the ocean cannot cause heat accumulation there. That’s another of your dishonest misrepresentations. Almost all of the heat accumulated in the oceans is from radiation, solar radiation, which directly transfers heat from the 5300C source and penetrates 200m deep. ‘Backradiation’ from ~0C ghgs in the atmosphere do not directly transfer any heat into the ocean because they are at a lower temperature than the ~14C surface of the ocean, as the 2nd Law says that heat only flows from warmer objects to colder objects.
And I do not say that ‘backradiation’ cannot “cause heat accumulation there”, as you dishonestly accuse me. If you read my comments above to Eric Adler on ocean warming you know that I said It can, but only by warming the atmosphere, to decrease the temperature difference between the surface of the ocean and the atmosphere, so that there is a reduced net ‘backradiation’ heat flow out of the ocean.
Everyone can see that my understandings are hardly “fringe ideas” or “wild contradictions of the laws of physics” as you dishonestly accuse me.
Since you bring up the issue of ‘backradiaton’ heating the ocean, I’ll ask you the same 3 simple questions that I asked Eric Adler. To help you answer, I suggest that you read this lecture ‘The Climate System – Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling’ from the Columbia Univ. Dept. of Earth & Environ. Science, http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html
It says that the only “Sea-air heat exchange process” that adds heat to the ocean is solar radiation. The other 3 processes, net backradiation, conduction, and latent heat, remove heat from the ocean.
3 Questions for waxliberty:
1) Which is warmer on a global average?
. . . A) the surface of the ocean? or
. . . B) the atmosphere & ghgs above the ocean?
2) Which direction does the Columbia Univ. lecture on Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling ( http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html ) say that the net backradiation heat flow is going?
. . . A) from from the ocean to the atmosphere or
. . . B) from the atmosphere to the ocean?
3) Which direction does net heat flow?
. . . A) from warmer objects to colder objects, or
. . . B) from colder objects to warmer objects?
Please answer those 3 simple questions first, before you launch into another angry tirade attack. If you don’t, everyone will see that you know that you are wrong and that I am correct in what I stated above. Thanks in advance.
1) ____
2) ____
3) ____
Describing your fringe views as not fringe doesn’t make them mainstream. :) There’s a whole process for that, peer review etc., it turns out.
Your view boils down to denying the photon energy packet model of radiation as to enforce your version of 2nd, radiation can’t actually deliver energy or it would have to “know” not to aim at cooler objects. I can write your replies for you, no need to rehash this for the 1,000th time. Your point of view is what is described as the “Imaginary Second Law of Thermodynamics”
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/03/lunar-madness-and-physics-basics/#comment-2803
I think you learned this from AlecM, and here is the SOD thread where real physicists explain that his/your views are in fact fringe and in error (“You are inventing your own formulas that have nothing to do with real physics”):
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/08/radiation-basics-and-the-imaginary-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-74638
I’m not going to continue yet another repetitive discussion with you, so you can rant one more time and move along. Your comments are generally of the above quality – strong on invective, “alternative” (cough) physics, straw man and obfuscation of discussion, but unfortunately low on integrity which is a blocker.
I fully expected that you would refuse to answer those 3 simple questions, and you would do some handwaving obfuscation dishonestly accusing me of “fringe views”. So sad, but so telling.
“Your view boils down to…”
Wrong, my view boils down to those 3 simple questions based on fundamental science. Nothing about “photons” or any of your other obfuscation.
Answer them and quit dodging.
Why are you so afraid to answer these 3 simple questions?
Everyone can see by your failure to answer them, what I have said is correct and you are just refusing to admit it.
Here they are again:
3 Questions for waxliberty:
1) Which is warmer on a global average?
. . . A) the surface of the ocean? or
. . . B) the atmosphere & ghgs above the ocean?
2) Which direction does the Columbia Univ. lecture on Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling ( http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html ) say that the net backradiation heat flow is going?
. . . A) from from the ocean to the atmosphere or
. . . B) from the atmosphere to the ocean?
3) Which direction does net heat flow?
. . . A) from warmer objects to colder objects, or
. . . B) from colder objects to warmer objects?
Please answer those 3 simple questions first, before you launch into another angry tirade attack. If you don’t, everyone will see that you know that you are wrong and that I am correct in what I stated above. Thanks in advance.
1) ____
2) ____
3) ____
I’m waiting!
Waxliberty, having read the comment you replied to with this, in addition to suggesting I’m engaging in “conspiracy theories” simply for pointing out the recent study adjusted bouy data and disregarded the satellite data in drawin there conclusion, it is apparent that you aren’t even attempting to engage in reasoned discussion anymore.
Pointing out the fact that they adjusted the data from buoys and ignored the satellite data in drawing their conclusion is to be a “conspiracy theorist”?
You started out seeming like a reasonable fellow, but your comments have descended very far from reason. Keep that nonsense up and you’ll be banned for trolling.
I doubt very much the scientific community would agree with you that satellite estimates of temperature are unscientific.
But speaking of obvious nonsense, “amplifying conspiracy theories”? Seriously? You’re on notice for trolling.
Dr. Giavers talk is well supported by observed data …
–
For instance. The RSS data, which includes sea surface temps SSTs) from 1990 on , remember, the satellite data covers ~ 80% of the globe .compared to less than 50 % coverage by surface instruments.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990/to:2015/detrend
–
Little difference in the Hadcrut 4 surface sets.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990/to:2015/normalise
–
1990 to present is a period during which emissions (CO2) have risen by 61%.
–
Dr. Fyfe ,IPCC AR4 lead author. confirms that temps rose at less than 1/2 the forecast rate of rise from 1992 to zero trend after 1998 .
–
From Nature Climate Change , Sept 2013 .
Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years (Now 23 years)
John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett and Francis W. Zwiers
http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/Climate/Overestimated%20Warming.pdf
–
Further supporting evidence would be the decline in lower stratospheric water vapor since 1997/98 from the levels of the prior 2 decades. as documented by ;
Solomon et al 2010 and Urban et al 2014.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EO270001/abstract
–
http://www.up.ethz.ch/people/plattner/Publications/solomon10sci_express.pdf
–
Notice that the decline in lower stratospheric water vapor coincides with the “hiatus” in global avg temp rise that NOAA now claims did not occur ?
Okay, so it’s the satellite record since 1990 that’s the ticket for you? Well, for that period, UAH shows a warming trend of 0.167 ±0.108 °C/decade at the 95% probability level. Even RSS shows a trend greater than 0.1.
I see you also find HADCRUT4 acceptable for that period. Well, it shows warming close to 2 degrees per century since then (0.179 ±0.069 °C/decade).
And since the correlation (or lack thereof) with CO2 is the big question, and given that HADCRUT4 does include the oceans from the beginning of the Mauna Loa CO2 record, well, here’s your correlation: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/plot/esrl-co2/normalise
Left something out Syd .
–
The cooling in Hadcrut 4 post 1945 -1978. CO2 was ~ 15% over background .
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:2015/detrend
–
Why did ya leave that out ,Syd ? . 5C drop with rising CO2 ?.
Temps correlated to AMO/PMO Syd.
–
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/tsanalysis.pl?tstype1=91&tstype2=20&year1=1854&year2=&itypea=0&axistype=1&anom=0&plotstyle=0&climo1=&climo2=&y1=&y2=&y21=&y22=&length=&lag=&iall=0&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&Submit=Calculate+Results
–
Forget the Solar Grand Max ,Syd ?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1860/to:2015/detrend
–
Other correlations very clear, aren’t they Syd ?
I “left out” ONE THIRD of the mid-20th century cooling period because none of my graphing resources provide correlational CO2 data before 1958. It’s not an embarrassment since, thankfully, you’ve acknowledged that natural variability must also be taken into account. In fact, no attempts to model or explain what’s happening can be solidly reality-tested unless we also include what’s happening with all known climate forcings, natural and anthropogenic, as well as the influence of internal variability in the climate system (ENSO, PDO, AMO…). To give one example that’s at least somewhat relevant to the question of why warming paused, big time, in the middle of the 20th century, or, put another way, why it took off in the 1980s, until then pretty much all CO2 emissions had come with a heavy payload of cooling pollutants which counteracted much of the warming effect of the CO2. This chart shows that trajectory: https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/sulf3.jpg. Obviously, it’s not a sufficient explanation, but the climate science community has factored every single known and quantifiable natural and anthropogenic variable into the models as part of the process that has led it, with ever increasing certainty, to a) detect a robust and statistically highly significant warming signal going back to 1950 or 1900 or 1850 (as far back as is possible in the industrial era) and b) attribute it to the net effect of anthropogenic forcings. I challenge you to produce a viable alternative. You’ve proposed “natural variation,” but that’s like saying “the hand of God.” There’s no specificity to it. You also seem to think it’s all down to the AMO and/or the PDO. Well, using the longest land+ocean temperature record we have, here’s how those phasic/cyclic measures of internal climate variability compared to the global temperature trend:
AMO: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:60/plot/esrl-amo/mean:60/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend/plot/esrl-amo/trend
PDO: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:60/plot/jisao-pdo/mean:60/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/trend
You’re right to say correlation doesn’t equal causation (unless, of course, there’s also a physical mechanism, like the greenhouse effect). But where there is no long-term causation – as the graphs show, since 1850, global temp has gone up, but the AMO and PDO trends have been flat or negative – there is no basis to even suspect causation. What appears to be happening is that the AMO and PDO represent fluctuations in the distribution of heat between the oceans and the atmosphere. Since you’ve also acknowledged the short-term influence of ENSO peaks and valleys on short-term temperature trends, you should also be open to their contribution to the impression of a “pause” in warming from a record El Nino event in 1997-98 thru the heavily La NIna years of this century – until last year.
Well enough for now. It’s late.
BTW, since you’re unwilling to accept the warming trends shown by the surface datasets, why is it that you accept the mid-20th century cooling/pausing trend they show? And, if the authors of these datasets are conspiring to fudge the record, why haven’t they gotten rid of that, on the face of it, inconvenient hiatus and why did they allow the recent “pause” to be exposed by their datasets? (It’s still there if you start with the 1997-98 El Nino and end before the current one.) This is not how cheats behave.
Also, only some of the datasets show, at most, a very, very slight cooling trend for 1945-78 (https://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php). The largest one is HADCRUT4: -0.016 ±0.050 °C/decade. That works out to 0.05 degrees of cooling, not 0.5, as you state. The rest of the datasets show a comparably small warming trend or are flat.
“BTW, since you’re unwilling to accept the warming trends shown by the surface datasets, why is it that you accept the mid-20the century cooling trend they show?”
Because that cooling trend was shown back in the contemporary 1970s surface datasets that used actual measured temperatures before “adjustments” which have corrupted the present datasets became rampant. And I would note that the contemporary measured data showed much more cooling than the present datasets. Below is a 1974 plot of 5yr running mean from UCAR showing ~0.4C of global cooling from ~1940-1970. The present NASA chart shows cooling of only ~0.1C over that time frame, a fourfold reduction. That is a huge adjustment to remove ~0.3C of global cooling over a 30yr period.
When I say it “corrupts” the data, I’m not implying bad motives (“conspiring to fudge the record” may or may not be true), I am saying that the data loses its usefulness for scientific purposes and can actually be detrimental to real science and cause false conclusions to be drawn. Eg., if someone does some research examining a physical parameter and finds a physical phenomenon that suggests it should cause cooling of the climate from 1940s-1970s but looks at the current “adjusted” data and sees no cooling of the climate, they would falsely conclude that the it doesn’t, but in reality it may indeed have been a significant factor. This is why the original measured data should always be shown, with notes as to what other considerations might be given to the data. That is not what is being done today.
This also show that data from cartoonists websites which further double the corruption from 0.1C cooling to 0.05C can’t be trusted.
http://web.archive.org/web/20150802172201/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif
I still don’t understand why you assume that adjustments made by RSS have all been to improve accuracy (I’m sure they have, in motive, and probably in effect), but that those made by NASA et al. have necessarilly reduced accuracy. I’m also skeptical of your claim that in 1970 they weren’t doing any raw data adjusting (source?), but if so no wonder the record has changed so much since then (see my comments below). The satellite datasets don’t even begin with raw temperature data, so they’re adjusting and inferring from the get-go. The direct temp readings used as raw source material by the surface datasets, as you surely know, are frought with the potential to mislead if a myriad of potential confounders aren’t, on an ongoing basis, identified and adjusted for. BEST, with partial funding by no less than the Koch brothers and the blessings of surface record nemesis Anthony Watts, undertook to reanalyze the global raw surface temperature data (and include much more data points, I believe) and adjust it independently of all the groups that had gone before them. They got the same results.
“I still don’t understand why you assume that adjustments made by RSS have all been to improve accuracy (I’m sure they have, in motive, and probably in effect), but those made by NASA et al. have necessarily reduced accuracy.”
Re-read my comment: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2443970163
Reread it yourself. Sheesh!
“Reread it yourself.”
Well, it answered the questions that you re-asked an that I had already answered. But you evidently didn’t read it the first time which is why you asked again, so it doesn’t surprise me that you won’t read it now either.
I’m beginning to understand why you are a believer in your global warming religion.
And yes, my “it’s simple arithmetic” question about natural vs. CO2 forcing caused Eric to run and hide too.
Why did you refuse to explain why you believe 0.4W/m² to 0.8W/m² of increased CO2 radiative forcing was the primary cause of climate warming, when 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² of natural solar radiative forcing did not? Quite an embarrassing question for your man-made global warming religion isn’t it?
I don’t know what the f you’re talking about, but you’re wrong about the relative amount of forcings (I don’t recall seeing you make that point earlier in any of our discussions, so I haven’t consciously “run” from it). It sounds like you may be using figures that haven’t adjusted for the difference between increases in incoming solar radiation and actual incident radiation at the surface, which is a small fraction of the former because of the earth’s rotation, a low angle of incidence over most of the planet and other factors. And/or perhaps you’re only looking at a select period of high solar increase. In 2013, the IPCC’s WGI estimated net solar forcing since 1750 in the range of 0 to about a third of a W/m² with medium confidence (scroll down for their table in the context of a broader discussion about drawing conclusions by looking at all the evidence: http://sydbaumel.blogspot.ca/2014/08/the-heat-is-on-still-and-heres-how.html). As for CO2, it estimated its forcing over the same period as about 1.5–2.5 W/m² with very high confidence. But you know better better, it seems, and you don’t even have to produce evidence.
OK, my mistake.Apologies to you. I’ve discussed the details with others who are commenting here in other places, but have only included the summary of forcings here, so I’ll repeat the complete details here for you.
1) The Earth’s atmosphere has not warmed during the 15 years of the 21st century. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2016/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2016/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/to:2016/offset:-380/scale:0.08/mean:12 , in spite of the fact that humans have added over 30% of all the human CO2 produced since 1750.
2) Most of the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere in the last half of the 20th century occurred from 1984-2000. – http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend
3) Hatzianastassiou found that increased surface solar heating from 1984-2000 was 4.1W/m². – “Significant increasing trends in DSR [Downward Surface Radiation] and net DSR fluxes were found, equal to 4.1 and 3.7 Wm⁻², respectively, over the 1984-2000 period (equivalent to 2.4 and 2.2 Wm⁻² per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily attributed to clouds” – Hatzianastassiou(2005), ‘Global distribution of Earth’s surface shortwave radiation budget’
This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface was
confirmed by Goode(2007). “The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance from
1984 to 2000 suggested by Fig. 4, translates into a
Bond albedo decrease of 0.02 (out of a nominal value of about 0.30) or
an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8W/m².” –
Goode(2007) ‘Shortwave forcing of the Earth’s climate: Modern and
historical variations in the Sun’s irradiance and the Earth’s
reflectance’
This increase in late 20th century surface solar radiation is confirmed by Pinker(2005) – “Long term variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to be predicted by several current climate models.” – Pinker(2005) ‘Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation’
0.16 W/m² per yr x 18 years = 2.9 W/m² over the 1983-2001 timeframe.
This increase in late 20th century solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by Herman(2013) – “Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 Wm⁻² of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 2.4 Wm⁻² absorbed by the surface.” – Herman(2013) ‘A net decrease in Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yrs (1979-2011)’
This increase in late 20th century solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by McLean(2014) – “One forcing that may have been under-estimated is cloud cover. Variations in total solar irradiation are often discussed but not variations in cloud cover … The temperature pattern for the period 1988-1997 appears to be generally consistent with the 7% reduction in total cloud cover that occurred across the period 1987-1999. Applying that reduction to the influence of clouds in the energy budget described by Trenberth et al. [34] results in an increased average solar forcing at the Earth’s surface of about 5 Wm⁻². This increase is more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing from all anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. … Conclusions Since 1950, global average temperature anomalies have been driven firstly, from 1950 to 1987, by a sustained shift in ENSO conditions, by reductions in total cloud cover (1987 to late 1990s) and then a shift from low cloud to mid and high-level cloud, with both changes in cloud cover being very widespread. According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009) [34], the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings,.” – McLean (2014), ‘Late Twentieth Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover’
The reduction in global mean cloud amount that caused the higher level of solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century is documented in this NASA data: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg
4) The IPCC ghg forcing formula (exaggerated by nonexistent positive water vapor feedback) shows only a 0.4 W/m^2 forcing over the 1984-2000 timeframe. (5.35 x ln (370/345) = 0.4)
This empirical data shows that there was ~10 times more natural solar forcing contributing to warming during that late 20th century time frame when most of the warming occurred than there was from ghg forcing. Clearly the empirical evidence shows that natural climate variability was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Specifically, it’s the Sun, the primary driver of climate, just as it has been throughout the entire history of the planet. While the increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface was the primary factor, it is also true that the mean level of solar activity over the last half of the 20th century was higher than the previous 7 consecutive 50 year periods, contributing to the late 20th century warming.
“The period of high solar activity during the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years.” – Usoskin(2003), ‘A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since 1940’
The high level of recent solar activity is confirmed in:
• Tapping(2007), Fig.10, ‘Solar Magnetic Activity and Total Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum’
• Scafetta(2009), Figs. 13 & 14, “…shown in Figure 14. The figure shows that during the last decades the TSI has been at its highest values since the 17th century.”, ‘Total solar irradiance satellite composites and their phenomenological effect on climate’
• Krivova(2010), Fig.6, ‘Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum’
• Krivova(2011), Fig.8, ‘Towards a long-term record of solar total and spectral irradiance’
This is graphically shown here: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif
Other natural contributors to the late 20th century warming were:
• Warm phase of the PDO :
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/figures/Figure_PDO-01.JPG
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ &
http://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/PDO.html &
http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Post/Dreaming-of-a-White-Christmas-2157
• Warm phase of the AMO has kept temperatures at end of 20th century levels:
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/AMO_and_TCCounts-1880-2008_0.png
&
• Predominance of El Ninos:
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126 (Fig. 6)
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126
Comical inability to cite properly continues, as does the reliance on disinformation sites.
It’s as if this one buffoons on purpose for our entertainment.
Best,
D
nonexistent positive water vapor feedback
You cannot show this is true. You made it up.
Best,
D
Where to begin? Well, how about the beginning?
“Most of the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere in the last half of the 20th century occurred from 1984-2000,” you write, linking to a very subjectively trend-fitted graph of the RSS.
Here’s what happens when one extends the trend you fitted for 1984-2000 right out to 2011:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2011/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend
It barely loses any of its slope. And given the broad statistical uncertainty of the trend line of any single noisy dataset, a 27-year trend line is definitely much less uncertain than a 16-year one, meaning one could less inaccurately say “Most of the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere since the hiatus of the mid-20th century has occurred from 1984-2011.”
My statistical criticism is equally true of your first statement: “The Earth’s atmosphere has not warmed during the 15 years of the 21st century. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl… , in spite of the fact that humans have added over 30% of all the human CO2 produced since 1750.” Statistically, the very slight warming trend for that period of the RSS dataset has a 95% probability margin of error so huge, it could belie warming at a rate well over 0.2 degrees per decade (trend: 0.025 ±0.187 °C/decade (2σ)). But RSS, like UAH, is, by necessity a heavily and continuously tweaked and adjusted set of data and coding. I believe it was either you or scolpa (sic?) who rejected my use of the UAH dataset on https://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php because they haven’t updated it to UAH’s new version 6, which radically reduced the warming trend in the UAH record. I will not accuse the outspoken climate contrarians at UAH of “fiddling with the data” in order to “hide the warming,” because, to my knowledge, this hasn’t been shown to be the case, although it seems that independent scientists have so far been rebuffed in their attempts to obtain UAH’s new code. But either we accept all reputable scientific datasets (e.g., reputable, as in RSS, NASA and NOAA) as innocent until proven guilty or we accept none. On that basis, the surface datasets (NASA, NOAA etc.) all contradict your opening assertion/premise by showing warming in the range of approx. 0.1 to 0.15 per decade since 2000, albeit again with a wide margin of error (consistent with warming as high as 0.3 degrees/decade) because it can be no other way when estimating a trend in a small and noisy series of data points. All of which is to say that you’re off to a bad start, building a house of cards on a very shaky foundation.
Your whole argument fails.
Look at the cooling over the last 8,000 years. The trend is cooling. The globe is cooling. Why do you cherry pick a short time period and say it’s warming.
You rebutted nothing. All you did was some handwaving.
“Look at the cooling over the last 8,000 years. The trend is cooling. The
globe is cooling. Why do you cherry pick a short time period and say
it’s warming”
What you call cherrypicking in this context, scientists and realists call observing a statistically overwhelmingly significant and robust long-term warming trend. Yes, the planet has been cooling since the peak of the Holocene, as one might expect due to the Milankovich cycles which explain the glacial-interglacial rollercoaster we’ve been on for … longer than I can remember. But that makes the warming trend associated (temporally and causatively) with the anthopogenic effect of the industrial era all the more inexplicable due to natural variability.
The biggest portion of the anthropogenic increase in CO2 has occurred since the beginning of the Mauna Lua record in 1958 (red line). During that period, solar irradiance (blue line) has, if anything been on a downtrend. But surface temperature (green line) and all other indicators of global warming (ocean warming, cryosphere melting, sea level rise) have been on a tear.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/from/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:60/from/plot/sidc-ssn/normalise/mean:60/from
Starting in the early to late 1990s, no matter which surface or satellite dataset you use, you will not find a single prior year throughout the entire instrumental record, which dates back as far as 1850, from which there isn’t an increasingly statistically significant warming trend. In other words, the opposite of cherrypicking. Even from the middle of the mid-20th century “hiatus,” the statistical probability of warming is probably on the order of thousands to one. Go back all the way and it’s probably an order or two of magnitude greater. Yet during that entire period, measures of internal climate variability like the PDO and AMO (essentially of whether more or less heat is going into the oceans or the air) have had a flat trendline, as I’ve shown in a previous reply to you. And while solar irradiance increased slightly during the first half of the 20th century, it’s been net ~zero since then too.
Yes, I realize you have a few papers that purport to show that changes in cloud cover and other things have turned all these inferences on their head. I do hope to take a critical look at them later.
“But that makes the warming trend associated (temporally and causatively) with the anthropgenic effect of the industrial era all the more inexplicable due to natural variability.”
That’s a totally false statement because the warming trend since the beginning of the industrial era is fully explicable due to natural variability.
Your confirmation bias is causing you to rule out natural variability as a cause and accept the un-empirically validated CO2-is-the-primary-driver-of-climate hypothesis.
Natural climatic change happens on annual, decadal, centennial, and millennial scales. The biggest natural factor you are dismissing is the role of oceans in climatic change.
Nothings since then has changed regarding ocean cycles up to millennial time scales.
“The biggest portion of the anthropogenic increase in CO2 has occurred since the beginning of the Mauna Lua[sic] record in 1958 (red line).”
While it is correct that most of the a-CO2 increase has occurred since 1958, it is an assumption that the red line represents anthropogenic CO2 increases because the natural fluxes have never been measured with enough precision to rule out that the increase is significantly due to natural increases. Your assumption is based on there being no long term natural increase happening and assuming that the CO2 fluxes between land-atmosphere & land-ocean have been uniform on a regional and sub-regional level. But that’s a moot point because the CO2 hasn’t been empirically quantified to have shown any of the warming, plus over 1/3 of all the anthropgenic CO2 since 1750 has happened in the last ~19 years when there has been no warming, so it doesn’t matter how much of the CO2 is natural vs anthropogenic.
“During that period, solar irradiance (blue line) has, if anything been on a downtrend.”
Wrong. The blue line on your graph is not solar irradiance. It is sunspot numbers. Here is a TSI plot: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif
The dark blue line is the 11yr running average to remove the cyclicity of the sunspot phenomenon. You can see that the level of TSI remained high throughout the 20th century. Then you have to consider 1) the thermal inertia of the ocean which smooths the the shorter term solar variations and causes the solar radiation stored in the oceans over the last half of the 20th century to continue to be released into the atmosphere for some time after TSI drops and 2) what really matters is not TSI at TOA but at the surface and 3) TSI at TOA and solar radiation reaching the surface appear to be directly related “we find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variation is about 5 to 7 larger than just those associated with the TSI variations thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism.” – Shaviv(2008) ‘Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing’
“But surface temperature (green line) and all other indicators of global warming (ocean warming, cryosphere melting, sea level rise) have been on a tear. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/from/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:60/from/plot/sidc-ssn/normalise/mean:60/from “
Well, your graph does show that the CO2 increase follows surface temperature increase which is likely an accumulation of the short term ocean temperature driven increases in CO2, just as I showed Eric Adler. As discussed earlier the “tear” is stored solar radiation in the ocean being released into the atmosphere, not CO2 induced.
And you are wrong about those “other indicators”:
1) the ocean warming is caused by increased solar radiation, not CO2, as I showed Eric Adler.
2) cryosphere melting hasn’t “been on a tear” since 1958. Most of the melting happened during the early 1900 natural warming before anthropogenic CO2 became significant. And since the mid-1900s the record shows periods of increases and decreases consistent with cyclical natural temperature changes, and inconsistent with steadily rising CO2. Once again the signature shows natural variability. http://grid.unep.ch/glaciers/img/5-1.jpg
3) sea level rise has not been “on a tear”. Tide gauges which are the only common measurement method that can compare early 20th century vs. late 20th century SL rise rates, show lower rise rate in the late 20th century than the early 20th century.
– “The rate of sea level rise was found to be larger during the early part of the century (2.03 +/- 0.35 mm/yr 1904-1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 +/- 0.34 mm/yr, 1954-2003).” – Holgate(2007), ‘On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century’
– “we use 1277 tide gauge records since 1807 to provide an improved global sea level reconstruction and analyze the evolution of sea level trend and acceleration … The new reconstruction suggest a linear trend of 1.9 mm-yr^-1 during the 20th century, with 1.8 mm-yr^-1 since 1970.” – Jevrejeva(2014), ‘Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807’
And most of the that increase is due to the steric (temperature) component which is caused by solar radiation not CO2.
Your next point about “statistically significant warming” is irrelevant because it says nothing about causation.
“Yet during that entire period, measures of internal climate variability like the PDO and AMO (essentially of whether more or less heat is going into the oceans or the air) have had a flat trendline”
You’re missing the fact that the warming of the oceans does not all come right back out into the atmosphere. Some does, but some gets stored for later release so the effects can be felt for decades or centuries later.
“And while solar irradiance increased slightly during the first half of the 20th century, it’s been net ~zero since then too.”</i
It increased significantly not slightly as the TSI reconstruction graph showed. And the fact that it hasn’t changed since then just proves that it stayed at that high level throughout the rest of the 20th century, continuing to cause warming of both the ocean and the atmosphere.
“Yes, I realize you have a few papers that purport to show that changes in cloud cover and other things have turned all these inferences on their head.”
The increased solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface cause the other inferences/indicators such a ocean warming and steric SL rise. And the papers don’t purport, but DO show that reduced cloudiness caused the increase in solar radiative forcing during the late 20th century which were ~10 times greater than the increase in CO2 forcing.
You fired a lot of shots there but they were blanks. So your attempt to deny that the primary cause of the late 20th century warming was the 2.7 to 6.8W/m² of increased natural solar forcing reaching the Earth’s surface failed. It was ~10 times more than the increase in CO2 forcing of 0.4 to 0.8W/m².
The accuracy of satellite measurements of cloud cover is highly questionable. A survey of measurement methods and recommendations for the future was published in 2012.
http://www.wcrp-climate.org/documents/GEWEX_Cloud_Assessment_2012.pdf
The executive summary contains a section on measurements of long term variations.
“Longterm Variations
• Global interannual variability lies between 2 – 3% in cloud amount, 2.5 – 3.5% in relative high-level /
low-level cloud amount and 2 K in cloud temperature.
• Larger interannual variability (5%) is found for data sets with smaller instantaneous sampling coverage
(ATSR and MISR) and for data sets characterized by larger retrieval noise due to coarse spatial
resolution (100 km for TOVS Path-B).
• The most prominent feature in regional interannual variability seems to be linked to the El Niño
Southern Oscillation (about 10% in relative high-level cloud amount).
• ISCCP exhibits a slow variation over the time period (1984 to 2008) that is not reflected in any other
data set (with coarser time sampling). Detailed investigations (Annex 2) show that spurious changes in
calibration and sampling do affect the magnitude but do not eliminate this slow variation.
• At present, one can only conclude that global monthly mean cloud amount is constant over the last 25
years to within 2.5%, within the range of interannual variability.”
The last statement puts the papers on reduction in cloud cover quoted by RealOldOne2 in extreme doubt.
“The accuracy of satellite measurements of cloud cover is highly questionable. A survey of measurement methods and recommendations for the future was published in 2012. http://www.wcrp-climate.org/documents/GEWEX_Cloud_Assessment_2012.pdf “
There you go again behaving exactly like a doomsday cult zealot, denying reality and any empirical data that shows your predictions of doom and your flawed CO2 hypothesis are wrong. So sad that you are so ideologically blinded and duped by your climate cult religion.
” “• At present, one can only conclude that the global monthly mean cloud amount is constant over the last 25 years to within 2.5%, within the range of interannual variability.” The last statement puts the papers on reduction in cloud cover quoted by RealOldOne2 in extreme doubt.”
Sorry, but that final statement does no such thing. It actually confirms that the ISCCP cloud amount measurements are correct, because the statement is consistent with the NASA ISCCP graph that I have linked to and that the papers you don’t like use. It does NOT dispute the negative trend of reduced cloud amount over the late 20th century which has allowed more solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface. It merely states that you can put a mean value over that time frame and the variations have been within ±2.5%. A 5% change in global mean cloud cover is huge and has a several W/m² impact on the 168W/m² of average solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, as the papers that I cited show.
You also fail to mention the conclusions of Section 2 of your reference which was titled: “Investigation of Possible Artifacts in ISCCP Cloud Amounts” which stated in its entirety:
Contrary to your misrepresentation, the ISCCP data is vindicated, has not been retracted or “adjusted”(yet), and thus all the peer reviewed papers I cited which showed an increase in natural solar radiative solar forcing reaching the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century of 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² are NOT refuted.
The only thing is extreme doubt is your credibility. Well, not really as you have continued to give evidence that there is NO doubt that you are totally NOT credible, as you continue to deny empirical data, deny reality, misrepresent papers, and peddle your rubbish pseudoscience CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion.
ps. I can use that same clever wording of the executive summary to say:
Now, do you accept that as an accurate statement that puts the fact of the late 20th century “in extreme doubt”? LOL
Of course not, but they sure duped you because of your confirmation bias and ideological blindness. You are one sad delusional duped reality-denying climate cult fanatic Eric. Come to your senses. Face reality. Your CO2 warming is NOT happening. ~19 years, over 1/3 of all the human CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750 and it has caused NO WARMING of the Earth’s atmosphere.
I agree that it is that the cloud decrease trend has a non zero probability of being correct given the uncertainty in observation of cloud cover trend measurements.
It doesn’t make the probability of being correct very high.
You rewording of the executive summary is nonsense. Look at this statistical analysis of global temperature trends. You overestimate of the temperature uncertainty by inventing a number.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/recent-global-warming-trends-significant-or-paused-or-what/
Analysis of the global warming graph since the satellite observations began shows a trend of 0175+/-0.047 C/decade.
Hahaha. You’re being silly now, so all I can do is laugh at you.
Well, I agree that the increase in temperature trend has a non zero probability of being correct given the uncertainty in observation of temperature trend measurements too.
“You rewording of the executive summary is nonsense.”
No, it is exactly parallel to the statement about cloud cover. Why do you continue to deny reality? It merely makes you look like a delusional idiot or moron.
You dishonestly misrepresented the report, and now you’re in denial of that reality.
Your comments have demonstrated that you are a serial denier of reality.
You have been totally discredited, as you believe that 0.4W/m of CO2 forcing is greater than 4.0W/m of increased natural solar radiative forcing.
You have delusionally claimed that colder ghgs in the atmosphere transfer more heat into the oceans than the Sun does. I showed you irrefutable evidence that it can’t, unless you deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics like you do.
It’s impossible to have a rational discussion with someone why denies reality like you do. I reply to you merely because I enjoy exposing your dishonesty, ignorance and stupidity for the world to see that you delusional reality-denying climate cult fanatics who are crazier than mental ward lunatics.
You’re of insufficient capacity to grasp the satellite data.
The data are highly adjusted for time of day, channel and drift, then manipulated by computer model into temperature. UAH is on version 5.x, but have a v 6.4 in Beta.
Even the satellite people say the surface data are more reliable. As you know, because I’ve told you many, many times.
Your’e a good comedian, tho.
Best,
D
Trolling.
Weak flail. Pointing out that your preferred data are highly adjusted is not trolling.
Best,
D
Justin Data! Will the right’s new heartthrob finally be THE ONE to validate their self-identity?!?!?!?
Best,
D
You’re trolling.
Mod. This is Dano2’s typical behavior. He’s not a serious commenter.
I’m pointing out your trite argument.
Best,
D
Agreed.
What was the forecast rise ? .2C decade ? Not even close.
Trend after 1998 UAH ?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2015/detrend
–
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990/to:2015/detrend
–
No significant warming at all .
Sure. And the UAH trend since 1999: 0.154 ±0.172 °C/decade. Statistically, that’s very compatible with a 0.2/decade forecast. Even the 1998 trend of 0.083 ±0.183 °C/decade puts 0.2/decade well within its 95% probability margin of error. Simply put, the statistical power of these short, noisy (low long-term signal-to-short-term noise) periods – especially in the more volatile satellite record – is too weak to consistently document statistically significant warming (or cooling) over periods less than ~25 years. BTW, when you use a “to time” of 2015, you leave out all of the 2015 data, which increases the warming trend (e.g.: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to/detrend).
Here it is with all 2015.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2016
–
Quite an el Nino bump , next La Nina will pull that right down, won’t it ? Cooling Atlantic, a bit more too.
–
Say Syd,
If there is a significant warming trend .. Why has water vapor in the lower stratosphere declined to levels > 10% lower than the two decades prior to 1997/1998 ?
–
Urban et al 2014 page 2 Fig 1
–
Water vapor being a temp dependent variable and all . Models uniformly predicted an increase.
–
Quite a coincidence , water vapor decline simultaneous to the “hiatus” that did not occur ?
Here it is with all 2015.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2016
–
Quite an el Nino bump , next La Nina will pull that right down, won’t it ? Cooling Atlantic, a bit more cooling too.
–
Say Syd,
If there is a significant warming trend .. Why has water vapor in the lower stratosphere declined to levels > 10% lower than the two decades prior to 1997/1998 ?
–
Water vapor being a temp dependent variable and all . Models uniformly predicted an increase.
Can you link me to a reasonably up-to-date measure of lower stratosphere water vapour? Not sure if the drop reported in 2010 wasn’t just a speed bump, but even if it’s a sustained phenomenon, models predict a net increase in water vapour primarily in the troposphere where the bulk of the warming is occuring. If you can show evidence of a sustained drop in net atmospheric water vapour (troposphere and as far above that models predict heat>increased H2O), this would indeed seem to suggest that surface and/or satellite records that fail to reflect a commensurate slowdown in warming are wrong for that time period.
2014 . Urban et al , see fig 1 page 2 .
–
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EO270001/epdf
–
Note, lower stratosphere wv decline begins 97/98. sharp decline after 2000. atms wv reached the levels of prior decades to 1997/98 only once after 97/98 .
–
Solomon et al 2010 explains the significance to surface warming rates.
http://www.up.ethz.ch/people/plattner/Publications/solomon10sci_express.pdf
–
I had a link showing wv flatlined in the troposphere as well 98 on .Can’t find it at the moment.
I am curious about why the owner of this blog features a talk by Ian Gaiver at the Lindau conference of Nobel Prize winners, stressing the fact that he is a Nobel Prize winner, without a mention of the 35 Nobel Laureates in science also at the conference, issuing a statement about the dangers human caused climate change presents to humanity and the planet. They expressed respect for the IPCC 5th assessment of climate change and said the following:
http://www.lindau-nobel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Mainau-Declaration-2015-EN.pdf
..”Although there remains uncertainty as to the precise extent of climate change, the conclusions of the scientific community contained in the latest IPCC report are alarming, especially in the context of the identified risks of maintaining human prosperity in the face of greater than a 2°C rise in average global temperature. The report concludes that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the likely cause of the current global warming of the Earth. Predictions from the range of climate models indicate that this warming will very likely increase the Earth’s temperature over the coming century by more than 2°C above its pre-industrial level unless dramatic reductions are made in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases over the coming decades.
Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change. We believe that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions. This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessments. Failure to act will subject future generations of humanity to unconscionable and unacceptable risk .”
Thirty-five of the declaration’s signatories have been awarded a Nobel Prize in a scientific field, ranging from medicine to chemistry. The 36th signatory was Kailash Satyarthi, who was awarded the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in children’s rights.
Irrelevant obfuscation. You posted dozens and dozens of comments and you failed to rebut a single thing Dr. Giaever said. You made a total fool of yourself. Now you merely bleat your alarmist climate cult propaganda. So sad.
Readers:
Eric Adler has exposed himself on this blog as a scientifically illiterate climate cult zealot. He can’t refute arguments against him so he lies and denies. He denies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because he stated: “IR radiation emitted by the atmosphere does transfer heat into the ocean, and more heat than is transferred by the sun.”
The 2nd Law states that heat is transferred in only one direction, from warmer objects to colder objects. Eric denies the 2nd Law as he claims that colder ghgs in the atmosphere transfer heat into the warmer surface of the ocean. Even after I showed him a Columbia Univ. Earth & Environmental Science lecture ( http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html ) which stated that the only heat exchange process that added heat to the ocean is solar radiation, he refuses to admit that he is wrong. He claims that I don’t refute his arguments and that I post propaganda not science. That is absurd as here is the science that I posted: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2442563602
I rebutted his arguments here: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/#comment-2442754851
I also showed that during the late 20th century warming there was ~10 times more increased natural climate forcing at surface of the earth than there was increased CO2 forcing. Yet Eric claims that 0.4W/m² of increased CO2 forcing cause 110% of the late 20th century warming, while he claims that 4.1W/m² of increased solar radiative forcing caused cooling! Yes, he is that delusional.
Ignore him. If you choose to interact with him, I suggest you read Glenn Beck’s book “Arguing with Idiots” to prepare yourself.
1) I wasn’t aware of it. I saw this video on YouTube, thought it interesting, and shared it.
2) The purpose of FPJ is not to present the same views that we are bombarded with perpetually by the mainstream media, but to present reasonable alternative views to challenge mainstream media propaganda and provide an antidote to their failure to properly inform.
I was unaware that there is a dearth of Warming Denier videos, and right wing web sites which deny global warming.
If you really believe you are doing a service, two wrongs don’t make a right. If you are pumping up Gaiver’s views because he is a Noble Laureate, it would have put his views in a proper context to mention the Lindau declaration by 35 other Nobel Laureate scientists. That would put his challenge in some perspective.
I didn’t speak to that at all. Again, the mainstream media perpetually bombards the public with the “consensus” view of climate change while failing to properly inform of the debates taking place among scientists (indeed, speaking about the subject as though such debates don’t even exist). I established FPJ to help remedy the mainstream media’s failure to properly inform and expose people to the kinds of views that it won’t.
I can’t very well have mentioned the document not having been aware of it. And it is not as though it was somehow revelatory that Giaever is expressing views that are not mainstream (which goes right back to my point above about the media). But he is an intelligent person who makes many valid points.
The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail regularly tell people human caused climate change is a hoax. These seem like main stream media to me. Their views on climate change are hardly neglected on the internet.
“But he is an intelligent person who makes many valid points.”
If their validity was obvious, why would 35 Nobel Laureates at the conference have endorsed the IPCC’s document and welcomed the actions by the COP21 conference to combat human caused global warming? Are they stupid and uninformed? The fact is his arguments seem very shakey, based on many of the posts on this thread.
“why would 35 Nobel Laureates at the conference have endorsed the IPCC’s document…”
Because they have followed the groupthink pseusoscience, not empirical data which shows ~10 times more increase in natural solar radiative forcing reaching the Earth’s surface in the late 20th century than there was increase in CO2 forcing.
Actually the empirical evidence is stronger that aliens caused global warming than CO2 caused global warming. See below.
Are you arguing now that the views Giaever expresses are mainstream?
I would make the opposite case, that based on many of the posts on this thread, he makes many valid points.
Mankind has entered a new climate era: The Adjustocene
First quantum tunneling, now the dispatch of global warming propaganda. His contributions to society are incredible by any standard.
Hi friend Gold mercury glass vases add distinction with the look of metallic and mirrors. Blown double walls make gold mercury vases stand out with elegance. Perfect for today’s decorating styles, these vases, cups and votive holders will bring a unique flair for tables and gatherings. Our gold mercury vases have many options like as mercury silver pedestal bowl, mercury glass compote bowl, mercury glass urn, mercury pilsner vase etc. Available at SNK store. click here read more https://snkent.com/product-category/glass/vases/