UPDATED (see below)
Richard Lindzen is unarguably one of the top meteorologists in the world, with over 200 publications to his name, as well as awards, medals, prizes and is a member of the NAS, AAAS, AGU, AMS. He is The Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his work includes major contributions to our understanding of the Hadley Circulation, small scale gravity waves on the mesosphere, as well as atmospheric tides and oscillations in the tropical stratosphere. From the beginning, he has questioned the claims that there is a crisis due to carbon dioxide emissions, pointing out that even with the poor resolution of ice cores back in the 1980’s it was still evident that there was a lag—as temperatures declined, carbon stayed high for thousands of years, something which didn’t sit well with the idea that carbon had a strong and constant force on the climate.
What follows are his thoughts on the current state of the science. They must make it awkward for those who can’t help themselves but believe in authority. Here’s a man who knows more than most of us could ever hope to, and he clearly doesn’t agree with the theory, and backs up his thoughts by publishing peer reviewed papers. What a dilemma for those who don’t want to think for themselves but hope “authority” will do it for them. Which authority do they follow? Does it all boil down to counting up the PhD’s?
This piece was originally written for the German magazine, Numero, but after soliciting it, they decided against publishing it. Interestingly, they were originally in a great hurry to get it. Apparently their intention was to run it with an opposing piece by Schellnhuber. Schellnhuber backed out, and then so did the magazine. They apparently forgot to mention that to Dr Lindzen until he enquired, which doesn’t seem like a polite way to treat eminent authors.
Was there a good reason for Schellnhuber to back out, or was this a case of another alarmist who won’t debate? And of course, even without Schnellnhuber, the magazine could have printed Lindzens article anyway. How often does the media hold back an alarmist story because they lack a sceptical counterpart?
JoNova
A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action
Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.
The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.
…implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect…
For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface. Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man (Lindzen, 2007, Douglass et al, 2007). This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising (though inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community).
The larger predictions from climate models are due to the fact that, within these models, the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever CO2 does.
It turns out that there is a much more fundamental and unambiguous check of the role of feedbacks in enhancing greenhouse warming that also shows that all models are greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity. Here, it must be noted that the greenhouse effect operates by inhibiting the cooling of the climate by reducing net outgoing radiation. However, the contribution of increasing CO2 alone does not, in fact, lead to much warming (approximately 1°C for each doubling of CO2). The larger predictions from climate models are due to the fact that, within these models, the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever CO2 does. This is referred to as a positive feedback. It means that increases in surface temperature are accompanied by reductions in the net outgoing radiation – thus enhancing the greenhouse warming. All climate models show such changes when forced by observed surface temperatures. Satellite observations of the earth’s radiation budget allow us to determine whether such a reduction does, in fact, accompany increases in surface temperature in nature. As it turns out, the satellite data from the ERBE instrument (Barkstrom, 1984, Wong et al, 2006) shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative — strongly reducing the direct effect of CO2 (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) in profound contrast to the model behavior. This analysis makes clear that even when all models agree, they can all be wrong, and that this is the situation for the all important question of climate sensitivity.
As it turns out, the satellite data from the ERBE instrument … shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative
According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86 % of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2°C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man. This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years. Modelers defend this situation by arguing that aerosols have cancelled much of the warming, and that models adequately account for natural unforced internal variability. However, a recent paper (Ramanathan, 2007) points out that aerosols can warm as well as cool, while scientists at the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Research recently noted that their model did not appropriately deal with natural internal variability thus demolishing the basis for the IPCC’s iconic attribution (Smith et al, 2007). Interestingly (though not unexpectedly), the British paper did not stress this. Rather, they speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing warming to resume. Resume? Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past fourteen years is acknowledged. It should be noted that, more recently, German modelers have moved the date for ‘resumption’ up to 2015 (Keenlyside et al, 2008). Climate alarmists respond that some of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past decade. Given that we are in a relatively warm period, this is not surprising, but it says nothing about trends.
“…the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant.”
Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished. However, a really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature anomaly, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind. The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal (a leading modeler refers to it as essentially guesswork). Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring are almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts of famine for the 1980’s, global cooling in the 1970’s, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean. Much of this variation has to be independent of the global mean; otherwise the global mean would vary much more. This is simply to note that factors other than global warming are more important to any specific situation. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.
Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto.
In view of the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake. With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.
UPDATE:
There were legitimate questions raised about Lindzen and Choi’s paper in late 2009 (Trenberth 2010). Lindzen and Choi answered those criticisms, and the results were substantially the same (Lindzen and Choi 2010). They have done more work in Lindzen and Choi 2011 [link]. Though had an inordinate amount of trouble being able to get this groundbreaking, critical work published in the current biased “culture” that dominates science.
References
Barkstrom, B.R., 1984: The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE), Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 65, 1170–1185.
Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearsona and S. F. Singer, 2007: A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions, Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651
Keenlyside, N.S., M. Lateef, et al, (2008): Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector, Nature, 453, 84-88.
Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, (2009): On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, accepted Geophys. Res. Ltrs. [Link]
Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, (2010): “On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications“. [Link]
Lindzen, R., Choi, Y.S. (2011) On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications. Asian Pacific Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, in press. [link]
Lindzen, R.S., 2007: Taking greenhouse warming seriously. Energy & Environment, 18, 937- 950.
Ramanathan, V., M.V. Ramana, et al, 2007: Warming trends in Asia amplified by brown cloud solar absorption, Nature, 448, 575-578.
Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E. Taylor, T. M. L. Wigley, J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P. J. Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R. Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood, and F. J. Wentz, 2008: Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, Intl. J. of Climatology, 28, 1703-172
Smith, D.M., S. Cusack, A.W. Colman, C.K. Folland, G.R. Harris, J.M. Murphy, 2007: Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model, Science, 317, 796-799.
Trenberth et al 2010, Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation [Link]
Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov, 2007: A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288
Wong, T., B. A. Wielicki, et al., 2006: Reexamination of the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget using altitude-corrected ERBE/ERBS nonscanner WFOV Data, J. Climate, 19, 4028–4040.
UPDATED June 27 2011
Other posts about or by Richard Lindzen
You know,what is amazing with this Man and his credentials is how the people in Washington just brush him off. The more I study and read about this agenda, the more I realize “Money” IS the issue, not Science…I want to get sick and then go to Washington and knock some Heads together! Stay there until they listen intently to the “Realists” side!
20
hope you don’t get as frustrated as I do trying to do it Dennis
20
Now Lindzen has come out of the closet. It will be interesting to see how many more scientists tell it like it is.
10
Jo,
Thank you for posting this.
Wherever carbon limiting legislation is enacted into law, there will likely be a tremendous backlash against the politicians when the public realizes that they’ve been taken for a ride. Imagine what will happen when the carbon trading bubble bursts 10 or 15 years down the road.
10
I assume the ’10’ in “the contribution of increasing CO2 alone does not lead to much warming (approximately 10C for each doubling of CO2)” is a typo?
10
[…] URL: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/27/a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/ […]
20
Steve @ 4: You must not have the same font set installed as I — I see 1 “degree symbol” C, where you see 1 “zero” C.
It’s not a typo, just a misdisplay on your computer. The “extra” zero is just the small “o” symbolizing “degree”.
10
BTY: Wonder how long we will have to wait for some of the brave trolls to take on Lindzen, his credentials, and his peer-reviewed references?
I realize that not being able to think for yourself is a handicap here, but surely there is some slander you can cut and paste from RealClimate?
10
When it becomes known that climate change is natural, which is inevitable, and that our economy has been destroyed as the result of this climate change legislation, there will be a backlash not against the politicians who put such laws in place, but against all scientists and not just the alarmists.
10
Well stated, JayKay, well stated!!
Brian, maybe we need to combine “Our” energies together and take to Washington! Or maybe just sue the pants off these guys to block this Bill! What do you think?
Jo, I agree with Mike, post 3, thank you! Forgive me for my manners are slipping…My Frustration is showing like Brians…
10
Jay Kay: yes the backlash against science in general is one of the more worrisome outcomes for me too. The AGW apocalyptics will never stop chanting a doom-around-the-corner catechism, even in their old age when the evidence ought to be a monument to their flaky quackery. In the eyes of true Believers, prophets aren’t wrong, just ahead of their time. And if we do start hearing here and there a mumbled “whoops, we got that wrong”, can we expect the masses to not simply revert to a generalised cynical mistrust and disrepect for institutions of rational analytical thinking?. In that context, humbuggery and charlatans will have free rein. How do we relight the Enlightenment when (bad) science invented a loud-hailer for Chicken Little?
10
Many skeptics, including Jo, have recognized that the AGW hysteria is not science, but religion in the garb of science. Therefore, why not fight it on that basis? Here in the US, the First Amendment of the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That would seem to settle the matter — if only the adherents of this new religion would admit to the truth of its essential nature. Of course, they haven’t and they won’t, while our governments, institutions, and corporations choose to believe the pseudoscientific AGW doctrine because it advances their own interests. How, then, can we prove on a legal basis, “beyond all reasonable doubt,” that AGW constitutes a system of religious belief, and it would therefore be unconstitutional for Congress to pass laws forcing non-believers to adopt its practices?
10
There are things we can do. It’s obvious we can’t wait for the media to overcome it’s poor training in logic and reason, or it’s weakness in the face of bullying, but thanks to the internet we can still reach a lot of voters. Please, email your friends when you find useful pages. Talk at dinner parties. Spread the word, and with the utmost of manners, just speak up. I’ve noticed that – apart from the religious believers – once I make it openly known that I’m unconvinced by the AGW claims, many other people suddenly admit they are suspicious too. A phase shift is coming. Many people merely need the confidence to know that in polite company they can speak their mind without fear of mocking put-downs. Don’t wait for the phase shift in opinion. Help create it. We need to move fast.
Let me know if you want copies of the Skeptics Handbook to give out.
As for suggestions of pages to email, site stats tell me the postage stamp page http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/03/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges/ has reached a different crowd (41,000 so far), and is the most popular post on this site. Akasofu’s graph is close behind (36,000). http://joannenova.com.au/2009/04/03/global-warming-a-classic-case-of-alarmism/.
We got lots of traffic here through the act of one or two people putting both those pages above on StumbleUpon. Social networking works. Naturally that applies to your favourite posts from all the best skeptics sites.
Steve, I’ve fixed the ambiguous 1°C. Hopefully, it should display properly all round. Thanks for pointing that out.
Remember, each person you contact might contact two more — exponential growth, as well as empirical evidence, is on our side.
10
Thank you Joanne, you’re a public servant.
I’m not “suspicious” about AGW of course – that is a done deal. The idea is outright fabrication, the product of absolutley specious application of “science.”
I’m suspicious of global warmers
– and their motives
10
I would like to know how I can contact (email) Joanne
Chuck Lichon, Michigan
10
What is so difficult here in the UK is that the BBC is utterly biased on this issue towards the un-questioning. If it were more critical of its sources – may I even say more sceptical – there would be some chance of the truth being promulgated.
10
[…] Richard Lindzen is one of the world’s top meteorologists but the climate alarmist crowd do not want to listen to him. Most recently a German Magazine, Numero, asked him to write a piece and also asked John Schellnhuber to write an opposing piece. Schellnhuber is the German government’s Chief Advisor on climate change but he backed out so Numero decided to not publish Richard Lindzen’s article. However, Lindzen agreed to publish on Joanne Nova’s site here. […]
10
freelance, you can contact Jo by email – try the ‘about’ tab.
Tony, there are small cracks appearing in the BBC’s climate hysteria, see Richard Cable’s “Blog of Bloom” , see also the recent critical remarks by Peter Sissons, (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199006/PETER-SISSONS-I-drove-Television-Centre-final-time-month–I-dont-pang-regret.html) which unfortunately he couldn’t say until he was retiring.
I’m fairly happy that the message is getting across, though we all need to maintain our efforts .
I share JayKays concern – there could be a backlash against all science with the result that when there is a genuine environmental crisis, people wont believe that either.
A great essay from Lindzen. Almost a skeptics handbook in itself. He is so right and he expresses it so well.
10
Tony, the BBC is reluctant (to say the least) to even ADMIT there is any valid questioning of dangerous man-made climate change because of the beliefs of the following entities
– The Royal Family (the Price of Wales in particular)
– HM Government
– The Royal Societies of London and Edinburgh
In this case I don’t know “who is trying to please whom” with all of this but I do know that the Government has instituted a culture that makes it seem un-British to question it
10
Joanne correct Price to Prince for me please in the last
10
God bless him. For all his degrees and all his well intentioned scientific research and writing on the topic, Richard Lindzen has failed to learn one simple fundamental lesson:
You can’t save people from themselves
What is it that makes otherwise healthy people submit themselves to self destruction via alcohol or drugs? What is it that makes happy husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, throw away family and domesticity for one casual sexual fling? What is it that attracts promising young adults to suicide?
Humans have an innate attraction to self destruction and self destructive behavior. To outsiders looking in it seems incomprehensible, but beneath the surface there are competing subconscious mechanisms at work. That is the beauty and insanity of the human mind. It is so complex and capable, yet itself willing to buck its programming for a little shot feelgood juice.
Hannibal Lecter was profound when he said “what need does it fulfill?” I have often wondered this about alarmists. What need does this unrelenting desire to save that which does not need saving fulfill? What need does this cognitive dissonance to the obvious underlying objective of government control of everything, fulfill? What need does this total submission to government and authority fulfill?
I don’t know for sure, but what I can say is it is not simply a need to better understand the mechanisms driving our climate. This is where I feel Lindzen is expending a lot of wasted effort. Careful, concise and comprehensive as his studies are, ultimately they are falling upon deaf ears. This issue is far beyond one of simple scientific truth and thus no amount of scientific truth will serve to put this hoax to sleep. Thanks anyway Richard. You are an asset and hero to real scientists. But here you are facing forces beyond even your comprehension…
10
Han Jameson: post 21;
“This issue is far beyond one of simple scientific truth and thus no amount of scientific truth will serve to put this hoax to sleep. Thanks anyway Richard. You are an asset and hero to real scientists. But here you are facing forces beyond even your comprehension…”
Han, I think he has a very good handle on the forces arrayed against him. The statements below were excerpted from the last paragraph of his paper.
“The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear.
So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself.
Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth.
Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further
Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. ”
I don’t think that any of this is some kind of conspiracy I just think it is an unfortunate confluence of interests between politicians, environmentalists, and climate scientists. For politicians this carbon cap and trade is the stuff dreams are made of. Just think of the raw power these politicians will wield, it will make the power to tax pale in comparison. Goldman Sachs will jump on anything that could make money that’s what they do; they would sell pet rocks if they could turn a profit doing so. We can’t really blame them it’s in their DNA. I have no idea what makes the rabid environmentalist tick, they are an alien life form as far as I can see. They just seem to want to knock civilization back to the late 1800’s and then take bets on how many people need to die each year until it stabilizes.
The fact that he does seem to know the forces (not trivial) that are against him says a great deal about his sense of integrity.
10
Joanne why post this when Richard Lindzen is soo so out of date Keenlyside forecasts warming to resume in 2115 try Swanson & Tsonis (2009) they expect warming to resume in 2020. With further research and improved models I confidently expect to see 2030 and beyond in the near future. Guess then they will have to say three decades of temp data is not enough to discredit AGW theory
10
If that Keenlyside and so on forecasting isn’t the worst example of cover your backend for your misdeeds then I don’t know what is.
This goes way beyond the ordinary juvenile delinquent invention of preposterous stories as alibis for their misdemeanours. This disgrace is a class of its own.
I hope they have done themselves in with this one, and if the Public can’t see through it then they never will.
My scathing essay on this felony hucksterism wasn’t accepted for publication on Real Climate.
Imagine that! .
10
Getting Brian angry is too good to resist 🙂
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study
Award for most precious statement:
Translation: their prediction was big (and wrong), but we can predict even bigger!
Award for scariest comment goes to:
How to go about a dialog with such people?
*SIGH*
Might be a good time to start teaching science to the next generation. At very least teach them scepticism and critical analysis. What we really need is an education system.
10
We indeed have our education system already, and it features such masterwork of Ms Laurie David’s books for children.
10
Note that Ms David and I both identify ourselves as “global warming activists.”
It’s remarkable how much we have in common, when I think about it.
10
Do you feel like you’re wasting your life, Robert f Kennedy Jr?
Our generation faces the greatest moral and political crisis in human history. Will we take the steps necessary to avert catastrophic global warming or will we doom our children to a new Dark Ages in a world that is biologically and economically impoverished and defined by ever diminishing quality of life. According to the grimmest forecasts, extreme global warming could give us a future where erratic and chaotic weather, rising sea levels, and melting snowpack usher in an epic of drought, crop failure, famine, flood and mass extinctions — and the political instability that invariably accompanies dwindling resources. Millions of environmental refugees uprooted by these calamities will challenge the existence of democracy, freedom, justice and human dignity in every corner of the globe. Our grandchildren may look longingly at our era as the apex of civilization and human progress.
10
Tel, from your link, I have a runner up for scariest comment.
“Deniers are irrelevant. What is important is how to slow the rise in the earth’s temperature. We need a global dictator to enforce policies that work and as the chance of this happening is zero the future looks warm for us all.”
Do they still teach any history in school anymore??
10
Ray: Do they still teach any history in school anymore??
If they do, it is post modern history. From that perspective, one cannot really know what happened or why. All you can do is make up a good story that is consistent with your culture/class/party/whim. Its all based upon perception is reality. If you want it to be thus and so hard enough, it will be thus and so.
Its interesting that history never really got the word that its simply a matter of arbitrary opinion. Hence we are doomed to re-experience the hard learned but soon forgotten lessons that history has taught us. Like it or not, reality is real and there is not a damn thing we can do about it except go along with what it is.
10
The deck is definitely stacked against those of us who know that while the AGW effect is finite, it’s far too small to justify a multi trillion dollar experiment to see if we can use it for climate control purposes. Ignorance, politics, money and agendas all contribute to this, none of which has any place in a scientific discussion In the final analysis, AGW will eventually go the way of the flat Earth hypothesis, as the scientific truth will alway prevail, even when the truth is not obvious. In fact, the scientific truth is already known, but this truth just hasn’t gotten past the firewall of ignorance, politics, money and agendas holding it back. The real climate question is how much harm will be done before science eventually prevails.
Part of the problem is that it’s far too easy to rip apart the AGW pseudo science causing too much time to be spent debunking the same things over and over. While this may sway some, it causes others to entrench further and it does nothing to fill the hole currently filled by AGW. People, it seems, want to believe in something, so there must be more of an effort to divine how the climate really works and to rally around this.
There must also be a concerted effort to modify the opinions of legislators, or at least raise reasonable doubt, which is a concept most of them can wrap their head around. All of the politicians who bothered to reply to my demand that due diligence is an obligation owed to the people before spending trillions on policies that many smart people believe will fail, stated in their response that the science is conclusive and that man is causing climate change that must be stopped at all costs. This perception must be changed and I encourage others to write to your representatives and even your president/PM or dictator (BTW, Obama did answer with the typical science is a done deal claim) and demand some due diligence. While few are likely to be flipped, it’s not a futile effort and will establish an email trail that can be retrieved via the FOI act when those politicians later claim that they had no idea that AGW could possibly be wrong. Besides, repetition of the truth works just as well as the repetition of lies, relative to the perception of what the truth is.
George
10
The grimmest forecasts could give us chaotic weather.
How sad.
10
I want weather to stay like it is (or was).
I’m anti-chaotic weather.
10
Ray
We do have a global dictator it called the climate system and it simple refuses to listen to, well anyone.
I hope the Victorian government here in Oz does the same. They are currently being lobbied to shelve plans to upgrade infrastructure and facilities in the ski fields seems we are going to run out of snow in the near future.
There is evidence of course. Recorded temps have risen sharply in Falls Creek moving the station from the snow line to the valley for easier access is probably coincidence.
10
Allen, could you please reconstruct you statement with a bit less nuance; I am totally confused by your statement regarding my post 29. I’m a Yank we don’t do nuances. I don’t know where OZ is and I don’t ski. I’m not trying to be flip, I just don’t have the foggiest notion what exactly you are trying to say.
10
Ray, Oz the the land down under your feet.
Some nice people like Joanne and Anne Kit live there.
10
Thanks Brian for the clarification. Where did Australia get that moniker from?
10
from Oz-Traial-ya I should imagine
10
My own great grand father had lived there for some years by the way. He was a mining and mineral speculator.
He referred to it only as “The Colony,” as such it was
10
This whole thread on Oz and Australia sent me on a quest to find that song “Down Under” by “Men at Work” and that lead me to try to find a source for vegemite. I used to love that stuff when I was a kid. I guess I should take my meds before this gets out of hand, huh?
10
Why anyone would eat fertiliser on bread baffles me to this day
10
Your right it’s so much better on crackers.
10
Ray sorry for the confusion. I am rarely able to keep to a subject or remain comprehensible. I put this down to to much vegemite and veering into trees, with or without skis.
10
We’re happy little Vegemites
As bright as bright can be.
We all enjoy our Vegemite
For breakfast, lunch, and tea.
Our mother says we’re growing
stronger every single week.
Because we love our Vegemite
We all adore our Vegemite
It puts a rose in every cheek!
10
Add a dash of salt, cinnamon, sweeter, and lots of coco to fresh ground peanut butter and you have something that looks like Vegemite but tastes like a chocolate peanut butter candy bar. Its wonderful on buttered toast. Its almost the thicker the better.
I have never tried Vegemite so I can’t really make a comparison to anything other than the visual appearance of a dark brown to black thick paste.
10
Take a beef bullion cube and a little sugar and chew on it.
That is Vegemite.
10
Industrial Waste Recycling
Vegemite is spent brewer’s yeast with a little flavouring added.
in the US, Milorganite is brewer’s sewerage, stabilised, and sold as fertiliser.
I think the two processes are actually one and the same.
[Apologies to singers of the Vegemite song.]
10
Brian stop, your making me hungry.
10
I have to say that recently I have seen a noticeable uptick in the number of articles disputing global warming. This is the second in just a few days on Drudge.
This article is on Ian Plimer.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html
Additionally when I do see Global warming articles on the web the comments are running decidedly against the position. This is of course not present to as great a degree when the article is on a global warming site. But when it’s just some online paper outlet opposition is definitely growing.
I want to repeat this is just my perception when browsing these articles.
I hope I am not being too hopeful.
10
ummph. Drudge is Drudge, and he is not to the left of USA Today, for example
10
Uncle Dick – As it turns out, the satellite data from the ERBE instrument (Barkstrom, 1984, Wong et al, 2006) shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative — strongly reducing the direct effect of CO2 (Lindzen and Choi, 2009)
Not strong enough to prevent temps 0.75′c above industrialisation, and I do not know of any natural systems where feedback can be greater than the direct disturbing force, or even balancing the forcing (static friction might come close).
Uncle Dick – Rather, they speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing warming to resume. Resume? Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past fourteen years is acknowledged.
Cheeky. We all know variability can be part of several factors operating at once. i.e. CO2 acting to warm the planet while say ocean oscillations and snow fall variance and volcanic eruptions periodically cause some cooling through various delayed positive and negative feedbacks. etc, etc …
Meanwhile the world continues to warm.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
— A map of global temperature trends shows warming.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2008&month_last=12&sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=1880&year2=2008&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
— The global ground weather station network shows warming:
These data are from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
The yearly means of these data are graphed here:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Global%20Mean%20Temp.jpg
These data come from the UK’s Hadley Centre:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
The yearly means of these data are graphed here:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadCRUT3gl.jpg
— The Sea Surface Temperature, or SST, record
Here, from Hadley Centre, are the global sea surface
temperatures from 1850 to 2008. Please see:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadsst2gl.txt
The yearly means of these data are graphed here:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/HadSST2gl.jpg
— Two balloon records show this same surface level warming:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ratpac/index.php
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ratpac/index.php?name=ratpac-a
The data are found in the “year” and “surf” columns of the “GLOBE”
section of this file:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ratpac/ratpac-a/RATPAC-A-annual-levels.txt
These very robust global yearly mean ground data are graphed here:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RATPAC-A-Balloon.jpg
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/angell/global.dat
These global yearly mean ground data are graphed here:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Angell-Balloon.jpg
— The satellite record, in all its current interpretations,
shows that the air near the surface is warming too.
For background on the satellite temperature proxy please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
The URL below is one of the more conservative records
from the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
The global data are graphed here:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/UAH-MSU.jpg
The Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere (TLT) analysis
shows a 0.15K/Decade rise over the land and sea.
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_2.txt
The data from 82.5N to 70S are graphed here:
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/RSS-MSU.jpg
— The record of sea ice melting:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/n_plot.html
— The glacier retreat record:
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
— The bore hole record:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
— Rising sea level:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.jpg
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
10
What happens when managers of professional societies write stupid letters in their society bulletins?
This is what happens
10
Brian took a look at your links to the letter and the comments on C&EN. Of those that stated their position clearly on the matter I counted 22 against the editors’ letter and 2 in support. Now as far as the science is concerned I’m not going to make much of this fact. It does however point out the Global Warming crowd is not going to have its own way as much as it has in the past. The more they push on this cap and trade the more people will decide to take a look, out of self interest, and find the same thing all skeptics have. As the skeptic message gets out more and more at some point the mainstream media will have an uncomfortable decision to make. Will they stick with the Global Warmers or will they flip to the other side and make the new story how global warming is a tremendous hoax? Given the spinal content of the media I’m betting on the later.
During my reading of the comments I came across a reference that they are now claiming ocean acidification because they have data that the oceans have gone from 8.2 to 8.1 ph. Are they serious? Trying to measure a 0.1ph change in a sample as huge as the Ocean? I remember doing ph readings in a previous life and I always considered it one of the more imprecise tests I performed in a lab. The probes would drift; it was a bit of a judgment call when to consider the reading stable. I searched but could not locate any discussion of sampling which when you consider it’s the freaking Ocean had to be monumental. Another question for me is where they were getting their sample for what it was ‘before’ we came along, where did they get that ancient sea water sample?
Thanks for putting that out there. It Gives us all a little reason to hope.
10
Ray,
The ocean acidification issue is another red herring. One claim I’ve seen is based on partial pressure analysis, which is only valid at the surface, yet applied to it’s entire volume. The oceans are somewhat alkaline anyway. Any acidification would be the result of rain, which has enough surface area to become acidified (i.e, acid rain). In any event, acid rain is a bigger factor than CO2, relative to the pH of the oceans.
George
10
Allen veering into trees is not recommended, but vegemite is good even if Brian does not share my affection for it.
10
co2isnotevil post 53;
George, you mean it isn’t even based on any direct measurement just on the partial pressure of CO2?
Even in the case of acid rain I would expect that the buffering capacity in the Ocean is anything but trivial. That is conjecture on my part correct me if I am mistaken.
10
Ray veering into trees is recommended if they are covered in vegemite and I am sure that Brian loves it, at least as much as he loves warmers. Brian I think the song is more like this
We’re happy little warmers
As bright as bright can be.
We enjoy our funded fanaticism
For breakfast, lunch, and tea.
Our mother says we’re getting
stranger every single week.
Because we love to torture data
and give stats a good tweek
and get a big pay packet each and every week!
10
Allen you’re a poet and didn’t know it!
10
HA ha ha
10
Some of these comments in response to Baum’s letter were so grand I felt compelled to copy them here
… a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!
He denigrates as foolish and ignorant folks who do not swallow the global warming hypothesis and his comments are rather arrogant.
I can limit my response to the diatribe of the editor-in-chief in the June 22 edition of C&EN to one word: Disgusting.
I take great offense that he would use C&EN, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax. Thanks for reading.
10
Ray – During my reading of the comments I came across a reference that they are now claiming ocean acidification because they have data that the oceans have gone from 8.2 to 8.1 ph. Are they serious?
I pray not, since Bluff Oysters are my favourite.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/2409407/Global-warming-may-hurt-oysters
Global warming could put Bluff oysters at risk from a new marine threat as
acidity levels in oceans continue to rise, according to scientists.
A Royal Society of New Zealand report says concerns exist about ocean
acidification and its potential, within decades, to severely affect marine
organisms, food webs, biodiversity, and fisheries.
[…]
10
Here is my own:
Mr Baum’s editorial in the 22 June edition of C&EN was atrocious, politically partisan, and served no good purpose other than to demonise anyone who questions the hoax and circus that has become “man-made global warming.”
I have been an ACS member for more than 20 years, but I regret that I am compelled to resign my membership forthwith unless Mr Baum writes a suitable retraction in the C&EN.
Yours sincerely,
Brian G Valentine PhD PE
Washington, DC USA
10
Daemon,
Let’s apply some man-in-the-street common sense to your concerns.
As Dr Plimer repeatedly states, ocean acidification is IMPOSSIBLE because there is more than enough mineral dissolved in the ocean to neutralise all the CO2 in the air.
Now if Oysters fix CO2 in the ocean as carbonate in their shells, then how is it possible that Oysters will fare WORSE if there is more CO2 available for them?
No hand waving, no double talk, nothing, just a common sense response to a question that appears to have no common sensical refutation?
10
The problem with fear is, people will invent all sorts of fantastical ways for their fears to be realised, no matter how improbable (or impossible) it is for the situation to occur.
No one would give any of this the least consideration unless someone had instilled unfounded fears in the first place
10
Daemon,
Your statistics and “data” presented under 51 are ALL misleading, misinterpreted, or just plain out and out wrong.
Considerable labour is involved in writing all of that out, which I refuse to do with no return.
What will you give in return if I prove it to be as I say?
Answer the question directly or say no more.
10
Uncle Dami,
“Meanwhile the world continues to warm.”
No it doesn’t, that’s the point, see any of the data sources you cited, for example
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
produced by arch-warmist James Hansen.
If you want to learn about the subject, read Jo’s handbook, not wikipedia.
10
And PLEASE don’t just walk away from my question above and just put out some more “statements” Daemon
YOU’RE the one who put that stuff up for consideration and I’m getting tired of this ‘throw it out there and then just throw some more out no comment’ game
10
Joanne,
Thanks for posting this article … I’m linking to it from WEBCommentary’s “Climate Change” page and also as a Guest Article. I’ll also be emailing many friends a link to this piece.
I’ve followed Lindzen for years and he has consistently been a shining example of a truly exceptional scientist, unlike Hansen whose behavior reflects the worst abuses of science by a scientist. Michael Mann could give Hansen a close race for least ethical scientist. I suspect there are far more Lindzen scientists than Hansen scientists, but thanks to incompetent and/or biased media, just the opposite impression has been left with the public.
But the public is catching on. Gore is increasingly seen as a laughing-stock. Hansen’s antics seem to be catching up with him. Mann has abused the good name of science once too often and shredded his credibility beyond repair.
I’ve always maintained that when people get wise to the magnitude of this costly “climate change” scam, they’ll respond with such outrage that alarmist reporters, scientists, and politicians won’t be able to find a rock big enough under which to hide.
Last summers outcry at the APS’s treatment of Christopher Monckton, the AMS’s position at odds with membership, and now the ACS is embroiled in membership outrage — all examples that illustrate how so many scientists (and others) have “had it” with this nonsense and will not tolerate any attempt by politicians to destroy economies by nonsensical “cap and trade” schemes that don’t even guarantee reducing the growth of the alarmist’s bogeyman, atmospheric CO2!
Best,
Bob Webster
10
Damien post 61: “Ray – During my reading of the comments I came across a reference that they are now claiming ocean acidification because they have data that the oceans have gone from 8.2 to 8.1 ph. Are they serious? “
The above quote of mine you referenced is a bit out of context. It gives the impression that I am somehow alarmed at a 0.1 decrease in ph. I am not. I do not know if this was your intent or just an accident. What I am alarmed at is that any scientist would try to say that a 0.1 ph unit is significant in any way when addressing something as vast as the OCEANS OF A PLANET.
Ph measurements are more than a bit tricky. I’ve done more then my share. Never felt that confident about any of them within a 0.1 ph unit that is. This doesn’t even to begin to address the sampling problem that determining the ph of the OCEANS OF A PLANET present. The point is that they could just as easily repeat this experiment and get 8.2 again and it would not surprise me if they got 8.3 for that matter.
Damian, the point of the matter I think is this. I get the impression that you think that anything man does that may change his environment in any way by any amount is, by that fact and that fact alone bad. I would suggest to you that nature is not nearly as fragile as you believe. The universe has pummeled her with meteors and frozen her in solid ice. She shrugs these things off. Compared to these things we don’t amount to ants building sandcastles on a beach.
10
No confidence within measurements of +/- 0.1 pH units, BECAUSE, it is a logarithm
(folks have a very difficult time with that one).
Daemon keeps throwing any and all alarmist trash out there he sees on the internet (and guess what there’s no paucity of it there), Daemon doesn’t say why he believes it, his only response is some more of it.
Let him comment on some of it.
Speak up, Daemon, or shut up.
[Trash talk around here? Daemon knows all about “trash talk” – don’t you, Daemon.]
10
Not My Valentine – Your statistics and “data” presented under 51 are ALL misleading, misinterpreted, or just plain out and out wrong.
I disagree, but if you care to elaborate maybe we can discuss it.
In the meantime you need to calm down and take a chill pill dude.
10
Ray – The above quote of mine you referenced is a bit out of context.
Sorry not intended. For once I hope you are right. God save Bluff Oysters!
Have you had the pleasure of eating them?
10
Sorry to come across as an “alarmist” Daemon – Your remarks directed at DE (I read that) put me in a poor mood every time I see your name.
You dig, dude?
Got it?
10
So now, Daemon, if you get some stuff you don’t appreciate at first, I’m assuming that you like the taste of it – because, you seem quite willing and able to throw it out there yourself.
Dude, so what do you think?
Chill? Or what?
10
People’s memories are short on what they do to people, and long on what is done to them. JUVENAL Satires IV(1)
10
Damien post 72:
Your Bluff Oysters and your gastronomic proclivities are as safe as a baby in its mothers arms.
I like my oysters raw with some hot sauce. Doubt your oysters would travel that far well enough to eat raw. If I ever get down under I will remember to try them, till then I’ll stick to the New England or the New Orleans brand name.
10
Brian its good to see you are back to your feisty best I was getting a bit worried.
Ray I like my oysters raw with a touch of lemon juice rock salt and fresh ground pepper.
Damien is an active little critter he has more links that the gold chain of your average gangsta rapper perhaps he has his oysters with undiluted red cordial.
10
Damian #51,
You’ve done it again. All those links, yet the best you an possibly show is that the world has warmed a bit. None of them give us any information about whether CO2 caused that warming.
Worse, wasn’t it you who calculated on another thread (http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/19/the-unwarming-world/) that there is no statistically significant trend since 1995?
29 links to make one irrelevant non-significant point?
At this rate, people will start to say you are a stooge for skeptics.
10
Jo – None of them give us any information about whether CO2 caused that warming.
True. But you can do a first order approximation of the effect of CO2.
Which is responsible for about 3.7′ of warming at the earth’s surface out of a temperature difference from absolute zero of 300′. Currently CO2 levels have risen about 40% and 40% of 3.7’C = 1.5’C of which .74’C has been observed, due to the delayed heating of the ocean.
To get a second order approximation you have to add all of the feedbacks through numerical modeling. And of course, this is where we quibble …
10
1. Your “CO2 levels risen 40%” are, the result of emergence from the LIA. Whether or not “humans” have been “polluting the atmosphere with CO2.”
2. Now you’ve taken one person’s number for the influence of “the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.” Go back and show us where the person who put that number out there claims that temperature increses that arise ar a result of this “forcing” are proportional to composition of the atmosphere.
3. Go back and show us what the person has assumed the contribution of water vapour to the “greenhouse” has assumed. [sans feedback.]
So the issue you raise is not exactly where “we” quibble.
And that ain’t all what we have to quibble about. Dude.
10
Don’t you wish I would just go away, Daemon?
I’m your REWARD, Daemon!
I’m your reward for you, doing your “you” thing,, on the Internet!
10
Now, what is it I am expecting?
Why – I am expecting threats to do a “number” on me on the Internet someplace of course, and I wish I had a dollar for each of these I have received.
Then I would have a source of income to help to balance the “lopsided” funding situation of climate alarmism.
10
Note the continued use of the Kolker Reset by our beloved Daemon. Its as if nothing had been said about his postings.
He continues to pile irrelevant detail on top of irrelevant detail pretending it proves something. While all the time he holds that science proves nothing and deals only with probabilities. Which means he knows nothing, scientists know nothing, and nobody knows anything. Everyone is just guessing. Especially Daemon.
I am more than willing to accept this is the case for him and his significant others. However, in face of the huge advance in technological civilization and the quality of life of its citizens over the past few hundred years, there is PROOF that we actually do know something. That knowledge is certain beyond anything but a totally insane delusion. It is not probably right and possibly wrong. It is absolutely right.
The primary problem is that such as Daemon equates an arbitrary off the wall bullshit statement with acutally knowing something. Then, when it doesn’t work, they say “See, science doesn’t work.” They are neither using reason nor science. They are pretending that their minds create reality and when it doesn’t, its reality that is wrong.
10
The response is to throw some more links out there, hoping that one of them, possibly, is a magic wand.
I shouldn’t get harsh at Daemon for what he quotes.
I would guess that the authors of the studies he quotes couldn’t answer my questions either.
10
The Kolker Reset is just a response the mind applies when it has reached a point where either no conclusion is possible along the lines of current reasoning, or a conclusion that conflicts with a previous conclusion, has been reached.
Just push the RESET button.
And see if you can get a line of reasoning that will get you to the conclusion that was originally intended.
(Or desired.)
10
Daemon,
The first order approximation of the warming caused by 3.7 W/m^2 doubling CO2) is 0.67C, according to the first principles physical law relating temperature and energy/power. Anything more than that requires assumptions that are not supported by either the physics or the data.
The current anthropogenic CO2 causes at most, less than 0.5C warming. There is no ‘deferred’ warming as the oceans have already adapted to the slow increase in forcing power caused by increased GHG. The physics and data precludes the idea of deferred warming.
George
10
The oceans are still responding to the emergence from the LIA.
The oceans are DEEP.
Promise.
10
I’m leaving for a week on travel. ‘Till then, Joanne and all
É noho ra.
10
allen mcmahon post 77:
“Ray I like my oysters raw with a touch of lemon juice rock salt and fresh ground pepper.”
That sounds good I’ll have to try it. When I use the hot sauce I don’t usually have my favorite brew Guinness, the two flavors don’t go well together but it might work with something light and simple like salt, pepper, and lemon.
10
Brain, have a good trip.
10
It was the IPCC who increased the CO2 figures to support their prognosis but it has taken some to time get this information. Nigel Lawson was right on the ball when he said that the IPCC should be wound up as they are not scientists but politicians desirous of promoting a cause and not accurate science.
10
CO2ISEVIL – The first order approximation of the warming caused by 3.7 W/m^2 doubling CO2) is 0.67C, according to the first principles physical law relating temperature and energy/power.
From the article above – “approximately 1°C for each doubling of CO2”
So not even the approximation in Lindzen’s article agrees with you.
CO2ISEVIL – The current anthropogenic CO2 causes at most, less than 0.5C warming.
About right since the increase in CO2 concentration has been about 40%. The temperature increase so far is .74’C, or about .24’C above the normal climatic variation.
CO2ISEVIL – There is no ‘deferred’ warming as the oceans have already adapted to the slow increase in forcing power caused by increased GHG. The physics and data precludes the idea of deferred warming.
An interesting claim since the temperature increase of .74’c has been rapid. Over 100 times faster than the cooling that has been ongoing since the temperature spike that ended the last ice age. Heating the entire depth of the ocean will take several hundred years, during which time the ocean will keep the earth’s surface temperature artificially cool, with decreasing effectiveness.
10
Damien,
Lindzen’s estimate includes a gratuitous feedback effect above and beyond the immediate effect. It also assumes 0% cloud coverage. CO2 underneath clouds has no incremental effect since the clouds are already trapping most of the energy.
The entire ocean’s depth is not heated. The bottom of the ocean is below the average temperature and the top surface (mostly between the tropics) is above the average temperature. The thermocline separates these layers and acts as insulation between the hot ocean and the cold ocean (examine dT/dx across the thermocline, while accounting for the thermal conductivity of water). The average temperature of the Earth is the average of the hot ocean and the cold ocean and equal to the temperature at the midpoint of the thermocline (find and examine the data for yourself if you don’t believe me).
The lower layers of the ocean are clamped to 0C, owing the the density/temperature profile of water, as enforced by gravity. This will always be the case as long as the average temperature at the poles is less than 0C at any time during the year. This will create 0C water that falls into the deep ocean by virtue of it’s higher density.
Only the upper layer of the ocean above the thermocline is heated. The rest is cooled via the deep ocean thermal connection that links the polar ice caps. Because so little of the ocean is involved in storing heat, it adapts far faster to incident energy than the AGW hypothesis requires. This is why the satellite data indicates that the ocean temperatures respond quickly to changes in energy and why there’s no missing energy and why the AGW hypothesis is hopelessly broken.
You are also mistaken about the speed of the current temperature change. If you examine the ice core data, the peak dT/dt in the 100 year average is close to 2C per century. This is the change in a 100 year running average, which changes far slower than the absolute, short term change you’re so afraid of. Even though the absolute short term change is no big deal relative to the change in long term averages, making assumptions about the short term absolute temperature change from the change in long term averages is typical of the statistical errors used to support AGW.
George
10
CO2ISEVIL – Lindzen’s estimate includes a gratuitous feedback effect above and beyond the immediate effect.
No it does not. From Lindzens article – “However, the contribution of increasing CO2 alone does not, in fact, lead to much warming (approximately 1°C for each doubling of CO2).” – He then goes on to say – “The larger predictions from climate models are due to the fact that, within these models, the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever CO2 does. This is referred to as a positive feedback. ”
CO2ISEVIL – It also assumes 0% cloud coverage.
As does your calculation. Face it, you are way off even Lindzens conservative approximation.
CO2ISEVIL – CO2 underneath clouds has no incremental effect since the clouds are already trapping most of the energy.
Debatable. Clouds can be both positive or negative feedback depending on where they form.
Also recent studies shed more light …
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090723141812.htm
July 24, 2009 – Strong Evidence That Cloud Changes May Exacerbate Global Warming
Using observational data collected over the last 50 years and complex climate models, the team has established that low-level stratiform clouds appear to dissipate as the ocean warms, indicating that changes in these clouds may enhance the warming of the planet.
Re Oceans. Nice sciency sounding “uncited” assertions George, but simply citing your ice core data demonstrates a delayed ocean response to both climate cooling and warming due to the oceans thermal inertia.
CO2ISEVIL – You are also mistaken about the speed of the current temperature change.
I don’t think so. There have been no rapid global 2’C temperature changes over the last 10,000 years. Over the last 150 years temperature has risen .74’C and the rate of change is accelerating.
CO2ISEVIL – making assumptions
Not an assumption, an observation.
CO2ISEVIL – about the short term absolute temperature change
that you are determined to make long term.
CO2ISEVIL – from the change in long term averages is typical of the statistical errors used to support AGW.
Statistical error? Like denialists all over the Internet claiming the climate has cooled since 1998?
Not to mention, claiming it with Hadcrut and RSS MSU data which unlike GISS, omit both polar regions (only the fastest warming regions on the globe). Oh the hypocrisy!
10
Daemon,
Deny the truth, if that’s what you must do to maintain your belief in the AGW fantasy, but your denials will not influence me as I’m only influenced by the physics and the data. You will need to come up with some powerful arguments to counter all of the compelling science that has changed my mind about AGW. Yes, I considered CO2 forcing might be an issue when the ice core data was first revealed. Unlike most of the AGW believers I’m a scientist, so I investigated further and discovered that there are many other, far more important things influencing the climate. While the effect of AGW is finite, it’s far too small to be obsessing about and under no circumstances can justify a multi-trillion dollar experiment in climate control based on this effect.
The ice core data is publicly available and you can look at it yourself to identify the maximum dT/dt, and in both the Vostok and DomeC cores, this is close to 2C/century. Even the RMS average change per century is about 0.5C (over the first 150K years or so, where the samples are close enough together to meaningfully infer this. You should also examine the satellite data, which show that the ‘delay’ between solar energy and ocean warming is on the order of 45 days, not the decades to centuries you need for AGW to be viable. We can see this in the seasonal climate change, where the coldest and warmest days of the season are on average about 45 days after minimum or maximum solar energy (both over the ocean and over the land). If it took decades to centuries for the ocean to respond to energy changes, we would not see any seasonal response, or even any difference between night and day.
The primary logic flaw in your logic is that you assume anomaly analysis is a valid way to identify trends. As you pointed out, this is easy to coerce into producing whatever results you want! This is particulary problematic when the trends being discerned are smaller than the accuracy of the data and the natural variability. In other words, the data uncertainty and natural variability are so large, that a trend in either direction can be shown depending on how the data is presented. How can you complain about the deniers claim of recent cooling while at the same time, believing in the warming claimed by the alarmists based on the same kind of flawed statistics? Talk about hypocrisy. Yes there has been decade scale warming and cooling episodes on the order of tenth’s of a degree C in recent history. All this does is confirm that climate change is normal. Why are you getting so bent out of shape about the expected behavior? Any perceived correlation between man’s CO2 emissions and climate change can’t be ruled out as being purely coincidental.
BTW, the GISS data is biased from a discontinuity in the data around 10/2001 which makes it completely inappropriate for anomaly analysis, which can’t differentiate between small data trends and actual data anomalies. Many factors contributed to this data anomaly, including the switch over from the NOA14 satellite to NOAA16.
Look here for some background on the science and data.
http://www.palisad.com/co2/slides/siframes.html
George
10
These comments display precisely the problem facing the climate realists. Whilst they are happy to open their minds to all data, the AGW contenders are closed to all criticism. I must have read over 100 scientific papers on both sides of the argument but have never seen any evidence that proves anthropogenic global warming. I shall therefore continue to believe that if there is no proof there cannot be a case to answer. It therefore behoves the politicians to stay their activities, particularly cap and trade, until some incontrovertible evidence is found. Is it any wonder then that AGW enthusiasts are unfortunately becoming known as “flat-earthers”.
10
Tony,
Your summary of the situation is highly relevant. My enquiries of Australian politicians and their CSIRO advisers have not produced any solid proof of AGW. Even when confronted by solid evidence to the contrary they are still buried in the Gospel according to Gore. Perhaps when in Copenhagen they can drop in on Henrik Svensmark. Perchance a Dane can re-tell the story of the Emperor’s absent clothes.
10
The Weekend Australian today carries a scorching indictment by Terry McCrann of the Emissions Trading Scheme:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25897957-14743,00.html
“… It’s not called a tax, but if it waddles like one, quacks like one, and most pointedly raises money like one, it’s a tax. And not just any old tax — it’s a huge and continually growing tax.
It starts out in 2012-13 raising about a quarter as much as the GST. The budget in May put a number on it for the first time. Almost $12 billion in its first full year, 2012-13.
It is the equivalent of increasing the GST from 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent in that year. And in its impact on people it won’t be all that different from doing exactly that…”
And it doesn’t stop there:
“… Crucially and very ominously, there is no, if you’ll pardon the pun, cap on this insidious version of a GST. The effective rate could double or triple, the amount of money raised could skyrocket. Indeed, it is intended to do exactly that, with no referral back to parliament for endorsement…”
Indeed.
There has been a growing trend in Australian media over the past few weeks, of both sides of politics and business voicing increasing concern over the wider economic implication of an ETS.
Are people finally starting to wake up? I’m not holding my breath, I think we still have a very long way to go before the Emperors of the world start to realise that their private parts are on public display.
10
Tony wrote:
“It therefore behoves the politicians to stay their activities, particularly cap and trade, until some incontrovertible evidence is found.”
I think Tony is being a bit naive when he implies that most of them don’t already know that the AGW theory is complete and utter nonsense. As to the rest, the blind followers and true believers, I believe that trying to use logical and rational arguments on them is as futile as trying to use scientific evidence to convince creationists that Darwin was right.
10
This article appeared in today’s Weekend Australian by Clive Hamilton, alarmist extraordinaire, self-appointed Grand Climate Inquisitor and author of several books, including “Scorcher”. Amusingly, he calls himself Australia’s “leading public intellectual”.
Echoing Gore court jester James Hansen, Hamilton is today endorsing and even encouraging “civil disobedience” by climate protesters in Victoria this weekend:
“Writing on the Crikey website, Professor Hamilton said activists at what was intended to be a peaceful protest at Victoria’s coal-fired Hazelwood power station might break the law, “but they have justice on their side”.
“… With scientists predicting runaway climate change unless we take drastic action in the next five years, and the manifest failure of our democratic system to respond adequately to the overwhelming threat posed to our future, it is legitimate to step outside the usual boundaries of protest.”
‘Manifest failure of our democratic system’ … ‘legitimate to step outside the usual boundaries of protest’ … where have we heard this sort of thing before?
This is fascism, no less.
Full article:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26061641-11949,00.html
10
I am concerned that the warmist agenda results in nuclear emerging as the only “clean” alternative able to completely replace our energy requirements.
But the IPCC thinks aerosols and soot have a cooling effect. There is conflicting evidence. History says combustion has been around for a long time. Bushfires existed long before firefighters. Volcanoes have spewed ash into the atmosphere since the beginning. What if the earth’s climate systems can cope with soot and aerosols resulting from combustion? What if this does produce cooling?
The earth has no historical mechanisms to deal with pure energy liberated from unnatural nuclear fission.
10
hi,good pants in your post,I love that nice pants,I need to find one for me,bill
10