UPDATED Part IV: Andrew Glikson replies below.
I am impressed that Glikson replied politely, rose above any ad hominem or authority based arguments, and focused on the science and the evidence. This kind of exchange is exceedingly rare, and it made it well worth continuing. Links to Part I and II are at the end. Round 4 was copied from comments up to the post.
Depending on flawed models
by Joanne Nova
May 11, 2010
For a sentence, I almost think Dr Glikson gets it. Yes, it’s a quantitative question: Will we warm by half a measly degree or 3.5 degrees? It’s not about the direct CO2 effect (all of one paltry degree by itself), it’s the feedbacks—the humidity, clouds, lapse rates and other factors that amplify (or not) the initial minor effect of carbon.
Decades ago, the catastrophe-crowd made guesses about the feedbacks—but they were wrong. Instead of amplifying carbon’s effect two-fold (or more!) the feedbacks dampen it.
Dr Glikson has no reply. He makes no comment at all about Lindzen [1], Spencer[2] or Douglass[3] and their three peer reviewed, independent, empirical papers showing that the climate models are exaggerating the warming by a factor of six. (Six!) He’s probably unaware that the assumptions about positive feedback are wrong, and all the portents of disaster were built upon those guesses. Everything else is just an error cascade flowing from a base assumption that is implicit and essential (and wrong). Don’t expect the IPCC to explain it in an easy-to-read brochure though.
In Figure 2 of Glikson’s piece, he actually inadvertently demonstrates the missing hot spot. There’s the vindication. Glikson apparently doesn’t understand that the upper tropospheric graph is supposed to show a higher rate of warming than the surface graph. Instead it’s about the same. This is yet another way of showing there is no hotspot, no “thickening” of the global-greenhouse-gas-blanket, and thus that the surface warming is predominantly not caused by an increase in greenhouse gases.
Glikson’s Figure 2. Observed surface and upper-air temperature anomalies (°C). (A) Lower stratosphere T4, (B) Troposphere T2, (C) Lower troposphere T2LT from UAH, RSS and VG2 MSU satellite analyses, and UKMO HadAT2 and NOAA RATPAC radiosonde records, and (D) surface records from NOAA, NASA-GISS and UKMO/CRU (HadCRUT2v). All time series are monthly mean anomalies relative to the period 1979 to 1997 smoothed with a seven month running mean filter. Major volcanic eruptions are indicated by vertical orange dashed lines.
As usual, everything else offered by Glikson depends on the flawed models, on cringe-worthy hockey sticks, or on studies from millions of years ago that don’t have the resolution to tell us much about cause and effect.
Who is confused here?
Glikson tries to paint me as confused and quotes me out of context. When I ask for evidence that sheds light on a cause, I’m talking about all the evidence he was offering on sea ice, or ice sheets, or sea levels, which tell us nothing about what caused the warming. Glikson at least seems to agree with me, as this time (finally) he’s stopped repeating those irrelevant points.
Then he wonders about my statement about the cause and effect link being reversed in the ice cores, and asks if I question whether it is CO2 that drives temperatures. Absolutely! Hasn’t he heard of Le Chateliers Principle? It’s basic chemistry. The vast oceans have 50 times as much CO2 as the sky does, and the oceans release carbon as they warm and suck it back as they cool. This explains the tight correlation in the famous ice-core graph, and the 800 year lag (which is how long the deepest oceans currents take to circulate). The Vostok Ice cores definitively confirm that temperatures drive carbon. Carbon probably amplifies this warming somewhat, but there is no clear evidence in the ice cores that carbon does much at all. If there was, why would the Big Scare Campaign keep it a secret?
Figure 1. Vostok Ice Cores
Carbon clearly follows temperature in ice cores. There is an 800 year lag[10] on the rise, and several thousand years of lag on the fall. Temperatures drive carbon. Carbon probably amplifies this, but the effect is minor, and the amount can’t be calculated with any certainty from the Vostok data. See all the other Vostok Graphs.
Digging up ancient evidence
This is Dr Glikson’s bread and butter topic. He claims the geologic record displays episodes of primary forcing from carbon, but where is the evidence? All Keller[4] shows is that big volcanoes seem to cause big extinctions. Is he serious? Volcanoes pump out massive CO2 (which warms the planet a bit) but they also pour out volumes of ash (think “nuclear winter”). Super volcano Toba was only 70,000 years ago, but if the effect was net warming, it doesn’t show in the ice core records. Indeed researchers argue about how cold it got and how long it lasted. Was it just a 3 °C fall over 1000 years or was it a 15 °C drop over just a few decades?
Zachos 2008[5] talks about the PETM 55 million years ago. Glikson claims this shows methane warmed the planet, but Zacho’s hardly refers to methane. It’s a paper about CO2. Awkwardly, other researchers find that the carbon spike appears to have followed the temperature spike with a lag of around 3000 years[6].
With Ward 2005,[7] the problem is that we can’t tell whether the carbon rose before the extinctions or after. The odd 1000-year lag gets rather lost in the 250,000,000 year record. With this and the Geocarb graph,[8] Glikson assumes carbon causes the glaciation during the last 500 million years. But golly, we know that when temperatures are low, glaciers form and the oceans suck up all the CO2 they can find. It is no coincidence that low temperatures and low CO2 go together. It’s entirely expected and it tells us nothing about whether CO2 amplifies the temperature. At least one study suggests it was solar insolation that forced the ice sheets to melt, not CO2.[9] This is not just a his-vs-hers assumption tit for tat. There’s a big difference: we know temperature definitely affects CO2 (as I mentioned previously), and we’re pretty sure (thanks to empirical evidence, see above) that CO2 only amplifies that warming by a minor amount. When in doubt, go with the known evidence, rather than the flawed models.
The big question is that if CO2 drives the climate, how come the only papers that supposedly support a major forcing come from eras so long ago that no one can say which factor rose first? Since temperature drives carbon we know there will be a correlation in the past (it’d be shocking if there weren’t). But, why-o-why is there no concrete evidence from the last million years?
Hokey hockey sticks
Dr Glikson still thinks the hockey sticks are worth mentioning—but they’ll go down in history as a rank embarrassment to climate science, and to Nature and GRL (for publishing them). MBH 1999, as I mentioned in my last reply to Glikson, is so poor analytically that his technique generates hockey sticks even with random data. It’s a joke.
The IPCC graph Glikson provides “appears” to have independent studies, but 7 of the 10 studies include Mann, Briffa or Jones (each name is listed four times across these papers). Its not what the rest of the world calls “independent.”
“this is a tree that might have grown extra fast because, say, a bear died and rotted on its roots”
Three studies depend on Bristlecones (which grow faster when CO2 is higher, making them totally unsuitable). Two rely on the Yamal series (which boils down to one tree in northern Russia being a freak 8-standard deviation tree in the 1990’s to give it a hockey stick—this is a tree that might have grown extra fast because, say, a bear died and rotted on its roots). Two other studies use both Bristlecones and Yamal. Eight of the studies are so flawed they are worthless.
The remaining two studies use different series with their own flaws: One old Briffa series is out of date, another has a large manual adjustment; Moberg et al, hides data, making it hard to replicate, and also depends on uncalibrated data. The Moberg graph is nothing like a hockey stick, in any case.
When I say “warming started a century before our carbon emission rose” and point out that the warming trend hasn’t changed with all that extra CO2, Gliksons only response is debunked Hockey Sticks, and guesstimates from faulty climate models. Is that it?
Hundreds of peer reviewed studies show it was warmer over most of the globe during medieval times. Over 6,000 boreholes from all over the world agree[11]. Craig Loehle[12] also combined 18 different proxies to arrive at a similar curve. The Hockey Stick is wrong.
Figure 2b. Boreholes show it was warmer 700 years ago
Where’s the evidence?
The totality of “evidence” comes down to climate models that don’t agree with the observations and ever more ancient geological studies that may or may not show an effect, but are simply unable to resolve details that we need. This is why the Michael Manns, Gavin Schmidts and Al Gores of the world won’t debate publicly. They know they’d get caned.
If Andrew Glikson thinks he serves the taxpayer by promoting the unproved hypothesis of AGW, he must first examine the models he refers too, and give the public a balanced view of the uncertainties. It’s time for the propaganda of half-truths to stop. It’s time for universities to be called to order, and shamed for their pathetic standards of logic and reason.
Thanks again to Baa Humbug and DE for advice and research
The Full Debate:
Part I: Glikson “The Case for Climate Change“
Jo Nova “No Dr Glikson“;
Part II: Glikson “Credibility lies with experienced authorities“
Jo Nova “Credibility lies on Evidence“;
Part III: Glikson “The Effects of CO2 on Climate“
Jo Nova “Glikson accidentally vindicates the skeptics“.
Part IV: Glikson suggests evidence for the hot spot.
I point out how weak it is. (See the UPDATE below Part III).
Part V: Glikson The planetary atmosphere and climate change
Jo Nova Ignore the main point, repeat the irrelevant.
Part VI: Dr Glikson asked to respond again. I said “please do”. So far, he has no reply.
REFERENCES
[1] Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/2009GL039628. Updated in pre-press for 2010.
[2] Spencer, R.W., Braswell, W.D., Christy, J.R., Hnilo, J., 2007. Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. Geophysical Research Letters, 34.
[3] Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. 2007. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology,
[4] Keller, G. (2005). Impacts, volcanism and mass extinction: random coincidence or cause and effect? Australian Journal of Earth Science, 52/4, 725-757. [abstract] http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/aes/2005/00000052/F0020004/art00020
[5] Zachos, J.C. 2008. “An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics” Nature 451, 279-283.
[6] Sluijs 2007, Environmental precursors to rapid light carbon injection at the Palaeocene/Eocene boundary, Nature 450, 1218-1221 (20 December 2007) doi:10.1038/nature06400 [Abstract]
[7] Ward 2005, Abrupt and Gradual Extinction Among Late Permian Land Vertebrates in the Karoo Basin, South Africa, Science Vol 307 4 February 2005
[8] Graph of last 500 million years GEOCARB III ttp://www.quadrant.org.au/img/content/April%202010/Glikson%20Fig%202.bmp
[9] Clark et al 2009 The Last Glacial Maximum, Science 7 August 2009:
Vol. 325. no. 5941, pp. 710 – 714
[10] Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731.
[11] Huang, S., H. N. Pollack, and P. Y. Shen (1997), Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world-wide continental heat flow measurements, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24(15), 1947–1950.
[12] Loehle, C. and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy and Environment, 19, 93-100.
UPDATE Part IV: Andrew Glikson replied in comment #64 (copied here)
Andrew Glikson: May 14th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Dear Joanne Nova,
Thank you for acknowedging the sincerity of climate scientists. As I wrote, I believe I can state on behalf of my colleagues – nothing would delight us more than if direct evidence existed global warming is not occurring or, at the very least, warming is not anthropogenic in origin.
I restrict my response here to the troposphere hot spot, as below. In case you are interested in further detailed response to your article “Depending on flawed models” (11.5.10) I will be pleased to contribute such reply to your website in the form of an 800-1000 words-long article.
Regarding the troposphere hot spot, I refer to the paper: “Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere” by 17 climate scientists (B.D. Santer, 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), Int. J. Climatol. (2008).
Where the summary reads:
“A recent report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) identified a ‘potentially serious inconsistency’ between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates (Karl et al., 2006). Early versions of satellite and radiosonde datasets suggested that the tropical surface had warmed more than the troposphere, while climate models consistently showed tropospheric amplification of surface warming in response to human-caused increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs). We revisit such comparisons here using new observational estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature changes. We find that there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates. This emerging reconciliation of models and observations has two primary explanations. First, because of changes in the treatment of buoy and satellite information, new surface temperature datasets yield slightly reduced tropical warming relative to earlier versions. Second, recently developed satellite and radiosonde datasets show larger warming of the tropical lower troposphere. In the case of a new satellite dataset from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), enhanced warming is due to an improved procedure of adjusting for inter-satellite biases. When the RSS-derived tropospheric temperature trend is compared with four different observed estimates of surface temperature change, the surface warming is invariably amplified in the tropical troposphere, consistent with model results. Even if we use data from a second satellite dataset with smaller tropospheric warming than in RSS, observed tropical lapse rate trends are not significantly different from those in all other model simulations. Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations. This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical ‘consistency test’.
The observation of climate change is not model-dependent but is based on direct observations and measurements, from ground stations, weather baloons and satellites, of basic physical and chemical parameters. The role of models is to help resolve the various climate drivers (forcings) and processes, as well as project future trends.
I will add at this point that disproving the reality of anthropogenic climate change requires:
A. Negation of basic laws related to infrared resonance/greenhouse gas modulation of atmospheric temperature (Stefan-Boltzmann law, Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation, Planck’s law etc.) (For a review of the relations between CO2 and climate refer to http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm).
B. In terms of these laws, accounting for the effect of some 370 billion ton of carbon emitted by human industry since 1750 (plus land clearing) on the atmosphere, less than half of which was absorbed by the oceans, where it results in decreased pH.
Yours Respectfully
(Dr) Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleo-climate science
———————————————–
My Reply Part IV
Thank you Andrew,
I am happy to discuss this further, and would most welcome a contribution from you. Feel free to include graphs, there is no word restriction, though more people will read a 1000 word post than a very long one.
Anything that furthers our understanding of the climate is useful. If someone can produce convincing evidence or reasoning I would, of course, change my mind (again). Having said that, I have briefly discussed Santer et al 2008 earlier. Nine years after all the data was collected a team of scientists found some “uncertainties” in both models and radiosondes that expanded the error bars, after which they overlap. There was no new evidence, just a reanalysis, and while technically, they reconciled things, they did so without finding the hot spot, instead they found “noise”.
There are responses from quite a few people in comments below #64.
Sincerely,
Joanne
Kudos to Dr Glikson for being willing to follow this up.
Please commentors note: good manners from both sides will be enforced more so than usual. I want polite discussion of how the climate works, and it’s rare in any forum to get a quality exchange.
As with all CAGWers, there is never any production of evidence. They skirt around the subject because they have a hypothesis and models without any confirmatory evidence.
10
It is often said a scientific paradigm is held onto untill it becomes ridiculous to hold to it any longer.
Dr. Glikson (and so many, many others) appear to be hoping this time will not come before their retirement.
They are about to realise this time is upon us, AND will cause their retirements…..
10
ie,
http://www.heartland.org/events/2010Chicago/index.html
10
Jos opening paragraph…
I’d like to second that and recommend to all our friends to read all three pairs of articles. They do concentrate on the science, are informative and refreshing in this current climate (no pun) of AGW debate.
10
Thanks Baa Humbug, I’d like to add that I think Dr Glikson is sincere and genuine in his efforts, but since he (and the modelers) have rarely been asked hard questions, I think he is unaware of the presumptions built into the models and just how influential those guesstimates were.
This blindspot is caused by one-sided funding. The counter-theories were barely funded so a monoculture grew unopposed.
All of the climate scientists in CAGW would have been much stronger scientists if they invited the skeptics into their offices 15 years ago and did this debate back then.
10
Jo/Baa
A nice summary. It just shows what happens when people with large egos form a conclusion first tnd then try to make the data conform to their vision of reality. The bandaid answers just keep piling up – (e.g. using trees and wind gauges as thermometers!??) Especially in the context of a relativist outlook on life and politics.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Apparently Briffa and Jones now concede that there wasa meieval warm period
‘In the words of the seven scientists (including Jones), “temperatures during the warmest intervals of the Medieval Warm Period,” which they defined as occurring “some 900 to 1300 years ago, “were as warm as or slightly warmer than present day Greenland temperatures [italics added].”‘
Its time for Glickson to catch up. Hockey sticks are so yesterday.
10
Incidently, I haven’t see any explanationa as to why the Vickings called their new settlement in Nova Scotia “Vinland” or Vine Land. Unless of course its the obvious.
10
Thankyou and Dr Glikson for this very informative debate. Why it hasn’t been done before is a mystery.
It appears to me that many of the prehistoric extinction theories are based on the assumption that CO2 causes rapid global warming. I’ve seen paleontologists blithely claim that CO2 caused the warming spike connected to their period of their research. There are usually conflicting studies about what other events were critical at the time, often because the proof is very sketchy at such huge temporal distances.
Even the most recent mass extinction (K-T boundary, extinction of the dinosaurs) and supposedly the easiest to attribute, is hotly debated. Deccan Traps (volcanic) or Chicxulub (meteorite)? The most recent scientific consensus announcement was that it was definitely the space invader but almost simultaneously a report was published that favoured volcanoes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8550504.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/22/volcanoes-helped-dinosaurs-rule-earth
And another report decided that a DROP in temperatures due to a rise in CO2 caused the extinction. Think Day After Tomorrow scenario.
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/international/dinosaurs-died-sudden-temperature-drop-920
In other words – they’re guessing and relying heavily on climate science to have got their sums right.
If climate scientists then use those extinction reports to prove that rapid CO2 rises drive catastrophic temperature changes you get a circular argument.
10
Having dificulty loading a link to the reference
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N16/C2.php
Reference
Vinther, B.M., Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R., Clausen, H.B., Andersen, K.K., Dahl-Jensen, D. and Johnsen, S.J. 2010. Climatic signals in multiple highly resolved stable isotope records from Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 29: 522-538.
10
Hi Jo, You should be quoting Henry’s law rather than Le Chateliers principle in relation to solubility/temp relationship. Le Chateliers is a principle (not a law) that a system at equilibrium will resist forcing and cause negative feedback. However it applies to the total free energy of the system. You can have internal positive feedbacks where one type of energy cannibalises another. Of course the water vapor positive feedback is in violation of this as it says that an increase in sensible and latent heat feed off each other.
On other stuff does anyone notice that lower stratosphere temps respond to volcanic effects in a boom and bust fashion? Water vapor is stripped out by SO2 acting as a nucleation particle. The stratosphere has an inverse relationship with the troposphere. Therefore high SO2 volcanic eruptions may through an unknown mechanism (by controlling clouds) be the main drivers of the recent global warming. Low SO2/high steam volcanoes would tend to have the opposite effect by injection of water vapor into the stratosphere.
Thats my theory anyway 🙂
10
Regarding flawed models may I point people to this, admittedly long, but hopefully
simple / understandable explained piece regarding what the models actually assume, by who, when, and WHY.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-309.html
The one assumption of the
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) “theory”
(or, so called Man made climate change)
modeling you should understand.
The 10 degrees celcius / 280ppm CO2,
and 1 tenth per doubling thereafter assumption.
By Derek Alker
Written / put together from a position NOT questioning the so called “Greenhouse effect” may I add.
You do not need to to understand how wrong the present crop of GCM climate modelling is anyways..
10
all I can say is “at last!” Thanks Joanne for persevering.
10
Joanne, I suspect your excellent tutelage was helpful.
I would say that the question is, “Can government regulations control the climate such that it is both noticeable and useful to humans?”
To answer this we need to consider: the quantitative effect of CO2 on temperature, AND the quantitative effect of human activity on CO2 AND the feedback effects AND comparative magnitude between these effects and unavoidable natural variation AND the quantitative balance of good/bad that warming is likely to cause AND the overall ability of government regulations to provide a workable control AND the additional negative effects indirectly caused by government regulation.
Any one of those could make the whole exercise a waste of time, and I suggest that there is at least reasonable evidence for EVERY one of the above to suggest that avoiding any government regulations on CO2 is a very good idea.
10
Tiny Co2:
At #9 you correctly say:
This is a good example of the problem of determining cause and effect that – as Ms Nova says – is problematic in the entire AGW debate.
There was a large meteor impact in the Gulf of Mexico and there was a large super volcano on the other side of the world (near India) around the time of the KT boundary (possibly at that time). Either could have caused the mass extinction at the KT boundary, and it seems that the combined effects of both did.
A point of interest is whether the immense shock of the meteor impact induced the super volcano on the other side of the planet. But people tend to ignore that interesting question and champion either the meteor impact or the super volcano as the sole cause of the mass extinction.
Similarly, AGW supporters ignore all the many interacting climate effects that cause climate variability (e.g. the hydrological cycle, ocean currents, etc.) and champion atmospheric CO2 concentration as the sole cause. As Ms Nova says of Dr Glikson:
In common with many supporters of the AGW hypothesis, Dr Glikson assumes that “it is CO2 which drives temperatures” and demands that others prove this assumption is wrong. Of course, a scientist would demand evidence that supports the assumption, but there is none.
In the context of the KT mass extinction there are two ‘camps’ that each supports one of the two possible explanations of the mass extinction (i.e. meteor impact or volcanism) thus hindering investigation of the possibility that both were important causes.
And, in the context of AGW, proponents of the AGW hypothesis support the assumption that “it is CO2 which drives temperatures” although there is no evidence that supports this assumption and much evidence denies it (e.g. global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration do not corelate). Their support hinders investigation of other possible causes of climate variability. As Ms Nova says at #5 concerning research to consider such possible causes:
Richard
10
From Glikson:
And the reference for only 0.5c temperature increase during the MWP, [10] IPCC AR4-2007
Why when trying to make a point do warmist always go back to the IPCC.
10
Bob Malloy: Post 16.
” Why when trying to make a point do warmistS always go back to the IPCC. ”
Because it is the only place they can find supporting “evidence”.
Which is probably closely linked to, it is also the
“best” place to read where Greenpeace and the WWF release their “science”..
T-I-C.
10
t’s time for the propaganda of half truths to stop. It’s time for universities to be called to order and shamed for their pathetic standards of logic and reason.
Agreed – why is taxpaer money being wasted on fraud. Also all research paid for by the government should be made free to the public – we paid for it!
10
Jo, I think you let Glickson off the hook too easily. Sure, he is polite but I think he is still dishonest.
1. He states, “Rising CO2, rising temperatures and melting ice are intertwined processes forming feedback loops, i.e. elevated CO2 causes warming and warming drives further CO2 release.” This is a description of a positive feedback loop that will lead an Earth burnt to a cinder. As CO2 has been much higher in the past, why are we still around now?
2. He states, “The current CO2 rise rate of c.2 ppm/year, unprecedented in geological history…” This is not true. All you need to do is look at the Vostock ice core readings of CO2 to see that the current rates of CO2 increase are similar to the past.
3. He states, “As indicated in Figure 2…, 1957-2005 warming of the surface (c.0.5-0.6 degrees C), of the lower troposphere (c.0.3-0.4C) and of mid to upper troposphere, and cooling of the stratosphere, …, are consistent with a rise in mean global temperatures, …” He has pulled a real “swifty” with his Figure 2. His Figure 2 cannot possibly indicate the presence or absence of the hot spot. It should be remembered that the hot spot is the result of the climate (GCM) models predicting a difference in the rate of warming in the atmosphere over the equator (at about 10 km up) compared to the rate of increase at ground level. As his Figure 2 does not show rates of change of temperature, it cannot indicate the presence or absence of the hot spot. You just need to compare his figure with the figure in [Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer 2007. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. Intl J Climatology (Royal Meteorol Soc). DOI:10.1002/joc.1651] to see what I mean. Nor does his Figure 2 show the model predictions against the measurements.
So finally, I have to question with your statement that, “he actually inadvertently demonstrates the missing hot spot”. How?
10
Tanstafl:
At #20 you ask:
because, as you say:
But Glikson’s figure presents three time series for temperatures below the stratosphere; viz.
one for the “Mid to upper upper troposphere”,
one for the “Lower troposphere”, and
one for the “surface”.
If these graphs showed the ‘hot spot’ then the slope (i.e. rate of warming) of the graph of “Mid to upper upper troposphere” would be steeper than that of the other two. It is not.
Hence, Glikson’s graphs do show the ‘hot spot’ is not present.
And it is not necessary to show a comparison of the model predictions to the measured data (although Ms Nova does in her ‘handbook’). It is only necessary
(a) for Ms Nova to state – as she does – that:
and
(b) for her to present Glikson’s graphs that show they indicate slopes which are “about the same”.
She does both.
Thus, she has clearly and unarguably demonstrated that Glikson “actually inadvertently demonstrates the missing hot spot”.
Richard
10
Glickson has yet more to swallow on “cause and effect”. It’s not just temperature driving CO2. Roy Spencer’s latest book (“The Great Global Warming BLUNDER”) also brings clouds (via their feedback) into that arena. Of course, some time ago Svensmark pointed out that clouds were a major cause of climate (and the IPCC, consistent if nothing else, claimed he (or was it his theory?) was “irresponsible”.
10
Tanstaafl: #19
May 12th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Recall Jos opening remark…
One of Jos aims is to encourage these types of debates. Using words like “dishonest” or similar would be counter-productive.
p.s. Richard S Courtney #20 is absolutely correct.
10
What happens when a volcano meets a large oil deposit on the way up?
10
My prior post was poorly worded. Should read “It’s not just that temperature drives CO2, it’s also clouds driving climate!”
10
Siliggy: just another dish, but prepared by Mother Nature rather than some chef in New Orleans …. blackened earthworms…..
10
And Antarctica melting is also nothing new.
http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_releases/detail/item/western_antarctic_was_ice_free_during_interglacials_geological_data_signal_dynamic_developments_of/?tx_list_pi1%5Bmode%5D=6&cHash=b2083e621796b6e885815cade440ba54
10
Man made global warming models.
They are no better than man made model cars.
Just not the same thing as ordinary cars.
10
Richard Courtney #15
I am so glad that someone else brought up that hypothesis as well. I have often wondered if there is a causality there, but (at least the public) literature never seems to touch on the possibility.
10
AC @ #8:
wondering:-
“… why the Vickings called their new settlement in Nova Scotia “Vinland” or Vine Land. Unless of course its the obvious….”.
Perhaps AC, like ‘Greenland’, it was purely aspirational 😉
10
Phil, Richard,
When I first noticed the relative timing of the impact and the traps around the KT boundary, the first thing I suspected was that a shock wave propagated through the planet, pushing lava through the crust on the opposite side of the planet. I guess there’s resistance to this concept because it would stop the debate. Although with the way science is so frequently misrepresented, I’m surprised some warmist hasn’t found a way to blame man for the KT extinction, after all, man arose as a result of it. Kind of like trying to claim that the ice cores support CO2 driving the climate. It seems that the direction of causality only matters when it supports your cause.
George
10
co2isnotevil: – you bring up the question of Larva flow – I once read an article that proposed that not only do we have ocean periodic cycles – we probably have larva flow cycles beneath the mantle that vary the heat emanating from below the crust. Considering that the crust is equivalent to a 1/5th the thickness of an egg shell in scale it would appear that the movement of larva surely must have some affect on land and ocean temperatures.
Does anyone have any links to this kind of research?
10
Rudd spends $30 million to tell more warming lies
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudd_spends_30_million_to_tell_more_lies/
10
jo, excellent work on the science, but:
Website of John Kerry: THE AMERICAN POWER ACT:
WHAT THEY’RE SAYING
Lt. General John G. Castellaw US Army, Retired:
“This isn’t an environmental issue, this is a security issue. Our strategic interests, and therefore our national security and the safety of Americans, are threatened by climate change and our continuing dependence on oil. Military leaders know this isn’t about polar bears and ice caps, it’s about international stability and national security.”
also:
General Electric:
“The ‘American Power Act’ represents an important step toward a strong national energy policy, and GE applauds Senators Kerry and Lieberman for their leadership on an issue that is critical to the future of our nation and our economy…
Firelake Capital Management LLC.:
“Comprehensive energy and climate policy that includes a clear market based price signal for carbon that rewards innovation is key for companies across the country to accelerate our transition to a sustainable clean energy infrastructure and market. ..
Rob Sisson, President, Republicans for Environmental Protection:
“We cannot afford further delay in adopting a national policy that addresses our many energy-related challenges. We call on members of Congress to work together constructively across the aisle to pass this prudent and carefully balanced legislation this year. There have been few instances in our nation’s history when legislators have the opportunity to leave a lasting legacy– to have the appendage ’statesman’ added to their names by appreciative future generations. This is one of those rare occasions.”
Exelon:
“Exelon commends Senators Kerry and Lieberman for their leadership in crafting federal climate legislation to address the nation’s energy security, jobs and environmental goals. We are pleased that the draft bill announced today by Senators Kerry and Lieberman proposes a system for putting a price on carbon, which will use market forces to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost, as well as a firm price collar to protect consumers. As the nation’s largest nuclear operator, Exelon also appreciates that the senators have recognized nuclear power as a low-emission source of baseload electricity with an important role to play in the country’s transition to a low-carbon economy.”
Jeff Immelt Chairman and CEO, General Electric:
“National policy – including an effective price on carbon and a strong, nationwide clean energy standard – is needed to drive increased investment, which in turn creates new technologies and jobs.”
Nuclear Energy Institute:
“The nuclear-related provisions of this legislation provide a solid platform for the expansion of nuclear energy to meet our electricity needs, create thousands of jobs and help achieve the desired reductions of greenhouse gas emissions…
Jonathan Murray, Operation Free Campaign Director and former US Marine:
Taking a strong stance on carbon pollution could deprive Iran, one of the world’s most aggressive and unpredictable nations, of up to $100 million a day. Given their record of hostility to us and our allies, we can’t afford to allow them even one more dime.”
Major General Paul Monroe US Army, Retired:
“We make a profound strategic error if we underestimate the impact that climate has on regional and international stability. Some of our most worrisome trouble spots around the world are dangerous because of a combination of climate problems and social unrest – Somalia, Nigeria, and Yemen are strong examples. Congress must pass this legislation to make the world a safer place.”
Shell Oil:
“Shell commends Senators Kerry and Lieberman for introducing an energy and climate bill designed to strengthen our economy, create jobs and enhance our energy security while reducing greenhouse gas emissions ..
http://kerry.senate.gov/americanpoweract/pdf/APAwhattheyaresaying.pdf
also includes: Statement from Alliance for Climate Protection, Audubon, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Climate Solutions, Defenders of Wildlife, ENE (Environment Northeast), Environment America, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Fresh Energy, Green For All, League of Conservation Voters, National Tribal Environmental Council, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oxfam America, Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, The Wilderness Society, Union of Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund
“Today’s action by Senators John Kerry (Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (Conn.) jumpstarts the Senate debate over America’s energy future. Their unwavering leadership has been critical to the progress made thus far. Every day the Senate fails to pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation we put our economy, our national security and our environment at greater risk. Inaction is too costly, and the challenge is too urgent. The Gulf Coast oil catastrophe is yet another reminder that the United States must reduce its dependence on oil to protect our security, economy and environment. The millions of Americans we represent demand a Senate vote on comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. President Obama and leaders of both parties in Congress must provide the leadership necessary to develop a clean energy and climate solution that becomes law this year.”
10
hmmm!
13 May: Australia: Michael Asten: CSIRO should establish if there was medieval warming Down-Under
THE deferral of Australia’s emissions trading scheme for three years allows us time for additional scientific studies that may be critical in shaping future legislation…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/csiro-should-establish-if-there-was-medieval-warming-down-under/story-e6frg6zo-1225865724876
10
As a few of you probably realise, I am spending a fair bit of time blogging against the new Labor lunacy that is called the resource super profits tax. Like the CPRS the name is wrong for starters… Carbon is not a pollutant like long-term bonds rates do not represent the threshold for super profits.
Also, Rudd keeps telling us that under the new additional 40% tax impost, Treasury modelling shows that mining activity will increase as compared to a business as usual case.
Anyone else seeing the parallels that I am?
10
Challenge for the Ruddster,
Forego the dogma and spend the first million on proving the real role of CO2 as a climate driver. There’s a chance that he won’t have to spend the other $29M.
That will go some small way to getting Abbott and Hockey off his back.
John Watt
10
John Watt,
Unfortunately the bill for climate research so far is in the tens of billion$s, so another million$ won’t do much.
10
10 May: Space and Science Research Center: Food and Ethanol Shortages Imminent as Earth Enters New Cold Climate Era
Press Release SSRC 2-2010 :
The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), the leading independent research organization in the United States on the subject of the next climate change, issues today the following warning of imminent crop damage expected to produce food and ethanol shortages for the US and Canada:
Over the next 30 months, global temperatures are expected to make another dramatic drop even greater than that seen during the 2007-2008 period. As the Earth’s current El Nino dissipates, the planet will return to the long term temperature decline brought on by the Sun’s historic reduction in output, the on-going “solar hibernation.” In follow-up to the specific global temperature forecast posted in SSRC Press Release 4-2009, the SSRC advises that in order to return to the long term decline slope from the current El Nino induced high temperatures, a significant global cold weather re-direction must occur. According to SSRC Director John Casey, “The Earth typically makes adjustments in major temperature spikes within two to three years. In this case as we cool down from El Nino, we are dealing with the combined effects of this planetary thermodynamic normalization and the influence of the more powerful underlying global temperature downturn brought on by the solar hibernation. Both forces will present the first opportunity since the period of Sun-caused global warming period ended to witness obvious harmful agricultural impacts of the new cold climate. Analysis shows that food and crop derived fuel will for the first time, become threatened in the next two and a half years. Though the SSRC does not get involved with short term weather prediction, it would not be unusual to see these ill-effects this year much less within the next 30 months.”
The SSRC further adds that the severity of this projected near term decline may be on the order of 0.9 C to 1.1 C from present levels. Surprising cold weather fronts will adversely impact all northern grain crops including of course wheat and the corn used in ethanol for automotive fuel….ETC
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
10
Anyone else seeing the parallels that I am?
Bulldust – following the same logic taxing cigarettes will produce more smokers, taxing alcopops will encourage more teenage binge drinking etc.
10
I’m glad you fellows are straightening me out on economics…. I always thought that the less something cost the more it would be utilized. (setting jewelry demand aside for the moment)
10
Richard S Courtney,
I agree with what you say except I think that Glikson’s Figure 2 is an average for the globe rather than a graph of measurements over the equator. This is why I think Glikson can claim that the graph is consistent with the existence of a hot spot. It simply won’t show up, even if it existed, in the figure he provided. (Of course, if I am wrong about the equator bit I humbly apologize.)
If Glikson were honest, he would have provided a graph similar to Douglass et al over the equator. But then he would be shown up to be wrong.
10
Denis #24. Temperture drives cliamte?
Now I thought temperature was simply a locally measureable outcome of Climate?!
10
Baa Humbug @ 22:
I’m not sure what use debating people like Glikson is — I’ve read Glikson’s latest, and he still shows no grasp of the science; he only re-submits arguments shown (by Jo and many others) to be faulty, and has no apparent ability to analyze by himself. His “contribution” to the “debate” is simply argument from authority, as usual. It’s nice that he’s polite and refrains from personal attacks, but that is what Jo (and many others on the side of climate realism) have been doing all along. He is politely re-using dishonest arguments, whether he realizes they are dishonest or not.
Perhaps these discussions are useful if they lead some people who have been listening to only one side of the argument to come here — but most folks who haven’t become aware of a debate are, like Glikson, not able to follow it anyway. (Like a local columnist I tried to engage with peer-reviewed papers contradicting her claims said: “If you knew anything about the science you would simply accept the judgment of the authorities in the field.” I referred her to a couple of articles on the scientific method and hoped for the best.)
Glikson is just the “B-team” anyway. As Pat @ 33 points out, the “A-team” has given up arguing the merits of AGW and is trying to shift the argument to national security and politics. Polls show that many people are beginning to grasp that AGW is a con fronting for a political power grab. People sense they are being scammed and I don’t think that pointing that out often will hurt at all.
10
pat @34:
Just read that article. I disagree with the basic premise that discovering whether the MWP was global casts much light on today’s warming. Other than that I agree pretty much with his assertions. As I said in my comment just now, assuming it gets published, is that he would be better off observing today’s climate to determine what makes it tick than navel-gazing about the climate from 1,000 years ago.
A good start would be extending the Svensmark cloud research and Lindzen and Spencer research regarding energy budgets. That’s my 2c.
10
Bulldust
Thanks for the two cents worth – sort of agree but the importance of the Medieval Warming Period is what it tells us DOESN’T drive climate – namely CO2.
The warm-mongers are telling us the current warming (after the Little Ice Age) is due to the coincident beginning of the Industrial Revolution (and CO2 emissions associated therewith). What would they or could they say if the same or higher temperature record occurred 1000 years ago? They’d have to invent a whole new story and we know they don’t want to do this – they’re emotionally attached to the one they’ve already got!
That’s why they invented the hockey stick graph – to hide the rather inconvenient fact that temperature in the past hasn’t been driven by CO2. And the rather awkward question that follows – why should CO2 drive temperature now? Ooops…
Over at CO2 Science they have a section dedicated to the MWP. The overwhelming majority of the investigations show the global temperatures were warmer during the MWP than now -with absolutely no input from mankind. Very embarrassing.
That’s my two cents worth.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
BobC: #43
May 13th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
With all due respect Bob, I can’t agree with you on this one.
Jo made the judgement that entering this debate (after an invitation by Quadrant) was worthwhile. (The re-posting here at this weblog is for our info) I trust Jos judgement.
In regards to whether it’s worthwhile or not. I guess that’s a subjective matter. It depends on why Jo agreed to the debate. i.e. perhaps she has a history with Glikson? perhaps she has a history with Quadrant Online? etc etc (just suppositions, I have no inside info)
In any case, I personally found the whole thing informative. It added to my knowledge, not only of the science, but how the “other-side” approaches these types of debates.
I hope it was the same for you and our other blogger friends.
10
Yeah Speedy – they would do exactly that. They would say it was a meteorite impact or vulcanism… or something. While I agree it removes one pillar of the AGW claims, it doesn’t do anything to prove what caused the current warming, such as it is. The AGW types main problem is acknowledging that most, if not all, climate change is governed by cycles they do not yet understand. We keep seeing straight line trends being projected or computer models with one major driver (CO2), and that is so incredibly unrealistic it ain’t funny.
O/T I see Ken Henry came out saying his modelling indicated the super profits tax would increase mining activity. The man has discredited himself to a level Mann and Schmidt have not yet managed by that one simple statement. Quite astounding. His modelling proves it apparently… and we thought the IPCC models were bad…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/we-dont-want-mining-project-losses-tanner/story-fn5eo6td-1225866133597
10
A Quote for everyone here
Thomas Henry Huxley:
“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”
It`s interesting how far removed from this ideal the CAGW bandwagon has moved with their constant cries of “The science is settled”
10
Leftist Labor Party Logic:-
Increase tax on smoking to REDUCE smoking.
Increase tax on mining to “INCREASE” mining.
Err, I think not!
10
Rudd & his Leftist Labor Government is WASTING untold sums of money on GARBAGE eg $90 million dollars for the department of climate change; $30 million dollars for global warming BRAIN WASHING etc etc
Yet there is no money for deserving causes like the following one.
A little girl desperately needs an expensive operation to give her sight.
http://tashashopeforsight.com/
It just shows what DESPICABLE MONGRELS rudd & his Labor party are!
10
Macha @ #42:
I responded to Jo’s automatic email which included your query. I thought that would be posted here, but don’t see it (yet), so here comes what may turn out to be a redundant response.
Spencer gets at clouds, in terms of likely negative feedback (I’m not finished with his latest book, so my interpretation may turn out to be erroneous) but mostly focuses on the PDO in this regard in his latest book).
Svensmark has a stronger cloud link plus some experimental evidence. He links the level of cloud cover to solar activity which in turns influences level of cosmic ray impact. Higher solar activity implies lower cosmic ray level which implies less low cloud cover, which implies warming, whereas lower solar activity permits more high energy cosmic rays entering lower atmosphere, with muons acting as aerosols, which increases low cloud cover leading in turn to cooling. There are references to Spencer’s and to Svensmark’s book, as well as to a Svensmark video (which is enjoyable as well as informative). There’s also a Jason Kirkby CERN Colloquium referenced which is related to Svensmark’s position. (Svensmark also brings in our position in the galaxy and he has some strong statistical correlations to defend his claims. The long faces of the IPCC staff during a Svensmark presentation are included in his video. Enjoy !
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddrj9jjs_0fsv8n9gw
10
Baa Humbug @ 46:
You’re right, Baa. This is Jo’s blog and she’s doing a great job of educating folks about the science and it’s misuse. I wouldn’t try to second-guess her.
Perhaps the bare-knuckle politics (which is where the other side has been trying to go for some time) should be conducted elsewhere. Ultimately the AGW power grab will fail because the public will become enraged at being scammed, not because the other side lost a polite scientific argument. Demonstrating the errors in their science is a critical step, however.
10
Ronnel @ 50
I see there’s a facebook site now – something like
Kevin 07 – out by 11
I love it.
And Bulldust – agree. The AGW conclusions will remain the same. The facts will be altered to comply.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Joe Veragio @ #29
&
AC @ #8:
“wondering:-
“… why the Vickings called their new settlement in Nova Scotia “Vinland” or Vine Land. Unless of course its the obvious….”.
Perhaps AC, like ‘Greenland’, it was purely aspirational”
Actually, to the best of my knowledge the only viking settlements found in North America were on the island of Newfoundland, which is the north of Nova Scotia and generally colder, which just goes to show how warm the medieval warm period was.
According to Wiki: The earliest etymology of “Vinland” is found in Adam of Bremen’s 11th Century Latin Descriptio insularum Aquilonis (“Description of the Northern Islands”): “Moreover, he has also reported one island discovered by many in that ocean, which is called Winland, for the reason that grapevines grow there by themselves, producing the best wine.”
My own personal take was that it might also have been an early marketing campaign to attract settlers or adventurers. These days, Newfoundland usually goes by the appelation ‘the Rock’, would you rather cross the ocean in longship to set up shop in the Rock or in Vinland?
10
Mach @#42
Climate, if not influenced by temperature, would become a rather boring subject, would it not?
10
On the whole Vostoc Ice Cores does CO2 increase cause warming or warming cause CO2 increase see
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html#more
Dr. Glassman makes a very convincing case for the latter proposition.
10
The Missing Hotspot?
It goes both ways. Yes, it is a global average, and we’re looking for an equatorial hot spot. But the hotspot covers a large 60 degrees of the 180 from N to S. And there is not much cooling at that height elsewhere (according to the models). Hence, even on a global scale we should see some rise above a “nil” trend (though diluted somewhat).
And yes, there is that odd moment when he talks about the graph and lists temperatures specifically for the surface and lower troposphere, but not the all important upper troposphere.
Despite that, I think he was honest (though confused) because if he understood what the hot spot was meant to be, he wouldn’t have put that graph in at all. (Do you ever see Gore even answer a question on the hot spot?)
As for the wisdom of doing it?
It was a lot of work, but Glikson is a paleoclimate scientist, and “speaks” all over the place. His blog. ABC Drum. Slow TV. IAS. Crikey. CounterCurrents. …
He has gotten away with it for too long. It’s time he met with some real criticism. I hope that now when he speaks out there will be a few more commentators who are better prepared to point out the flaws. I was surprised that his attitude improved as we went further.
The A-list guys don’t debate. They watch these B-list names do it though (by proxy).
If Glikson didn’t believe his material he wouldn’t have agreed to a debate, and wouldn’t have kept coming back.
Al Gore won’t debate. He knows how weak his case is. He’s already shifting the goal posts. It’s spiritual. It’s about energy security. It’s about black carbon (soot).
PS: Google “Glikson Climate”. That’s a reason this type of debate is worthwhile. Though I don’t know how long that link ranking will stay like that.
10
Glikson,
I suggest a chrash course in Cybernetics. Its all about cause and effect. And feedback loops with “feed-forward” and what have you.
Will be very helpful in understand everything that goes on in the real world. Was very helpful to me.
10
pat: @ #33:
Website of John Kerry: THE AMERICAN POWER ACT:
WHAT THEY’RE SAYING
Lt. General John G. Castellaw US Army, Retired:
…sounding remarkably like the justifn. for going after WMD, unilaterally (ie.whether the ROW was on-board or not).
It was only a matter of time until someone started threatening war over this .
10
As to those discussing cloud cover above, you might find it interesting that it is a well known fact that visual cloud cover estimates in weather observations were/are often very inaccurate. Satellite observations show this discrepancy. I assume that automatic ground based equipment does much better too.
An observer looking (especially) at low or mid level clouds trailing off to the horizon is beginning to see sides of clouds obscuring the likely clear spots between individual clouds and thus easily overestimates the coverage.
But the sky dome is also hard to gauge visually. I remember the first reference to estimating cloud coverage of the sky in an early USAF observing manual. They pointed out that if a solid cloud layer extending toward the observer from the horizon should end in a straight line at a 45 degree vertical angle to the observer, coverage was one octa. I was amazed, but once one tries to estimate coverage, especially in multiple scattered or broken layers, it is very apparent that a guess is what you come up with, maybe educated or maybe not. This was quite apparent in the quality assurance area where it was quite noticeable that a shift change of observers would very often cause an immediate shift in cloud coverage by 1 octa. But it wasn’t possible to determine which was right since both were opinions of something that couldn’t be recreated. Plus, in those days it is very unlikely that few, if any, scientists were equating cloud coverage to climate change
10
Rod Smith:#60
May 14th, 2010 at 6:49 am
Good post Rod. Informative. I learned something new. Thank you.
10
If Glikson is part of the “B team” then Clive Hamilton must be out on his own and not qualifying for any any team ( no one would have him !!)
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/5/13/clive-hamilton-in-oxford.html
10
Thought this might be interesting would you like the list of participants?
Dear John
Please join us at the CCPS Deliberative Forum
We would like to formally invite you to participate in the Climate Change and the Public Sphere Deliberative Forum.
This forum is the second stage of our research, where participants will be able to look more closely at the scenarios used in the interviews, find out more about the potential impacts of climate change while interacting with leading researchers and policy-makers, and developing ideas about what can be done to improve adaptation.
The forum will involve a random selection of approximately half of the participants interviewed. For ACT participants, the forum will entail two full days on Friday 28 May and Saturday 29 May; with the third working with policy makers on Saturday 5 June. Meals will be supplied along with another small stipend payment for the three days at the completion of the forum.
This is an exciting and interacting forum where participants will learn more about various aspects of climate change from a range of experts, policy-makers and academics. As part of this deliberative process, participants will have an opportunity to ask questions of these experts and to reflect upon their own responses and opinions with other participants.This will be facilitated through climate change presentations, panel sessions and group discussion.
As for the interviews, you do not need any particular knowledge about climate change to participate, only opinions are required. We will be providing all the materials that you need to work together to develop your own ideas about what you think is important and what should be done about it. The information provided will designed to suit your needs and you will have plenty of opporunties to ask questions.
In addition to the forum, participants will enjoy a ‘Welcome Dinner’ on Friday 28th of May, which will be MC-ed by comedian and political speaker, Rod Quantock. You will also have the chance to meet the research team and policy makers who will also be attending the dinner.
The forum is shaping up to be a dynamic, educative and enjoyable event for speakers, organisers and participants. We hope that you can attend and we look forward to hearing from you soon.
Please RSVP by Friday 14 May to Elaine Dos Santos via the email address listed below. Please also indicate if you have any dietary requirements:
Elaine.Santos@anu.edu.au
If you require any further information, please contact us using the methods listed below.
Kind Regards
Simon Niemeyer on behalf of the CCPS research team
Dr Simon Niemeyer
Project Leader
simon.niemeyer@anu.edu.au
T: 02 6125 3605 Dr Jacqui Russell
Project Manager
jacqui.russell@anu.edu.au
T: 02 6125 1434 Elaine Cristina dos Santos
Research Assistant
elaine.santos@anu.edu.au
T: 02 6125 3605
10
Dear Joanne Nova,
Thank you for acknowedging the sincerity of climate scientists. As I wrote, I believe I can state on behalf of my colleagues – nothing would delight us more than if direct evidence existed global warming is not occurring or, at the very least, warming is not anthropogenic in origin.
I restrict my response here to the troposphere hot spot, as below. In case you are interested in further detailed response to your article “Depending on flawed models” (11.5.10) I will be pleased to contribute such reply to your website in the form of an 800-1000 words-long article.
Regarding the troposphere hot spot, I refer to the paper: “Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere” by 17 climate scientists (B.D. Santer, 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), Int. J. Climatol. (2008).
Where the summary reads:
The observation of climate change is not model-dependent but is based on direct observations and measurements, from ground stations, weather baloons and satellites, of basic physical and chemical parameters. The role of models is to help resolve the various climate drivers (forcings) and processes, as well as project future trends.
I will add at this point that disproving the reality of anthropogenic climate change requires:
A. Negation of basic laws related to infrared resonance/greenhouse gas modulation of atmospheric temperature (Stefan-Boltzmann law, Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation, Planck’s law etc.) (For a review of the relations between CO2 and climate refer to http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm).
B. In terms of these laws, accounting for the effect of some 370 billion ton of carbon emitted by human industry since 1750 (plus land clearing) on the atmosphere, less than half of which was absorbed by the oceans, where it results in decreased pH.
Yours Respectfully
(Dr) Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleo-climate science
14 May, 2010
10
Andrew,
You must stop thinking of this as an all or nothing thing. Why is it that you seem to think that skeptics don’t think the climate changes or that we don’t acknowledge the finite effect of mans CO2 emissions?
Skeptics like myself do believe the climate changes. The ice core data clearly shows the range over which the climate varies. When you look at high resolution ice core data (for example DomeC), there are many instances where recorded change exceeds even the trumped up hockey stick quantifications of recent trends. Moreover, the change in long term average temperatures extracted from the ice cores can exceed the rate of the absolute contemporary change warmists like to compare against.
We also believe that incremental CO2 does indeed have a finite effect on surface temperature. What we don’t agree with is the stated magnitude of the climates sensitivity to changes in CO2 levels. To us, the physics and data suggests a sensitivity no more than 1C for doubling CO2. At this rate, the catastrophic scenarios projected by the IPCC are meaningless and based on the precautionary principle, why would you want to inflict so much economic damage when there’s nearly a 100% probability that that there will be no detectable climatic effect?
We also believe that CO2 is a necessary nutrient for plant life and that there is incontrovertible evidence that increased CO2 levels accelerates the growth of biomass. While we attribute much of gains in agricultural production to modern farming methods, increased CO2 levels has had a measurable effect.
We also understand the difference between correlation and causation and that evidence of warming is not evidence that CO2 caused it. If anything, the recent cooling, attributed to reduced solar activity, tells us that whatever the effect of incremental CO2 is, it’s easily swamped out by natural variability.
As for me, I also know that the net feedback acting on the climate is negative implying that over climate sensitivity is far lower than even the low end of the consensus estimate. I know this from extracting the climate system transfer function in response changes in forcing from the ISCCP weather satellite aggregations. You can see more about that here:
http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/eb.html
Regards,
George
10
Sir, the “hot spot” refers to the region near the tropopause between Tropical latitudes that must elevate in temperature in response to a “greenhouse” effect, the effect is prominent and should be measurable there if anywhere because of the consistency of the annual insolation. It remains unobserved.
The equilibrium of carbonate and bicarbonate is a buffer, and the salts of weak acids are weak bases in solution, surely. There is more than 10 times enough calcium alone dissolved in the ocean to neutralise all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Note that the estimates of climate sensitivity by Lindzen and the rest are actually upper bounds of a quantity that might well be zero or negative. Neither values contradict thermodynamic laws, actually.
The issues brought before you by Ms Nova remain the same: there is no evidence of AGW to be found in the physical world, and it seems very likely at this point that incorrect thinking has led to the conclusion that such evidence must exist.
From a 10 000 metre view, the “greenhouse theory” provides a means of cooling the stratosphere whilst warming the troposphere without compensating work expended. The inescapable conclusion is, the idea violates the second law of thermodynamics and there are no microscopic details that can be added to make the idea viable. It is high time to accept that and Science move on.
Very truly yours,
(Dr) Brian G Valentine
Arlington, Virginia, USA
10
Well, I guess I’ll pick up my ball and go home now………
10
Thank you Dr Glikson, for replying to Jo’s points.
However, where you say
“A. Negation of basic laws related to infrared resonance/greenhouse gas modulation of atmospheric temperature (Stefan-Boltzmann law, Kirchhoff’s law of thermal radiation, Planck’s law etc.)”
I’m afraid that I would have to disagree quite strongly, in that:
i) the radiative physics you refer to produces a warming on the order of 6 times less than IPCC central projections. This is because, as you are no doubt aware, positive water vapour feedback is used to amplify the initial heating. As far as I am aware, we have not seen such amplification in warming to date. Such calculations may even be misguided in any case, as outlined in point 3 below.
ii) all things are not and will not be equal in any case. That is to say, it is not just temperature that will change, but also many other attributes including, but not limited to: albedo, precipitation, humidity, atmospheric circulation patterns, ocean circulation patterns. Please remember that climate (and even weather!) are highly complex coupled non-linear systems that appear to present as chaotic. Such systems are notoriously difficult to simulate accurately over long time frames, being extremely sensitive to initial conditions.
iii) the temperature of the surface of our planet is not at the theoretical black body temperature because it is encased in a gaseous atmosphere. I believe that if you do the calculations, you will discover that the surface temperature departure from theoretical black body is very close to that you will get simply by applying the ideal gas law. Such will get you at least an order of magnitude closer to actual measurements (<3C vs 30C). This obviously has significant implications for any calculations based on 30C of "greenhouse" warming.
I would be pleased to discus any of these issues with you if you are so inclined. Indeed, this is just the tip of the iceburg as it were.
Kind regards
Neil Fisher
10
On second thought;
Dr Glickson, I have a simple question (or two) for you. How do you explain the viewpoints of highly regarded expert colleagues like John Christy, Roy Spencer, William Gray, Richard Lindzen (to name just a few)? Do they not have access to the same information that you have to make your determination of AGW?
Thank you.
10
Andrew @ 64.
With all respect to you personally, I don’t think Jo extends her high opinion of you to all AGW proponents in general – Albert Gore, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt etc come to mind. Without wishing to tar you with the same brush as these gentlemen, it is perhaps generous to extend Jo’s appreciation of your sincerity to them.
In the wake of the various “gates” that have undermined the scientific credibility of the AGW movement, you will appreciate that sceptics will treat papers such as the one you have cited with some degree of circumspection. To cut a long story short, it seems this group of 17 climatologists reviewed the data and manipulated it so that the data fitted the pre-existing climate models. (The modellers must have been chuffed.) A term that caught my eye was the phrase “observational estimates”. To what extent are the conclusions based on observations and to what extent on estimates? Was the methodology used for shifting the data set submitted to open review? That is, are the data and the data manipulation algorithms available to the general public? [Harry_read_me still haunts me, sorry.] I seem to recall how Michael Mann told a very convincing story as well – until someone had a chance to review the data…
A minor point in closing. The burden of proof rests with the proponent of a hypothesis. AGW is still, at best, a hypothesis, and the AGW proponent needs to demonstrate physical evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels will result in climatic changes that are significant and harmful.
Cheers,
Speedy
[Just to make sure we’re all on the same page – I’m not asking for “proof”. I just want a reasonable case which means the benefits of acting clearly outweigh the risks. –JN]
10
I would like to add a few more rhetorical questions.
Why is there such reluctance to accept findings which falsify CAGW?
Isn’t it a win-win if man’s CO2 emissions have no measurable effect on the climate?
Wouldn’t knowing this save the world trillions of dollars?
What motivation is there for suppressing this knowledge?
Why has this been allowed to happen?
George
10
Speedy,
I kind of like CAGW instead of AGW (Catastrophic AGW). The reason is that being skeptical of AGW infers to warmists that we don’t believe in basic atmospheric physics, which of course we do. The comment by Andrew has pointed this out as a significant problem with our message and a likely reason for some of the ridicule we get.
We all should be able to agree that additional atmospheric CO2 has some finite effect on the climate, but as Brian pointed out, the observational data isn’t good enough to tell us for sure the sign of this effect, so all we can say is that it’s close to zero and while we can’t rule out a small warming, we can rule out catastrophic warming. In other words, CAGW is far easier to falsify than AGW.
George
[Well said George. I agree exactly — JN]
10
It’s a religion, George, nobody wants to hear that their religion is a pile of hooey.
Difficulties arise when people attempt to impose their religion on others BY LAW, [snip… right now, we need to stick to science, OK Brian? –JN]
10
The latest clutch at the pile of straw in an effort to find evidence of AGW is the appearance of a Gray Whale off the cost of Israel. This appearance is obviously caused by the melting of the Arctic as how else could the whale of go there?
I pounted out that the whales used to inhabit this area way back in 1700 odd before we killed them, does this mean Arctic ice was melting back then too?
If any are feeling bored then go rattle the alarmist cage to pass the time.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/05/gray_whale_spotted_on_wrong_si.php#c2512084
Cheers
10
Brian,
Yes, I agree there’s a religious component, but that’s associated more with those who have no understanding of the science. It’s also the case that many CAGW proponents, especially politicians, want it to be true because it bolsters agendas which otherwise can’t stand on their own merits. Examples of this are Holdren and his geoengineering agenda, progressives and their redistribution of wealth agendas, greens with radical environmental agendas, anyone with a beef against oil companies and of course, those envious of the prosperity in the developed world.
Some of those in the CAGW camp must be real scientists who can be convinced when presented with complete information. Many have never even taken the time to try and understand it for themselves. I simply can’t accept that all of the scientists who believe in CAGW do not understand falsification and how to be objective. It’s these scientists who need to be convinced.
George
10
George
You’re absolutely right. Arrhenius 1896 and all that. The effect exists – it’s just not significant.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Apparently lizards are on the “next to be extinct” list due to warming now:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/lizards-find-climate-change-too-hot-to-handle-20100514-v2yx.html
Another case of… it’s easier to get funding if climate change is in the thesis title.
10
denis @ 51 and 55.
Yes, I’ve read a fair bit on Svenmark, etal. They make good points. My point is that temperature is not a cause, its an outcome. Radiation, chemistry, physics via ocean energy, kinetic or potential, solar waves, cloud cover and various heights, etc. are causes. Temperature is simply a measure of that energy and should not be assigned as a “cause” of climate change. there’s a big difference.
10
:
But, but as you have always said Jo, the onus is on the warmists to prove the reality of AGW. Otherwise it’s like asking us to disprove the fact that 40000 angels can dance on a pinhead.
10
For heaven’s sake even if we had absolute proof that AGW was real the FACTS are there is nothing we can do about it.
The developing world led by China, India, Brazil etc will far out pace the developed world in emissions of co2 into the foreseeable future.
The IEA states that by 2030 the developed world will be producing 15 billion tonnes of co2 but the developing world will be in excess of 25 billion tonnes.
Critically China, India and the developing world will not stop their emissions until they have reached a per capita level with the first world.
We could retire and live in caves and the level of emissions will still keep rising.
Just look at the recent evidence in 1997 China produced 3.3 billion tonnes of co2 but by 2007 had overtaken the USA as the world’s largest emitter, USA 5.9BT’s to China’s 6.6 BT’s.
In 2010 China’s emissions would easily exceed 7 BT’s, while USA would still be about 6 BT’s.
Remember all the billions of dollars we spend on this nonsense is totally wasted and will give a zero return, it won’t change the climate in the slightest but will send our jobs and industry overseas.
10
Bulldust @ 77
LOL ,So according to CAGWists the tough as boots modern lizards who are essentialy unchanged since the heat of Jurassic and survived the K/T extinctions and the various ice ages since will suddenly expire from a bit of warm weather ? I don`t think so
10
George, I suggest that you sound defeated when you mention the preference for CAGW.
First it was GW (maybe we have that)
Then AGW (looks like we might be the cause)
Now CAGW? (oh well, will it be bad?)
Will it turn into MCAGW (M)easurable?
Then MCACC (C)limate (C)hange
At some point you are playing into “their” notion. As far as I can see their notion plays on AG Anthropogenic Guilt. I see it as attempted PC(ness) 🙁
10
Andrew Glikson: #64
May 14th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Welcome Dr Glikson. Good to have you here.
Regards your post #64, I must assume you cite the Sander et al paper “Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere” as confirmation of a tropical tropospheric hot spot, i.e. the infamous missing hot spot “has been found”.
I have the Santer paper, along with a “fact sheet” released by Santer in October 2008. I just don’t see this paper the same way as you do.
The paper was NOT produced to prove the existence of the hot spot and nor does it do so. From Santer himself…
And..
In other words, Douglass et al (A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology 27: doi:10.1002/joc.1651.) claimed there was a statistically significant divergence between GCM’s and observed temp trends, Santer et al set out to show that the divergence was not statistically significant.
So this was not a search for the hot spot, but rather, two papers duelling about statistical significance.
Basically, the Santer et al paper boils down to their claim that Douglass et al
A-) Did not use the latest data available.
B-) That natural variations (El Nino La Nina) add noise to the data that Douglass failed to account for.
(from the Santer fact sheet, footnote on page 2..
So why a warming by El Nino should be treated as “noise” is beyond me)
C-) Allowing for the above natural variations, the error margins are wide enough to make the model predictions statistically significant.
Hardly a paper that shows the existence of the hot spot.
I won’t labour this out. The link provided by Jo in her welcome statement is detailed enough. However for the benefit of those following this debate, I’d like to highlight three very important points.
1-) Santer claims to have used the latest data, but their own analysis only uses data to 1999 (see fig 1 and fig 2 of their paper)
2-) Santer uses ERSST v2, ERSST v3 and HadISST data but neglects the oft referenced HadCRU, GISS and NOAA data that Douglass uses. (surprisingly since G Schmidt of GISS and Tom karl of NOAA are co-authors of the paper)
3-) Santer cites Wentz 1998 to claim (as so many commenters here do) that the early satellite data suffered from orbital drift. Wentz calculates this error…”We find a new, corrected estimate
of +0.07K per decade for the MSU-based temperature trend, Air temperatures measured at the Earth’s surface, in contrast, have risen by approximately +0.13K per decade over the same period.”
That is, surface T’s are still 0.06K higher than tropospheric T’s, when the “hot spot” fingerprint should show 2.5 to 3 times surface T’s
To sum up, the Santer et al paper is NOT confirmation of the existence of the missing hot spot.
Once again, thankyou for taking the time to post here, and I sincerely hope you follow up with a substantial article. We, the Jo Nova regulars, look forward to it.
10
Macha @#78
I concede that temperature appears to be an outcome rather than a casual agent, and that there may be stringent climate rules (not known to me at this point) long since developed and accepted by the climate community as to what is causal and what is outcome.
And we also don’t really know that temperature has ever been a driver (clearly not the ultimate casual agent driver) of CO2, only that CO2 (at least before the 1800s and continuing way back) was clearly not a driver of temperature (this assumes that core samples have been accurately interpreted and that physics beliefs are still valid which assert that information – and other stuff – cannot be communicated into the past.)
By your own admission, cloud cover is causal rather than an outcome – – but if Svensmark is correct, the level of cloud cover is, at least to some degree, also an outcome since its level (increases or decreases) by the presence or absence of cosmic rays sufficiently strong to have an impact on the lower atmosphere. Don’t we also already understand that the level of low cloud cover will also be influenced by the temperature? (I know, I know, temperature is an outcome). Even the incidence of cosmic rays, surely a causal agent if we ignore the status of the contributing exploding star, is influenced (so far as its capability for invading our atmosphere) in turn by the level of solar activity.
My wording in the earlier comments may have been sloppy but (a) life is short, and (b) this sounds to me more like the old chicken and egg argument. We could end up back at the “big bang”, (not an exciting prospect) because prior information becomes very scarce.
10
For Andrew Glickson:
For the purposes of the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming (it is not even a theory, merely an hypothesis) to have any merit whatsoever, YOU must show the following:
A reasonable Null Hypothesis for climate variation could certainly be worded as follows:
All current climate variation is well within the scope of all previous climate variation, and can be explained by a myriad of climate variables which all vary naturally over time. In other words, current climate variations are not significantly outside of the realm of any previous (pre-anthropogenic CO2 emission) climate variations.
Demonstrably, the Null Hypothesis holds for our current situation. Climate variation from 1850-present is WELL WITHIN the realm of previous climate variation. In fact, climate variations in the past have been FAR MORE DRAMATIC in terms of warming and cooling many times in the past.
That being the case, YOU, Mr. Glickson, must PROVE that your hypothesis (AGW) does a BETTER JOB of explaining the current climate variations than the Null Hypothesis.
I do not believe that you can do so. Good luck trying though!
10
The good news is, there are a lot of things everybody can work together on (for example, nobody really knows the origins of the ENSO)
and a lot more.
Everyone wants to help relieve human suffering, least of all no one wants to cause it, and it appears very likely right now that over reaction to AGW would lead to a lot of suffering and alleviate none.
As for me, my own hostility arises from this apparent lack of understanding; I can’t really change any one’s views about AGW if they are thoroughly convinced of the veracity of it, but I will do what I can to prevent misguided thinking from hurting more than it helps
10
Dr Valentine, Sir.
Thankyou for sharing and resonating my own thoughts on the human tragedy that is being inflicted on humanity by the AGW crowd. Already, we are seeing cases where basic foodstuffs are becoming beyond the reach of underpriveliged families in third world countries – simply because their economies need the export dollars from biofuels more than they need their own children. It is a crime against humanity; here is the poetic (of sorts) excerpt.
“But what does it matter if theory is wrong?
If logic is weak, when emotion is strong?
Because. In tilting at mills and chasing wild geese,
We destroy what is most and retain what is least –
And in pursuit of a meaningless CO2 drop –
We sentence children to death – for a biocrop.”
Silence equals consent.
Speedy
10
It’s wonderful to have so many friends on our brotherly continent, Australia.
Many Americans don’t realize how many Australian lives were lost along with American lives in the Iraq war, I miss many Australians who I met and who were killed near al-Basra, …
The US and Australia will stand or fall together, as far as I know, the percent of the population of both countries who have been duped into believing they have the power to influence the weather according to their laws, being about the same
10
Mark, re 82
It’s not an expression of defeat, just a clarification of position. Warmists seem to be confused about the position of skeptics. They believe that the AGW effect is large, and think that skeptics oppose the effect, not the presumed magnitude of the effect. This is a big difference and the source of many attacks against skeptics.
Most of the warmists I’ve sparred with raise the same talking points that Andrew used. That is, “Don’t you believe that the climate changes?” and “Don’t you believe that CO2 is a GHG” and “Don’t you believe that man is putting CO2 into the atmosphere?”. While the causality vs. correlation argument addresses all of these spurious points, being skeptical of CAGW, rather than AGW, doesn’t even leave room to raise them.
George
10
The official Australian military death toll is 2, and one of those was shot in barracks by his own gun held by his own hand. If there were other Australian deaths that you know of, they are not showing up in the news media.
Wikipedia has compiled a death list of civilian contractors which includes 6 Australians all killed around Baghdad, so presumably these are not the people you are talking about.
Of course, unreported deaths are common in any war zone, but you can hardly be surprised that people don’t know about stuff, when the information simply is not available.
10
I read the entire thing again and come to the same conclusion as when I read the first 2 parts. Dr Glickman adheres to the party line of the IPCC faithful and displays the antithesis of scientific philosophy. For every statement made by Jo the reply could have been read at many other web sites even dsmog,tamino,or a host of other propaganda sites.
Jo, You attempted to debate but you were against an agenda rather than a scientist.
10
Dear Joanna Nova,
I will be pleased to submit an article for your website.
Please let me know the E-mail address to which I can send the material.
Best wishes
Andrew Glikson
15 May, 2010
10
Andrew,
Might I suggest an article which explains the physical basis for the IPCC sensitivity of 2-4.5C for doubling CO2. It would be a waste of everyones time to rehash data that shows that climate change occurs, that CO2 is a GHG or that man is putting CO2 into the atmosphere. I think we can all stipulate to those facts. The only real point of contention between skeptics and warmists is the magnitude of the climate sensitivity. Once this is right, everything else falls into place.
The surface is close to an ideal BB, which at 289K corresponds to a surface power emission of 395.6 W/m^2. At 291K (+2C), the power is 406.6 W/m^2 and at 293.5K (+4.5C), the power is 420.8 W/m^2. The IPCC claims that doubling CO2 results in 3.7 W/m^2 more atmospheric absorption (HITRAN 2008 simulations say 3.6 W/m^2). While I can show that the surface forcing is only half of this amount, I will stipulate 3.7 W/m^2 as an upper bound on surface forcing and it really doesn’t hurt my case. The open question is what physical mechanism is multiplying 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing power into between 11 W/m^2 and 25.2 W/m^2 of new surface power?
I would also like to suggest that that you agree to address any comments Jo’s readers might have about your article.
George
10
If there were other Australian deaths that you know of, they are not showing up in the news media.
There were civilians, too, who worked for contractors and stationed at Baghdad and who were lost in a trip to Basra to help the British there
This was late in 2004 if I recall
10
It a good point though,Tel, and I looked at the Wiki figures, they can’t be right?
I am aware of two New Zealand deaths, and a contingent of four South African para-military were killed in Baghdad on the morning of July 17, 2005 I can recall that distinctly
these aren’t listed
10
With a value of 3.7 W/ sq m arising from the “climate sensitivity” it cannot really be detected, George, for all intents and purposes, it remains unobservable because it is lost in noise of typical (annual) variation
Let’s face it. If the value was something like 10 it would have been noticed a long, long time ago.
If a quantity cannot be measured, does it exist? That is epistemology, my position, of course, is that it is physically impossible for it to be positive, as the stratosphere must cool in response to it
10
Brian,
Yes, the 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing is buried in the natural variability. If we could violate COE and amplify the 3.7 W/m^2 into the 16 W/m^2 required for a 3C rise, then we should be able to see a trend in the satellite data and it’s not there. There’s been 25+ years of continuous surface and atmospheric coverage, in multiple wavebands, from multiple satellites, during which time almost half of all man’s CO2 emissions have occurred. If it was as bad as they say, a 1C linear trend over the last 25 years would be highly evident.
It’ll get real interesting as we see further cooling from the reduced solar activity over the next 2-3 years.
BTW, I read through the new American Power Bill (my power bill will certainly rise) and it’s the most ill conceived piece of legislation I’ve ever seen. It’s incredibly oppressive and seems to give almost unlimited power to the executive branch to make future changes to the terms, conditions and schedules without legislative review. There’s an artificially high lower limit on the price of carbon credits, short trading is not allowed and the majority of consumer protection is targeted to people at 250% of the poverty level and below. While there’s a market for carbon credits, as a highly propped up market, it’s nowhere near being an open, competitive market and ideal for widespread fraud. WTF were they thinking.
George
10
Tax people for gasoline
Give the money to greenie weenies that helped get them elected
The people attempting that stunt face political futures that will make them as electable as ex-convicts
10
If it passes we are ________ (fill in with any favorite expletive)
10
At this point I must simply put my faith in others like Jim Inhofe, Mark – who has stated that the bill is DOA.
Dumbocrats are drinking Jim Jones Fool-Aid with this one, believe me
10
I asked Matt B the question, “what would it take to convince you that your idea of AGW was incorrect,” and if I recall, Matt’s answer was, “if and when the ‘consensus’ view changes, so will mine.”
I hope Dr Glikson will address this in his next report
10
Brian, I have discussed the “what would it take to convince you that your idea of AGW was incorrect,” with a couple of friends too.
They had the same response. It seems there are two “brain-types” out in the real world. The type that follows authority, and almost refuse to look at real data, and the type that want to investigate, and dont slavishly listen to authorithies.
They also conclude that even if AGW isnt true, one shuld press on and follow the precautionary principle. When I mention that the IPCC says (2001) that following the precauthionary principle require that you must know the outcome of your actions before you do it, this is dismissed.
Dr. Clickson, what is your response to Dr. Spencers findings on both positive, and then negative feedbacks? They are based on measurements from the real world;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/strong-negative-feedback-from-the-latest-ceres-radiation-budget-measurements-over-the-global-oceans/
I would also love to hear your comment on Niels Axel Moerners interview regarding sea-levels;
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
10
Dr. Clickson, after studying Dr. Spencers results above, may I suggest you read this as well;
In order to fully understand Dr. Spencers argument on how cause and effect is set up wrong in the climate models, here;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/the-illusion-of-a-sensitive-climate-system-a-stovetop-demonstration/
10
From post # 72,written by co2isnotevil,
I have read differing views on how much CO2 contributes to warming.From ZERO to the IPCC/AGW conjectures,a wide range that can not be correct.
In my forum I have allowed for the possibility that CO2 does not contribute to any warming at all,to be posted on the grounds that differing viewpoints that are presented civilly and rationally should be encouraged.I personally think that most of what CO2 can do to to contribute to warming has already been done and very little left can be added.The present effect is negligible,since there is only so much absorption you squeeze out the minimal absorption bands it has in the IR window.
There is definitely no possibility for CAWG to happen with the present climate process we observe today.Something extraordinary would have to come from the outside to promote rapid warming,something that has not happened in the previous 500 million years or so.But we DO have evidence of RAPID cooling several times in the same 500 million years time frame,due to internal or external input into the climate system of the planet.
I have noticed for some time that skeptics has a much wider latitude of tolerance in what they think is the best answer to questions about what is the climate in its various parts.It should stay that way in order to help promote discussion on the topic of climate science.
Jo has allowed for that possibility with someone who has a very different viewpoint on what is making the climate change as they have for so many years.Since civil exchanges are happening,it is a credit to Jo AND Dr. Glickson that they making it happen here despite the lack of any major agreements in their exchanges.
10
I’m a long way from being credible in climatology, but I recall a piece by Monckton going thru the arithmetic and coming to the conclusion, even supposedly using IPcc’s calculations that giving up all of our use of fossil fuels would still have practically no effect over the next several decades on the (AGW assumed) temperature trend (presumably because China and India and perhaps others will not be participating in that sacrifice) so there was no good reason not to delay such a drastic policy change for another couple of decades; we should wait and see if indeed the IPCC speculated forecast of CAGW does start showing up.
That aside, I don’t understand how CO2 can have much effect, given that it’s potential for energy absorption (limited to only a couple of wave lengths) was already at 50% at 20ppmv. You would think that the current 390ppmv would already have long since exhausted that potential. That would also seem to imply that we can wait and see before doing something really stupid.
10
ATTENTION!!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/15/niwas-kiwi-kaper/#comment-390845
10
Well Jo, I just got through listening to five of our best climate scientists testifying before a House of Representatives panel about global warming and it seems they believe that warmer oceans absorb more CO2 — ocean acidification and all that nonsense. Yes they definitely are warming and yes, all that extra CO2 is going to kill all the corals and other critters that make calcium carbonate shells. Did I miss something?
I wish I could have been there to sit a cold and a warm bottle of, say, 7Up on the table and open them both so they could see the result.
10
How does one become a “best climate scientist” and not have a grasp of very basic chemistry?
10
I think the exchange between Joanne and Dr Glickson is very meaningful, insofar as it shows how debate can proceed without enmity.
I personally find Dr Glickson’s responses generic and redundancy of things he must surely know that Joanne is aware of – I wonder if Dr Glickson feels the same way toward Joanne’s statements?
I recently read an article, enumerating the “same old 13 denier arguments and why they have been repeatedly debunked and anything else a denier has to say is a variation of these 13.”
I look at Dr Glickson’s messages as repetition of the last three of the Introductions to the IPCC Assessment Reports
Which is to say, the situation appears to be stalemated, but at least this exchange is polite and I have an awful tendency to become terribly sarcastic and vitriolic .
So from this, I have learned from Dr Glickson and I need to remind myself that everyone is my teacher in some way
10
Richard Schaefer,
I think it’s a case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing. They never seem to take a step back from their own little bailiwick and take a good look at the bigger picture they present to the world. Thus one can assert that ocean temperature is rising while another can say oceans are acidifying, thereby asserting that more CO2 is being absorbed. In that world you can have your cake and eat it too.
The two assertions are 180 degrees opposed to each other but it doesn’t matter to them. As I said, they know who their masters are. Ask Dr. Richard Lindzen what happens when you buck the prevailing orthodoxy.
10
I should add to my last post that Lord Monkton is not beholden to any government grant for financial and professional survival. What a difference that freedom makes!
10
Nor am I beholden to such grants. I work for the US Department of Energy and my views are not welcome, but I am neither silenced not cautioned not to speak out against belief in negative consequences of AGW.
Unfortunately a lot of people who I know are too timid to make public their sceptical views
10
Good luck on the “polite” (non)debate. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or even a climatologist) to quickly divine that the warmist position (like the old HOllywood vampires) cannot stand even a little sunshine.
10
Brian G Valentine: @ #98:
Brian. Sadly, becoming unelectable is no longer the threat that it was. There are plenty of tax-payer funded positions in the NWO, for unelectable politicians.
It is indeed quite remarkable how politicians once they become no longer electable, or are forced to resign, find a tax-payer funded position telling the citizens of Europe and their elected politicians, what they can & cannot do.
The success of this model hasn’t been lost on the UN either.
Australia & North America are among the last places on earth where the executive still answers directly to the people.
That won’t prevent politicians from trying every trick in the book ‘though, to change that system.
The citizens must retain the sovereignty in their own executives, not allowing them to cede power to unelected supra-national authorities, which they’ll happily do for a nice appointment in retirement.
It’s all to easy to forget, in our liberal western democracies, how tyranny’s develop and what it was like to live under one.
10
Brian Valentine, #109
Which is to say, the situation appears to be stalemated, but at least this exchange is polite and I have an awful tendency to become terribly sarcastic and vitriolic
“stalmated refers only to the fact that neither changed their position, but the debate itself was not a stalemate. It’s pretty clear that Glickson had nothing new (apart from a civil position) to offer.
10
In New Zealand we have a Prime Ministerial Science Advisor. He gave the above referenced lecture recently to NIWA (our equivalent of BOM). From a quick read of it I see:
– he derides those who hold beliefs which are faith based and opposed to his scientific frame of reference
– yet he thinks the science of climate above his intellectual ability so discourages people examining the science behind it – opting to accept it on faith.
This is a very dangerous stance and one which is frequently promulgated. “Oh – those climate scientists they are so intelligent and can understand so much more than we can.” There is this mystique that is built up around climate science.
However, the whole thing topples with very basic scientific enquiry quite within the reach of the average citizen/taxpayer.
10
That link should be
10
I also live in NZ and read Gluckman’s speech. He is another person paid by the government to preach the message, not to review the science. I doubt he has the ability to actually review climate science. After his appointment, he first compared those who denied “climate change” with deniers of the HIV link to Aids, and in this speech compared climate change deniers to deniers of harm from tobacco. All sceptics are dismissed in this way, which therefore excuses him from listening to them. His arguments are from authority. And then he had the gall to say “Climategate” was just a few errors that crept in because scientists are human. He reckons these do not change the underlying science – how would he know when he doesn’t know the science and doesn’t listen to sceptics?
He hasn’t read anything substantive. His stance is that the world has been warming, it must be human induced and models show it will be catastrophic. Childish. He should know that it is pro AGW scientists who will not debate the science. How anyone can so shamelessly be bought and talk down to sceptics is beyond me. But he is not the only scientist in this category.
Alan
10
Just a small point here, a reprise of a comment I have made on an earlier thread. Jo has shown the model and measured graphs showing the ‘missing’ hot spot. Andrew Glickson has commented on reports that the hotspot may be there.
But neither have commented on the fact that one of the other key predictions of GH gas generated AGW is DIRECTLY visible on both the model and measured graphs – STRATOSPHERIC COOLING.
If warming is due to something like changes in Solar output, changed albedo due to clouds etc then there would not be a strospheric cooling effect. And my understanding of the theory of why the hotspot is supposed to occur is that it is beleived to occur with warming from any source. So the climate models have this part wrong, or the measurements of temps are wrong, or the effect will only show up more strongly at equilibrium.
But the fact remains that a key piece of evidence FOR the GH gas aspect of warming is right there on Jo’s graphs!
10
Tanstaafl:
May 12th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
2. He states, “The current CO2 rise rate of c.2 ppm/year, unprecedented in geological history…” This is not true. All you need to do is look at the Vostock ice core readings of CO2 to see that the current rates of CO2 increase are similar to the past.
Which part of the core are you looking at Tanstaafl? The steepest section of the graph Jo has shown is around 100 ppm over around 5000 years from arounf 135000 to 130000 – 0.02 ppm/year. 1/100th the current rate.
10
Glenn Did you give up on our other exchange?
10
Mark D
No Mark, I have left a response there
Glenn.
10
I checked again, I think you should look.
10
Mark D
Just tried posting it again. No Show. Maybe comments are closed on that thread?
Glenn
10
If you have many links it will flag as spam
10
Mark D
My post was there this morning. Don’t know why the delay
Glenn
10
Here’s real irony.
The National Academy of Science (NAS) just came out rubberstamping the IPCC studies, along with recommending an 80+% decrease in carbon emissions by some point in the distant future. They also evidently adjusted IPCC sea levels upwards! At the same time below is a Climate Depot report, referencing an NAS study showing that temperatures in one of the warming periods during this interglacial period were much warmer than now.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/19/nero-was-hotter-than-al-gore/
NAS is therefore admitting that current temperatures are within natural variation, and it’s clear that CO2 (much lower level back then) was not driving temperature. Therefore, no sign of a temperature driver, and our current temperature is within natural limits. On the other hand, they concur with the IPCC study which (1) believes current temperatures are the highest, and thus outside natural limits, and (2) the green gas CO2 is driving temperataure.
This whole group of warmists needs to be wearing painted clown faces during any discussion involving logic or science.
10
Ben Santer presenting his case on the Hidden (rather than missing )Hotspot, in his evidence to the US Congress House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, yesterday.
Is there anything new in this, as it seems so crucial to the case for/against AGW?
10
Joe @128,
From Santer’s paper:
One must wonder what this says about his objectivity.
10
Roy Hogue @129:
Is anyone available who can talk this PhD from a premier institution into answering some climate-related questions (as well as feedback after his response) from a few interested skeptics?
10
denis,
You might try contacting him through LLNL.
10
I suspect it would take someone with more credible bonafides, but thanks for the suggestion. (The fact that I have no ideal what “LLNL” is, tells you something).
10
denis,
Forgive me. LLNL is Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in Livermore, California, Santer’s employer. They’re no doubt on the Internet and probably will show a contact address.
10
tks
10
[…] spurious studies (Sherwood 2008 and Santer 2008) tried to show that it could be there within a margin of error, but the studies are jokes – […]
10
Yeh, but the last comment before yours was June 20th ?????
I’ve gotten several notices this morning from Jo’s website which, except for your comment) appear to have no recent updates.
[denis, we have been hit with a rash of spam and most have been going to old post threads. Ignore them we delete them as fast as we can.] ED
10
[…] […]
10