A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.
Reader Interactions
2040 Responses to "The Bore Hole"
Tietjan Berelulsays
Why would any teacher choose to teach a topic like global warming ?? I dont see why any teacher would pick this battle to fight.
I have college degree, majored in applied math. I am not convinced about AGW, I know the arguments from both sides of the story. I may not be as smart as most of the climate scientists, but some of the graphs i have seen are misleading. The problem is that my children would not pick up on that without one of the parents pointing it out.
Would my children be told that a lot of carreers will end when people no longer fear global warming ?
I would not be happy if my children were made to watch al gore movies.
David L. Hagensays
Does NCSE encourage teaching about the benefits CO2?
Girmasays
In science, when the observation does not match theory, we chuck the theory.
Here is comparison of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory and observation:
This comparison shows the observed global mean temperatures (GMT) are less than model projections if human CO2 emission were held constant at the 2000 level.
In addition, there has not been any change in the climate as there has been only a single GMT pattern since record begun 160 years ago. This pattern can be clearly observed in the data from NASA and the University of East Anglia as shown in the following graph.
This pattern has a unique property of a warming trend of only 0.06 deg C per decade and an oscillation of 0.5 deg C every 30 years.
This result shows, for 160 years, the GMT pattern (the climate) has not been affected by human CO2 emission, volcanoes and aerosols! These variables did not have effect because the GMT pattern before and after mid-20th century were nearly identical.
As observations do not match AGW theory, chuck the AGW theory!
Beesamansays
As a lecturer in science in a major teaching university, who was previously a teacher in a school and before that an engineer in measurement and control I take great exception at being told to indoctrinate my students in a field af science that is at best shoddy in its scientific rigour and to some maybe dishonest.
I will teach them scientic methods and I will teach them to question everything, but I will not tell them that this particular field of science is settled, for at the moment that would be a lie.
Leland Palmersays
Hi Rick-
Urgent action is needed, most of us agree, with the exception of Ray, probably.
But survivable “worst case scenarios” which cannot be scientifically justified, or which are actively misleading for large releases of methane do not help promote a sufficient sense of urgency, I think. Models that leave out significant factors such as oceanic and atmospheric chemistry effects of methane, possibly leading to strong positive feedback release of even greater amounts of methane are not at all helpful or educational, in my opinion.
What compelled David to even release a “worst case scenario” in the first place, in a situation so fraught with unknowns? Is this some form of scientific conservatism I’m not familiar with?
“Looks like we got the factor of ten increase about right” it says under one graph? This in the face of hard scientific isotope ratio evidence that past carbon isotope excursions have likely released trillions of tons of methane?
One test to validate such models is to enter past inputs to events similar to our current situation, and then see if the model faithfully reproduces those events. If we enter inputs similar to the first stages of the PETM, for example, does this model give us a brief bump and a steep decline, or does it give us 170,000 years of grief, which is what actually happened?
Has any attempt- any attempt at all- been made to validate this model?
If not, why not?
JamesHuntsays
Could you please give the error bars in your figure?
John krukassays
There are 800 year old trees in the alps that can tell you the temperature in tenths of a degree what the temperature was in 1258 ?
Would be great to get an update on the divergence! It’s important because you could then say, well, maybe there was more cooling in the LIA and more warming in the MWP, and maybe this recent warming is not extraordinary afterall.
Dan H.says
Dan,
No one is saying that the warming since the 1970s can be explained by natural causes alone, or is ignoring the effects of CO2. I do not know where you are getting these ideas. I am well away of the natural and manmade cause of the warming and cooling, not just of the past 40 years, but throughout history. Your implications that I am ignornant in the science and your condescending attitude does not lend your post much credence. In fact, it implies that you are in denial of the science.
I am not claiming that anyone is getting their information from the media, talk show hosts, or extremist websites (I even know some who use Wikipedia as their scientific source). We scientists tend to avoid such outlets.
I am curious as to whether you think that if the warming since the 1970s is entirely CO2-forced, then how do you explain the most recent decade.
Leland Palmersays
Hi All-
Let’s do a little thought experiment:
One of us parks his car on a hill. But, due to negligence, he forgets to set the parking brake, and he leaves the wheel turned the wrong way. So the car rolls downhill, killing an old woman, a postman, and a small dog.
What is his ethical position?
Pretty terrible, right?
Now, suppose one of us suffers from hubris, and believes his ability to predict the unpredictable is so great that he can publish a worst case scenario. This person ignores a lot of established science to do this. This falsely reassures a lot of people, including impressionable students and congresspersons who take a lot of oil industry money, anyway, and so don’t need much convincing. A necessary war on climate change is called off, oil corporations profit for a few more years- and then methane releases get out of hand, and thousands of years of climate grief result. This kills billions of people, as in Lovelock’s scenarios, and what progeney are left curse our names forever.
What is the ethical position of this person?
Is it better or worse than the guy who parked his car badly?
Robsays
Trusting models that do not match observed conditions is called faith. (that something will change in the future to make them accurate).
Please someone explain why it “makes sense” to average the results of multiple models none of whose accuracy has been demonstrated based on observations of actual conditions.
Why should public policy be implemented based upon faith—when data shows there is little reason to accept the faith in GCM’s?
Leland Palmersays
Hi Ray-
Thank you for your advice. :)
Wow, this one was a whopper- 12 trillion tons of C12 enriched carbon, presumably from the methane hydrates:
The end-Triassic mass extinction (~201.4 million years ago), marked by terrestrial ecosystem turnover and up to ~50% loss in marine biodiversity, has been attributed to intensified volcanic activity during the break-up of Pangaea. Here, we present compound-specific carbon-isotope data of long-chain n-alkanes derived from waxes of land plants, showing a ~8.5 per mil negative excursion, coincident with the extinction interval. These data indicate strong carbon-13 depletion of the end-Triassic atmosphere, within only 10,000 to 20,000 years. The magnitude and rate of this carbon-cycle disruption can be explained by the injection of at least ~12 × 10E3 gigatons of isotopically depleted carbon as methane into the atmosphere. Concurrent vegetation changes reflect strong warming and an enhanced hydrological cycle. Hence, end-Triassic events are robustly linked to methane-derived massive carbon release and associated climate change.
This one’s from 2011. My, this rogue hypothesis does seem to march on, among mainstream scientists with impeccable credentials and no known conflicts of interest.
This 12 trillion tons of carbon is right in line with traditional estimates of 5 to 20 trillion tons of methane hydrates, but far outside Archer’s current estimate of present totals of methane hydrates- roughly ten times as much, although Archer doesn’t include about a trillion tons of associated gas, apparently. So, call it 6 to 10 times as much methane as Archer’s present day estimates for total worldwide methane hydrate and free methane stocks.
Higher lifeforms are a sort of veneer, laid over a base of bacteria and geochemistry which has remained pretty much the same for a couple of billion years, is my understanding. So, why are stocks of methane hydrates so low, now?
Anybody know?
Boy, that one was a whopper, sounds like. :)
Twelve trillion tons of carbon, within only 10,000 to 20,000 years.
Of course, there is something wrong with talking about these peer reviewed scientific papers- from people who have “done the math”, I guess. People tell me it’s not responsible to talk about this stuff. :)
This is a little more methane than David was talking about in his “worst case scenario”, admittedly over a longer estimated period of time. Gee, Ray, do the math for me, will you please? Is this 60 times as much methane? :)
Salamanosays
@138 …
The argument was put forward as: “when my daughters elementary school science teacher tells her that turning on the lights kills polar bears (this actually happened)”
and Gavin responds in part: “I would be appalled because bringing in irrelevant issues without context when a child asks a question is the height of irresponsibility”
…Is not the teacher doing the same thing? Or are we willing to cut the teacher more slack because (A) surely we can assume they would always provide proper context? or (B) they get a pass because generally in some extrapolated sense there’s at least some way it might be correct in a certain framing? or maybe (C) there is never a situation in which a teacher might “bring in irrelevant issues without context” because the teacher sets the agenda– even if its off-standard, off-curriculum, off-message? Why be so willing to indict the parent without questioning the actions of the teacher?
I do realize that Gavin may be (in-a-roundabout-way) not approving of the teacher’s statement, but instead only wishing the parent did a better job. I also realize the teacher isn’t directly present in this conversation, but it would nevertheless be nice to at least see some acknowledgement of the possiblity of shoddy teaching about climate change by (gasp)activitst-types who themselves haven’t done the research either?
I predict the Germans are sure to pull out soon and perhaps lead European countries with them. See the third paragraph here … http://joannenova.com.au/
It’s all starting to happens guys. People respect German engineering and science.
The AGW conjecture is nearing the end of its days – within four years I predict – hopefully before the $100,000,000,000 bills start arriving in 2020.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics will hold fast and not be violated by any backradiation.
Read what top German physicists say in this peer-reviewed published paper as they knock AGW in 100+ pages here …
“Unfortunately, there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse effect is introduced in harmony with the scientific standards of theoretical physics.”
Adam Gallonsays
Conclusions,
Climate models suck!
Trees aren’t thermometers!
Billions of (Insert favoured monetary unit) have been wasted on this over the past few decades.
“Overall, given the latest set of data points, we can conclude (once again) that global warming continues”
Who are you kidding?
MikeBsays
There’s been far too many errors when promoting global warming. Polar bears are not disappearing, they’re at a 40 year high in population; the Himalaya glaciers are not disappearing; Africa is not home to prolonged drought and mass starvation. As some have suggested here, stick to chemistry, biology, fluid dynamics, physics, etc. Stop the politicization of schools. When Germany’s leading environmentalist says global warming hysteria is bunk, what right does a HS teacher have in promoting climate scares?
Jeffreysays
I think it is important to distinguish the teaching of evolution from climate science, particularly the science of global warming. Evolution via natural selection is observable, it is testable in a petrie dish, it is reproducible, it can be used to make predictions that are then verified and it is supported by decades of EXPERIMENTAL science and hundreds of years of observations. It is not based on theoretical constructs or projections. The only assumptions that are needed are the principals of the scientific method themselves.
The same can not be said of climate change and global warming. It is a theoretical science that is untestable on a level with comparable constraints to the system that scientists are attempting to describe. It is a science of observation but not experimentation. There is no ‘control earth’ that looks like our earth but for the fact that they have stable CO2 emissions that can be used to test our grand hypothesis man made global warming hypothesis against. All we know about are the properties of CO2 and that those properties should cause the trapping of energy within our system. However, the manner in which the other variables that effect energy balance will be effected is highly uncertain and completely untestable. So the science becomes one of ‘make a theory’ and create a prediction based on that theory. However, given the level of uncertainty and the number of other variables weighing on the system it may take decades to reflect on what the direction let alone the individual contributions of these ‘sensitivities’ and ‘forcings’ will be.
To compare this process, that is underpinned by solid theory and observations but has no proven causal relations, with evolution is a stretch.
There is a reason it is unteachable – it is because we don’t yet understand it.
Dan H.says
Jeffrey,
I feel your pain. Besides the condescending attitude, many have to put up being called a liar (and other such names) by people who are so insecure, that they do not know what to do when challenged.
Modern scientists seem to think that they know everything without experimenting. As if experimentation is beneath them, and they have nothing else to learn. The really sad part, is that they are driving people away from doing anything about global warming, because of these attitudes.
Stick by your guns, and do not lower your standards for anyone.
DERR UFOsays
It is time for climate scientists who receive monetary sums to study the weather to admit there is no way to know if warming is mainly due to the Sun’s increased activity or ManKind’s activity. Stop the alarmist behavior . Stop being in denial. You in the weather sciences are making fools of yourselves with the predictions of future weather or warming models…stop it !!! — DERRUFO
Here is a simple proof in 10 easy steps why the Greenhouse Effect is a physical impossibility.
(1) The IPCC claim that radiation from a cooler atmosphere slows the rate of cooling of the (warmer) surface, thus leading to a greenhouse effect.
(2) The “rate of cooling” is a 24 hour worldwide mean, so wherever the Sun is warming the surface (any sunny morning) the rate of warming would have to be increased by whatever process is slowing the rate of cooling.
(3) Thus extra thermal energy must be added to the surface by such radiation in order to increase the warming rate in the morning and slow the mean rate of cooling calculated from both day and night rates.
(4) Now the Second Law of Thermodynamics relates to heat transfer which is not the same as energy transfer. Radiated energy can be two-way, but heat transfer between two points is always one way and it is invalid to split such heat transfer into two opposite components and try to apply the Second Law to each. Physics doesn’t work that way.
(5) Hence, the surface cannot warm faster in the mornings due to such an imaginary heat transfer, because that would be clearly breaking the Second Law no matter what. Nor can it slow the rate of cooling because of (4). And in general you would expect the same process to happen whether the surface is warming or cooling.
(6) So, those photons from the cooler atmosphere are not being converted to thermal energy in the warmer surface, as Prof Claes Johnson proved in Computational Blackbody Radiation.
(7) Hence the effect of the photons being either reflected or scattered is that there is no impact on the surface at all.
(8) It is also clear that there is no significant transfer by diffusion or conduction from the atmosphere to the surface because the surface absorbs more solar insolation than the lower atmosphere, and we observe that the atmosphere is generally cooler and even cools faster at night than the surface.
(9) So it really does not matter even if extra thermal energy is trapped higher up in the atmosphere because it does not affect what we call climate, and any such energy cannot make its way back to the surface, except possibly an insignificant additional amount in precipitation.
(10) Hence there is no valid physical way in which backradiation or absorption by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause a significant atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Science, won the day for scepticism, the scientific method when properly applied won the day. It is the solid foundation that sceptics
are able to base their argument upon. Science can’t be politicised, truth of fact can’t be denied, a syntax of logic will always destroy beliefs that are without truth.
The Science says:
Pressure is the required variable only if one compares Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement across planets. For any individual planet, it is
the atmospheric mass that effectively controls thermal enhancement. There is no confusion with the pressure-controlled lapse rate with the
atmosphere of a given planet.
Why Now? It’s the science;
• The climate of Earths’ atmosphere results from a formation of a climate machine by combining solar isolation and force of pressure.
Coupled with spatio-temporal chaotic systems of irradiation and radiation of surface and atmosphere, dynamic heat distributions of
oceans, a multiple pole thermodynamic atmosphere, with a gravitational velocity and planetary harmonics, spinning on an uneven axis around a
Sun, with fluctuation of solar isolation, immersed in a space that has galactic electromagnetic winds.
• The physical construct of a planet, with or without an atmosphere, retains ancient energy by the force of pressure on its mass. Otherwise
planets could not exist.
• Planets attract cold by the density of its mass and distribute heat by the dynamics of mass. Space attracts heat by the sparsest of its
mass.
• Heat rises, cool sinks. Atmosphere cannot back radiate heat to a warmer surface than the atmosphere which, cools with height.
Thermodynamic gas laws describe the mechanisms of weather in the troposphere.
Ref: General Remarks on the Temperature of the Terrestrial Globe and the Planetary Spaces; by Baron Fourier.
The pressure of the atmosphere and bodies of water, has the general effect to render the distribution of heat more uniform. In the ocean
and in the lakes, the coldest particles, or rather those whose density is the greatest, are continually tending downwards, and the motion of
heat depending on this cause is much more rapid than that which takes place in solid masses in consequence of their connecting power. The
mathematical examination of this effect would require exact and numerous observations. These would enable us to understand how this
internal motion prevents the internal heat of the globe from becoming sensible in deep waters.
Where NASA got the science wrong:
Arrhenious in 1897 screwed up about the conservation of energy in gaseous mass , he flipped out about the relationship of carbon to life
in a stupid greenhouse.
Dopey Hansen in the early 80’s flipped out about Arrhenious’ mistake and caused all his stupid mates to believe in an invalid scientific
principle. They spent billions in chasing argumentum ad populum.
When, if they had followed a correct method of science, by applying scepticism, they
would have found the answer that has been there, right under their noses.
Climate is a multidisciplinary field of science, and cannot be treated as a pseudoscience, necessary of propitiation. Science will correct
this fatal mistake.
The force of pressure encloses our atmosphere not a greenhouse.
So, when somebody asks why you don’t believe in AGW you can say;
“It’s the science, stupid.”
Hardy Crosssays
This is a test of your newfound devotion to free speech; It’s the sun. CO2 effects are indistinguishable from natural climate variations. The CO2 believers have kept dissenting views on climate from the discussion. There. Print!
Iansays
Complaints of harassment of climate scientists and proponents of anthropogenic global warming/climate change seem a little precious when those who are less convinced of have been labelled deniers invoking comparisons with the holocaust. James Hansen himself has said that deniers should be imprisoned. Dr Pauchuri’s comment that those who doubt the shrinking of the Himalayan glaciers are devotees of voodoo science is hardly complimentary, especially as subsequent events showed him to be wrong. It would be far better if AGW received the measured responses that typify the approach to most other scientific controversies
Jeffreysays
I think that this was a very strong post and should serve to remind scientists and the public about the dangers of being influenced unfairly. This certainly means denouncing threats to scientists and the reactionary response some take to climate science advocates. It also means that the public should be wary of the bombardment of advertising and political influence of the oil industry and its supporters. Moreover, it also entails fighting the ingrained panopticism and message control contained within the climate science community. Let us not forget the silent coercive influence on academic journals attempted by high profile scientists that was revealed in the climate gate scandal. Let us question why the editor of a journal resigns and a manuscript is taking out of print when it has been through a fair review process (even despite its clear limitations- many many published papers have strong limitations). Let us question why Michael Mann needs to challenge the tweet of Andrew Revkin almost immediately.
Recent thread………
Any idea why Andrew Revkin is saying that these results suggest climate sensitivity has been overestimated?
[Response: I saw Andy’s tweet and tweeted a reply almost instantly (MichaelEMann). Andy subsequently tweeted a correction. It was an honest error that was quickly corrected. -mike]
This type of message control minimizes diversity of opinion and treats alternative theories as an attack instead of a debate. I am a big fan of Gavin for the most part – he is a strong voice that sticks to the facts – even if that means ignoring the point of a contrarian opinion. Non the less I command this blog for taking a fair approach to the topic it is helping others understand.
oakwoodsays
The fact you have censored my comment shows you are running scared. Your case is gradually falling apart. The sad thing is, you can’t even be pleased at the prospect of AGW alarm stories not coming true. You want them to come truen. Proving yourselves right is more important than the state of the world. Too bad. [not censored—just boreholed]
Isotopioussays
“In other words, of course short-term natural variation can push global temperatures up and down. That is a separate issue form the long-term temperature rise based on the increase in radiative forcing.”
The largest variations in radiative forcing are associated with short term natural variation. While it is difficult to prove that long term trends are a result of the coupled system, the idea that ‘it just doesn’t, but CO2 does’ is amateur at best, particularly given the magnitude of the energy the earth is ‘throwing around’.
Going by your logic, the younger dryas ‘couldn’t have happened because there is nothing to adequately explain the physics’? What was it any way, 10 deg C in a year or 2? Impossible in the land of CO2, unless the system is really, really sensitive…..cough!
Or how about ‘we should be in an ice age now’ for the same reason…physics?
Or how about the cessation of warming between 1940 – 1975? It’s fascinating that people are still trying to flog the aerosol idea, I think I missed the real climate review on that one (you know, the one where you explain how you were completely wrong).
It gets to a point where there are so many holes in the bucket that carrying the water becomes uneconomical.
Beesamansays
Oh please! Trying to portray scientists as martyrs because they’ve become involved in the nasty, dirty and often violent world of politics is just ridiculous. Most of these folk were happy to take the money and power associated with stepping out of the lab and into the forum. Yes, there are nutters out there, on both sides, get over yourselves and deal with it, like the rest of society has to! There are laws to deal with intimidation, threats and violence, use them, I’m sure your universities will fund the legal costs. But, if you are trying to paint a deceitful picture about people who genuinely disagree with you, be careful. The public will see through any such attempts at replacing rigorous scientific debate with political propaganda. Of course part of political propaganda that has no place in scientific debate is censorship, but that doesn’t happen here does it!
Dan H.says
Michael,
I applaud you for trying to thrust some reason into this debate. Your comments are quite appropriate. I agree that climate change is not “life and death” like other, more pressing issues are.
Also, any scientific idea should be able to stand the test of time. If it cannot, then it should be abandoned. What some here are claiming is that we should ignore this practice for climate change. Is the concept so fragile, that it collapse under its own weight? I do not where some people got the idea, that their ideas are correct, and that everyone else is simply misinformed, ignorant, or just plain liars. It is reminiscent of religious intolerance, or the defense lawyer who cannot dispute the testimony of a witness, but instead attempts to question his credibility in the eyes of the jury.
The rampant name-calling that occurs here should also be abandoned for the good of the site. Why it has continued for so long, baffles me.
Dan H.says
Michael,
I applaud you for trying to thrust some reason into this debate. Your comments are quite appropriate.
Any scientific idea should be able to stand the test of time. If it cannot, then it should be abandoned. What some here are claiming is that we should ignore this practice for climate change. Is the concept so fragile, that it collapse under its own weight? I do not where some people got the idea that their ideas are correct, and that everyone else is simply misinformed, ignorant, or just plain liars. It is reminiscent of religious intolerance.
The rampant name-calling that occurs here should also be abandoned for the good of the site. Why it has continued for so long, baffles me.
Dan H.says
Thomas,
I know they are not the world. But I was responding to Susan, who specifically mentioned them. That was why I included a world graph also. If you have an issue with those two locations, I would take it up with Susan.
Ray,
I noticed you did not mentioned the large decrease in the drought index prior to 1950. Comparisons of recent indices to the early 1900s show a decline. I believe you just said htat “Science requires looking at all the evidence in aggregate …” Maybe you should heed your own advice.
If your bath tub is filling as fast as it can with the hot tap turned on fully it will indeed fill faster if you also turn the cold tap on.
If the Earth’s surface is filling with thermal energy (ie it is warming) as fast as it can on a sunny morning with the Sun shining fully it will indeed fill (warm) faster if you also radiate extra thermal energy from a colder atmosphere if and only if you violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
“If you are a science teacher, teaching biological evolution as you describe, and a student says ‘My mommy and daddy say that evolution is a secular humanist fraud and the Earth is 6000 years old and God created dinosaurs and humans on the same day’, do you just say ‘Oh, OK. Fine’ so as not to ‘fray the bond’ between that student and his parents? Do you really think that doing so helps that student’s ‘life prospects’?”
Depends on how you want to play it. You can admit a variety of views or play the dogmatic jerk, whichever leaves the parents in the best position. If you accept the theory of evolution by natural selection, you must believe that humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years without Darwin. Abundant evidence suggests that children do not thrive without parents (consider: 1. crime rates of fatherless children, 2. juvenile arrests in Hawaii fall in summer, when school is not in session, 3. the superior socialaization of homeschoolers). People who defend the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel’s school system (the “public” schools) often blame the family environment for the cartel’s failures. Suppose we accept this argument. Why would anyone then seek to undermine parent authority?
Bill Huntersays
Absurd? Why? Anonymous reviews hardly serve to provide comfort for the public. It may serve science fine; but we are not talking about science per se we are talking about science in policy.
I do policy for a living. There is today huge resistance and disbelief in science. I find it dismaying. I have reading this blog for years. When I started the “science was settled”. Both parties were on board. Hardly any scientists were speaking against doing anything. Most of the discussion was about how much should be done what could be done.
Then Climategate hit. Talk of suppressing information for clarity and strength of opinion. Almost totally unheard of in the professions. Hey professionals make mistakes don’t misinterpret what I am saying here.
Today so many people are having their lives affected in the name of science that is poorly supported in science.
There is little accountability. And its not just policy makers misinterpreting science its scientists testifying as scientists.
Or scientists openly taking advocacy positions on issues they are being paid to be independent about. Its not about a scientist never being an advocate its about a scientist being an advocate on something he is supposed to be neutral on.
The climate issue is a huge boondoggle for science. Today it doesn’t even matter who is going to turn out being right. There are scientists being advocates on both sides of the issue. The dogfights occurring between scientists is in the public view has not a shred of air of professionalism. And it is far from being limited to climate science. I have not worked at all in climate policy.
Regulation is always controversial to the regulated. Like I say I have experience in this area. But here what we are talking about is a greater good, a greater thing to look up to. And that is the scientific method.
As to the lack of accountability for the recent credit collapse, that one is on Congress. GMO oversight was non-existent. I was shocked that in essence the S&L crisis repeated itself but this time on steroids. Nobody got the message.
GMO wasn’t even under the administration where you have agencies of oversight professionals but instead relegated to a Congressional errand boy agency and regulatory policy was established via campaign donations. As Greenspan pointed out it might have happened anyway but there was policy stuff that did need doing and giving oversight to the professionals might have helped. But thats all aside. The objective I am talking about isn’t going to mean science gets everything right. It has more to do with respecting science and enforcing standards. And finally I am not offering up the financial model as THE model, simply A model. Any model like any regulatory process has to involve those who would be regulated to create a workable solution. For example the financial model probably has more accounting standards than they have practice standards. I would suspect for science it might be the other way around. Documentation, full disclosure, perhaps levels of service with regards to using statistics to divine answers seems to me Steve McIntyre is well up on such science and statistics standards for mining opportunity offerings. . . .could be the beginnings of a model.
Brian Rsays
So six pages of comments and not a single comment about the memo that’s getting everybody up in arms being a hoax. I search for the words “Fake” and “Hoax” on every page and found no hits except for something about “fake skeptics”. So have there been comments about the document being a hoax and they’ve been deleted? Or is it that the people that mostly post here don’t care that it’s a hoax because the document reinforces their hatred of skeptics?
I also find it interesting that there are few comments addressing how little funded the Heartland Institute is. I mean in comparison to WWF, Green Peace, WHO, etc. it’s the veritable drop in the bucket. But it hear it from AGW crowd, Heartland Institute is out spending the “The Cause” 50 to 1. When in actually it’s the reverse times 10.
Girmasays
Global warming has produced several ways of looking at the world. Here’s one:
If you take the highest temperature of a day (Tmax) and add the lowest temperature of that day (Tmin), you get a number. Divide that number by two and you get an average for the day. If you add up the numbers for a month and plot them on a chart and compare it to the previous year, you get a better idea. If you add up all the numbers for a year and compare it to previous years, you get the chart below:
Or do you? What if the temperatures are taken with different thermometers and thermocouples, and some of them are near a hot piece of asphalt and others have been moved to a busy airport? What if the first part of your series isn’t thermometers at all, but from estimates of temperature derived from analysis of the thickness of tree rings? And what if those estimates are suspect, declining during a period when we know temperatures rose?
The chart above was used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their 3rd report on the state of the Earth’s climate, called TAR and published in 2001. Its dramatic shape and view—that temperatures were rising faster than they ever had—that we were moving into uncharted and dangerous territory. That we needed to act now…
Here is another way of looking at the world (http://bit.ly/5pcHs6)—and it’s the way we looked at temperatures for close on to 40 years, before worries about global warming made the previous chart popular.
CLIMATEGATE
THE CRUTAPE LETTERS
Page 11-12
Steven Mosher
Thomas W. Fuller
“The head of the IPCC says that he has received and still receives death threats.
– I’d rather not talk about it. But yes, there are people who can be extreme in the debate on climate change, says Rajendra Pachauri to TU.
Want decency
The head of the IPCC will not go into detail about the threats.”
Death threats are a crime. They arrest people for that.
Have them arrested and expose these anti-climate deniars.
Unless its not true.
While we are at it, if the head of the IPCC says their is a debate, why doesn’t he allow himself to be involved in a debate with these anti-climate deniars?
Two other iortpmant considerations: 1 The inverse relationship between cosmic ray flux on cloud formation and variation in solar wind explain a great deal on yearly and decadal time scales. 2 Over $100 billion has been portioned out by Nat Science foundation, NASA, NOAA, etc over past 20 years to support AGHW theory. Hundreds of academic scientists in dozens of Atmospheric Science and Environmental Engineering departments owe their living to these grants. 40 years ago there was no such stand alone discipline. AGHW at this point has little to do with science it’s all money and politics at this point.
Dan H.says
Frankly, I am surprised that so many people are condoning the actions of Peter Gleick. I guess anything goes as long as they are on your own side. I imagine the same group would be thoroughly outraged if the reverse occurred, and someone faked a memo about pro-AGW tactics.
The other surprise is the claim that HI prints lies about climate change, and these same people try to pass off statements like a 97% consensus believe that global warming is real and the debate ended 20 years ago. It seems that the door swings both ways.
Isotopioussays
Quite boring.
Desmog blog basically saying ‘Hey look, we were right, fossil fueled denial’
And Skeptics saying ‘Ha, talk about confirmation bias! How quickly did the warmists lap up the faker-y bakery’
The UCS response was interesting. “The science of climate change is clear” Clearly unsettled! Its like a whole union of scientists saying ‘It’s settled!’
lol
:)
jdey123says
So what’s the point of a hypothesis that can’t tell me the magnitude of a temperature increase in my country over any timeframe, or at a global scale in a reasonable timeframe?
The Central England Temperature has only warmed by 0.6C since the start of the industrial revolution, well below the 0.2C per decade, the IPCC AR4 climate models predict:- http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Finally, over the temperature record since 1880, there have only been 2 periods where it can be said to have warmed (1910 to 1940 and 1978 to 1998). The majority of the temperature record has been flat. Yet, we are told that the current flat trend is too short, but 30 years is statistically signficant. How about the 1940 to 1978 (38 year flat trend)
The IPCC AR4 report only had model runs with a likely range (1 standard deviation, approx 68% of model runs) rather than the broader 2 standard deviaton, approx 95% of model runs) range that you’ve published. If you’d stuck with the IPCC range, 2008 and 2011 would have breached this, making the climate models by definition unlikely. Sure we can wait for it to break the very unlikely range, but given that the scientist has to prove their predictions, not his critics disprove them, I’d say the models are already demonstrably wrong, so need to be tuned downwards, thus producing less than alarming stories about what the world temperature will be in 2100.
Rogelio escobarsays
Explain to me how you can see a significant trend fron NASA itself, that why me skeptical http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2012.png BTW its now at -1C or less Feb 2012 so far. Maybe its what we all want to see cause Connolley just posted same graph on WUWT maintaining it shows AGW
DVGsays
Were I asked the Doran and Zimmerman questions, I would stand with the 97%. And yet I am not even close to being an AGW alarmist. It is these kinds of essentially political efforts to persuade that cause the credibility of AGW alarmists to diminish. And is it Realclimate’s defense of these kinds of efforts that cause Realclimate’s credibility to diminish.
A related point. It is not be the burden of anyone to “falsify” unproven claims by AGW alarmists. If any group, regarding of how many others they get they get to say ‘amen’ to their pronouncements, claims a diagnosis of a disease and advocates a cure, the effect of which may be much worse than the effect of the disease, it is that group’s burden to prove, by a very high standard, that their diagnosis is correct. To date, that burden is not even close to being sustained. And that problem cannot be fixed by insisting others must disprove their diagnosis.
Michael Wsays
#525, 542 Ray, the reason the SPM seams so one sided, is that it is written from a climate change mitigation/adaptation point of view. Which is fine – it has its purpose. But read down through it and tell me why almost all of these wouldn’t be better served by looking at them from the resource management point of view. Over the last century we have dealt with resource scarcity, agricultural booms and busts, pest outbreaks, depleting aquifers, dust bowls, droughts. These are not new problems. We know how to deal with them. And I’m pretty sure the solution to any of them was not “bring the temperature of the climate down a few degrees C”.
I respect your risk mitigation experience, but are you sure you can look at all the problems we face from that perspective? I don’t see how you factor in positive trends. Things do improve on a regular basis. In the US we have restored fisheries, established parks, improved air quality, banned harmful substances, agriculture productivity is increasing, tree planting is increasing, populations are stabilizing.
Keep in mind, I’m not saying everything’s rosy. I’m just countering a doom and gloom picture. Yes, I’m with you, the thought of 10 billion people scares the crap out of me. But baby Michael W in the mid 70’s would have been just as scared to go from 4 to 7 billion in his lifetime.
Michael Wsays
#531 Phil, the earth is less like Gaia and more like Medea with ill intentions toward her children, killing them off with global extinction events, ice ages, & volcanoes. Climate is chaotic, episodic, and nonlinear on short, medium and long timescales, at the local, regional(e.g. Petes post #551) and global levels. Which is why its odd to think we have arrived somewhere if we stop emitting co2. In such a scenario we are still at the mercy of the climate.
tegiri nenashisays
Yes, how successful predictions were in the past? Enter Mercer 1978 Nature paper “West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster”. 5-10K increase below 80 degree south before 1978+50=2028. So if this prediction turns to be correct I would change my believe. If it turns out to be false, would you?
realistsays
It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.
Richard Feynman.
Fred Staplessays
You really could not make this up. “A few years”, the man says.
Can I ask any unprejudiced reader to visit the HADAT site of the UK Met Office, click on “frequently used charts and graphics” and look at the lower stratosphere chart. Agree that there has been no cooling for at least the past 15 years. (Lower stratospheric cooling is one of the two main fingerprints of AGW, as presented here).
Then look at the lower troposphere and surface anomalies chart.
No significant warming for almost 50 years between the fifties (when temperatures were lower than the previous peak in the forties, after the little ice age) and 1997.There follows a sharp step (1998, 0.8 degrees), and no warming since, for 14 years.
Then Google the charts at “Global Warming at a Glance” site.
Go to the HADAT chart from radio-sondes at all altitudes (if AGW exists it is a Top of the Atmosphere phenomenon). Agree that there was no warming to worry about for 50 years to 1998, that everything moves together, and that there has been no warming for the past 14 years. The crucial fingerprint of AGW is simultaneous warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere.
Then stop worrying and get on with life.
RichardCsays
543 Ray said, “So you do not think that refusal to consider the evidence is dishonest”
Anthony Watts is a good example. He considers the evidence and is convinced that the mainstream is full of baloney. I haven’t seen any evidence that Watts, Pielke, Curry, and the rest are dishonest. Have you? All by himself, Watts has more influence than the RC crowd, Skeptical Science, and probably all mainstream climate sites combined. #1 science site and all that.
Many skeptics think mainstream scientists are dishonest, so the evidence “we” want them to consider is suspect. In their minds Gavin et al are just leaches who are solely interested in sucking down as many undeserved taxpayer dollars as possible, with lying being the best way to increase the largess. Thus, everything Gavin says is evidence that the opposite is true. Once the two sides have each determined the other side is lying in a way to deliberately destroy the economy, freedom, and/or the planet for personal gain or even just the jollies, then debates and the exchange of data and ideas becomes incredibly unproductive. “I have two facts for you. 1) You’re a lying evildoer who wants to instil horrible suffering and death on innocent people. 2) xxx.” Gee, how many folks are going to even hear 2) xxx?
My dad is probably the most honest and honorable man I know, and he believes everything Fox News spouts. “Liberal” is a dirty word to him and the ultimate insult, and the “liberal” label has been plastered all over mainstream climate science. For him and many other skeptics, climate change is just not a big deal. Yep, folks waste time on Real Climate discussing Liberal Nonsense, but that’s not even on his radar. If climate issues become relevant, then the Market will automatically fix it to the exact extent required and at the least cost possible. (Geoengineering is cheap.)
I’m sure some skeptics are lying for personal gain (Interestingly, that means they aren’t skeptics!), but most are either convinced by Watts or just ignoring Liberal Nonsense and getting on with the Important Business of creating Wealth and Prosperity.
Russellsays
It’s funny to see the WSJ doubling down on a graphic data splice ugly as any mixed proxy palaeocimatology presents, but without the redeeming necessity of an absent instrumental record.
If the 16 authors insist on reinventing the hockey stick, why don’t the WSJ’s Editors demand a Nature style corrigendum?
Why would any teacher choose to teach a topic like global warming ?? I dont see why any teacher would pick this battle to fight.
I have college degree, majored in applied math. I am not convinced about AGW, I know the arguments from both sides of the story. I may not be as smart as most of the climate scientists, but some of the graphs i have seen are misleading. The problem is that my children would not pick up on that without one of the parents pointing it out.
Would my children be told that a lot of carreers will end when people no longer fear global warming ?
I would not be happy if my children were made to watch al gore movies.
Does NCSE encourage teaching about the benefits CO2?
In science, when the observation does not match theory, we chuck the theory.
Here is comparison of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory and observation:
IPCC AR4, 2007 => http://bit.ly/z7cOHe
This comparison shows the observed global mean temperatures (GMT) are less than model projections if human CO2 emission were held constant at the 2000 level.
In addition, there has not been any change in the climate as there has been only a single GMT pattern since record begun 160 years ago. This pattern can be clearly observed in the data from NASA and the University of East Anglia as shown in the following graph.
http://bit.ly/Aei4Nd
This pattern has a unique property of a warming trend of only 0.06 deg C per decade and an oscillation of 0.5 deg C every 30 years.
This result shows, for 160 years, the GMT pattern (the climate) has not been affected by human CO2 emission, volcanoes and aerosols! These variables did not have effect because the GMT pattern before and after mid-20th century were nearly identical.
As observations do not match AGW theory, chuck the AGW theory!
As a lecturer in science in a major teaching university, who was previously a teacher in a school and before that an engineer in measurement and control I take great exception at being told to indoctrinate my students in a field af science that is at best shoddy in its scientific rigour and to some maybe dishonest.
I will teach them scientic methods and I will teach them to question everything, but I will not tell them that this particular field of science is settled, for at the moment that would be a lie.
Hi Rick-
Urgent action is needed, most of us agree, with the exception of Ray, probably.
But survivable “worst case scenarios” which cannot be scientifically justified, or which are actively misleading for large releases of methane do not help promote a sufficient sense of urgency, I think. Models that leave out significant factors such as oceanic and atmospheric chemistry effects of methane, possibly leading to strong positive feedback release of even greater amounts of methane are not at all helpful or educational, in my opinion.
What compelled David to even release a “worst case scenario” in the first place, in a situation so fraught with unknowns? Is this some form of scientific conservatism I’m not familiar with?
“Looks like we got the factor of ten increase about right” it says under one graph? This in the face of hard scientific isotope ratio evidence that past carbon isotope excursions have likely released trillions of tons of methane?
One test to validate such models is to enter past inputs to events similar to our current situation, and then see if the model faithfully reproduces those events. If we enter inputs similar to the first stages of the PETM, for example, does this model give us a brief bump and a steep decline, or does it give us 170,000 years of grief, which is what actually happened?
Has any attempt- any attempt at all- been made to validate this model?
If not, why not?
Could you please give the error bars in your figure?
There are 800 year old trees in the alps that can tell you the temperature in tenths of a degree what the temperature was in 1258 ?
Here is the D’Arrigo et al. 2006 data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/darrigo2006/fig5.jpg
Would be great to get an update on the divergence! It’s important because you could then say, well, maybe there was more cooling in the LIA and more warming in the MWP, and maybe this recent warming is not extraordinary afterall.
Dan,
No one is saying that the warming since the 1970s can be explained by natural causes alone, or is ignoring the effects of CO2. I do not know where you are getting these ideas. I am well away of the natural and manmade cause of the warming and cooling, not just of the past 40 years, but throughout history. Your implications that I am ignornant in the science and your condescending attitude does not lend your post much credence. In fact, it implies that you are in denial of the science.
I am not claiming that anyone is getting their information from the media, talk show hosts, or extremist websites (I even know some who use Wikipedia as their scientific source). We scientists tend to avoid such outlets.
I am curious as to whether you think that if the warming since the 1970s is entirely CO2-forced, then how do you explain the most recent decade.
Hi All-
Let’s do a little thought experiment:
One of us parks his car on a hill. But, due to negligence, he forgets to set the parking brake, and he leaves the wheel turned the wrong way. So the car rolls downhill, killing an old woman, a postman, and a small dog.
What is his ethical position?
Pretty terrible, right?
Now, suppose one of us suffers from hubris, and believes his ability to predict the unpredictable is so great that he can publish a worst case scenario. This person ignores a lot of established science to do this. This falsely reassures a lot of people, including impressionable students and congresspersons who take a lot of oil industry money, anyway, and so don’t need much convincing. A necessary war on climate change is called off, oil corporations profit for a few more years- and then methane releases get out of hand, and thousands of years of climate grief result. This kills billions of people, as in Lovelock’s scenarios, and what progeney are left curse our names forever.
What is the ethical position of this person?
Is it better or worse than the guy who parked his car badly?
Trusting models that do not match observed conditions is called faith. (that something will change in the future to make them accurate).
Please someone explain why it “makes sense” to average the results of multiple models none of whose accuracy has been demonstrated based on observations of actual conditions.
Why should public policy be implemented based upon faith—when data shows there is little reason to accept the faith in GCM’s?
Hi Ray-
Thank you for your advice. :)
Wow, this one was a whopper- 12 trillion tons of C12 enriched carbon, presumably from the methane hydrates:
Atmospheric Carbon Injection Linked to End-Triassic Mass Extinction
This one’s from 2011. My, this rogue hypothesis does seem to march on, among mainstream scientists with impeccable credentials and no known conflicts of interest.
This 12 trillion tons of carbon is right in line with traditional estimates of 5 to 20 trillion tons of methane hydrates, but far outside Archer’s current estimate of present totals of methane hydrates- roughly ten times as much, although Archer doesn’t include about a trillion tons of associated gas, apparently. So, call it 6 to 10 times as much methane as Archer’s present day estimates for total worldwide methane hydrate and free methane stocks.
Higher lifeforms are a sort of veneer, laid over a base of bacteria and geochemistry which has remained pretty much the same for a couple of billion years, is my understanding. So, why are stocks of methane hydrates so low, now?
Anybody know?
Boy, that one was a whopper, sounds like. :)
Twelve trillion tons of carbon, within only 10,000 to 20,000 years.
Of course, there is something wrong with talking about these peer reviewed scientific papers- from people who have “done the math”, I guess. People tell me it’s not responsible to talk about this stuff. :)
This is a little more methane than David was talking about in his “worst case scenario”, admittedly over a longer estimated period of time. Gee, Ray, do the math for me, will you please? Is this 60 times as much methane? :)
@138 …
The argument was put forward as: “when my daughters elementary school science teacher tells her that turning on the lights kills polar bears (this actually happened)”
and Gavin responds in part: “I would be appalled because bringing in irrelevant issues without context when a child asks a question is the height of irresponsibility”
…Is not the teacher doing the same thing? Or are we willing to cut the teacher more slack because (A) surely we can assume they would always provide proper context? or (B) they get a pass because generally in some extrapolated sense there’s at least some way it might be correct in a certain framing? or maybe (C) there is never a situation in which a teacher might “bring in irrelevant issues without context” because the teacher sets the agenda– even if its off-standard, off-curriculum, off-message? Why be so willing to indict the parent without questioning the actions of the teacher?
I do realize that Gavin may be (in-a-roundabout-way) not approving of the teacher’s statement, but instead only wishing the parent did a better job. I also realize the teacher isn’t directly present in this conversation, but it would nevertheless be nice to at least see some acknowledgement of the possiblity of shoddy teaching about climate change by (gasp)activitst-types who themselves haven’t done the research either?
I predict the Germans are sure to pull out soon and perhaps lead European countries with them. See the third paragraph here … http://joannenova.com.au/
It’s all starting to happens guys. People respect German engineering and science.
The AGW conjecture is nearing the end of its days – within four years I predict – hopefully before the $100,000,000,000 bills start arriving in 2020.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics will hold fast and not be violated by any backradiation.
Read what top German physicists say in this peer-reviewed published paper as they knock AGW in 100+ pages here …
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
“Unfortunately, there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse effect is introduced in harmony with the scientific standards of theoretical physics.”
Conclusions,
Climate models suck!
Trees aren’t thermometers!
Billions of (Insert favoured monetary unit) have been wasted on this over the past few decades.
“Overall, given the latest set of data points, we can conclude (once again) that global warming continues”
Who are you kidding?
There’s been far too many errors when promoting global warming. Polar bears are not disappearing, they’re at a 40 year high in population; the Himalaya glaciers are not disappearing; Africa is not home to prolonged drought and mass starvation. As some have suggested here, stick to chemistry, biology, fluid dynamics, physics, etc. Stop the politicization of schools. When Germany’s leading environmentalist says global warming hysteria is bunk, what right does a HS teacher have in promoting climate scares?
I think it is important to distinguish the teaching of evolution from climate science, particularly the science of global warming. Evolution via natural selection is observable, it is testable in a petrie dish, it is reproducible, it can be used to make predictions that are then verified and it is supported by decades of EXPERIMENTAL science and hundreds of years of observations. It is not based on theoretical constructs or projections. The only assumptions that are needed are the principals of the scientific method themselves.
The same can not be said of climate change and global warming. It is a theoretical science that is untestable on a level with comparable constraints to the system that scientists are attempting to describe. It is a science of observation but not experimentation. There is no ‘control earth’ that looks like our earth but for the fact that they have stable CO2 emissions that can be used to test our grand hypothesis man made global warming hypothesis against. All we know about are the properties of CO2 and that those properties should cause the trapping of energy within our system. However, the manner in which the other variables that effect energy balance will be effected is highly uncertain and completely untestable. So the science becomes one of ‘make a theory’ and create a prediction based on that theory. However, given the level of uncertainty and the number of other variables weighing on the system it may take decades to reflect on what the direction let alone the individual contributions of these ‘sensitivities’ and ‘forcings’ will be.
To compare this process, that is underpinned by solid theory and observations but has no proven causal relations, with evolution is a stretch.
There is a reason it is unteachable – it is because we don’t yet understand it.
Jeffrey,
I feel your pain. Besides the condescending attitude, many have to put up being called a liar (and other such names) by people who are so insecure, that they do not know what to do when challenged.
Modern scientists seem to think that they know everything without experimenting. As if experimentation is beneath them, and they have nothing else to learn. The really sad part, is that they are driving people away from doing anything about global warming, because of these attitudes.
Stick by your guns, and do not lower your standards for anyone.
It is time for climate scientists who receive monetary sums to study the weather to admit there is no way to know if warming is mainly due to the Sun’s increased activity or ManKind’s activity. Stop the alarmist behavior . Stop being in denial. You in the weather sciences are making fools of yourselves with the predictions of future weather or warming models…stop it !!! — DERRUFO
Here is a simple proof in 10 easy steps why the Greenhouse Effect is a physical impossibility.
(1) The IPCC claim that radiation from a cooler atmosphere slows the rate of cooling of the (warmer) surface, thus leading to a greenhouse effect.
(2) The “rate of cooling” is a 24 hour worldwide mean, so wherever the Sun is warming the surface (any sunny morning) the rate of warming would have to be increased by whatever process is slowing the rate of cooling.
(3) Thus extra thermal energy must be added to the surface by such radiation in order to increase the warming rate in the morning and slow the mean rate of cooling calculated from both day and night rates.
(4) Now the Second Law of Thermodynamics relates to heat transfer which is not the same as energy transfer. Radiated energy can be two-way, but heat transfer between two points is always one way and it is invalid to split such heat transfer into two opposite components and try to apply the Second Law to each. Physics doesn’t work that way.
(5) Hence, the surface cannot warm faster in the mornings due to such an imaginary heat transfer, because that would be clearly breaking the Second Law no matter what. Nor can it slow the rate of cooling because of (4). And in general you would expect the same process to happen whether the surface is warming or cooling.
(6) So, those photons from the cooler atmosphere are not being converted to thermal energy in the warmer surface, as Prof Claes Johnson proved in Computational Blackbody Radiation.
(7) Hence the effect of the photons being either reflected or scattered is that there is no impact on the surface at all.
(8) It is also clear that there is no significant transfer by diffusion or conduction from the atmosphere to the surface because the surface absorbs more solar insolation than the lower atmosphere, and we observe that the atmosphere is generally cooler and even cools faster at night than the surface.
(9) So it really does not matter even if extra thermal energy is trapped higher up in the atmosphere because it does not affect what we call climate, and any such energy cannot make its way back to the surface, except possibly an insignificant additional amount in precipitation.
(10) Hence there is no valid physical way in which backradiation or absorption by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause a significant atmospheric greenhouse effect.
If I haven’t convinced you, read this paper Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
SUGGESTION:
How to tell somebody you don’t believe in AGW.
Science, won the day for scepticism, the scientific method when properly applied won the day. It is the solid foundation that sceptics
are able to base their argument upon. Science can’t be politicised, truth of fact can’t be denied, a syntax of logic will always destroy beliefs that are without truth.
The Science says:
Pressure is the required variable only if one compares Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement across planets. For any individual planet, it is
the atmospheric mass that effectively controls thermal enhancement. There is no confusion with the pressure-controlled lapse rate with the
atmosphere of a given planet.
Why Now? It’s the science;
• The climate of Earths’ atmosphere results from a formation of a climate machine by combining solar isolation and force of pressure.
Coupled with spatio-temporal chaotic systems of irradiation and radiation of surface and atmosphere, dynamic heat distributions of
oceans, a multiple pole thermodynamic atmosphere, with a gravitational velocity and planetary harmonics, spinning on an uneven axis around a
Sun, with fluctuation of solar isolation, immersed in a space that has galactic electromagnetic winds.
• The physical construct of a planet, with or without an atmosphere, retains ancient energy by the force of pressure on its mass. Otherwise
planets could not exist.
• Planets attract cold by the density of its mass and distribute heat by the dynamics of mass. Space attracts heat by the sparsest of its
mass.
• Heat rises, cool sinks. Atmosphere cannot back radiate heat to a warmer surface than the atmosphere which, cools with height.
Thermodynamic gas laws describe the mechanisms of weather in the troposphere.
Ref: General Remarks on the Temperature of the Terrestrial Globe and the Planetary Spaces; by Baron Fourier.
The pressure of the atmosphere and bodies of water, has the general effect to render the distribution of heat more uniform. In the ocean
and in the lakes, the coldest particles, or rather those whose density is the greatest, are continually tending downwards, and the motion of
heat depending on this cause is much more rapid than that which takes place in solid masses in consequence of their connecting power. The
mathematical examination of this effect would require exact and numerous observations. These would enable us to understand how this
internal motion prevents the internal heat of the globe from becoming sensible in deep waters.
Where NASA got the science wrong:
Arrhenious in 1897 screwed up about the conservation of energy in gaseous mass , he flipped out about the relationship of carbon to life
in a stupid greenhouse.
Dopey Hansen in the early 80’s flipped out about Arrhenious’ mistake and caused all his stupid mates to believe in an invalid scientific
principle. They spent billions in chasing argumentum ad populum.
When, if they had followed a correct method of science, by applying scepticism, they
would have found the answer that has been there, right under their noses.
Climate is a multidisciplinary field of science, and cannot be treated as a pseudoscience, necessary of propitiation. Science will correct
this fatal mistake.
The force of pressure encloses our atmosphere not a greenhouse.
So, when somebody asks why you don’t believe in AGW you can say;
“It’s the science, stupid.”
This is a test of your newfound devotion to free speech; It’s the sun. CO2 effects are indistinguishable from natural climate variations. The CO2 believers have kept dissenting views on climate from the discussion. There. Print!
Complaints of harassment of climate scientists and proponents of anthropogenic global warming/climate change seem a little precious when those who are less convinced of have been labelled deniers invoking comparisons with the holocaust. James Hansen himself has said that deniers should be imprisoned. Dr Pauchuri’s comment that those who doubt the shrinking of the Himalayan glaciers are devotees of voodoo science is hardly complimentary, especially as subsequent events showed him to be wrong. It would be far better if AGW received the measured responses that typify the approach to most other scientific controversies
I think that this was a very strong post and should serve to remind scientists and the public about the dangers of being influenced unfairly. This certainly means denouncing threats to scientists and the reactionary response some take to climate science advocates. It also means that the public should be wary of the bombardment of advertising and political influence of the oil industry and its supporters. Moreover, it also entails fighting the ingrained panopticism and message control contained within the climate science community. Let us not forget the silent coercive influence on academic journals attempted by high profile scientists that was revealed in the climate gate scandal. Let us question why the editor of a journal resigns and a manuscript is taking out of print when it has been through a fair review process (even despite its clear limitations- many many published papers have strong limitations). Let us question why Michael Mann needs to challenge the tweet of Andrew Revkin almost immediately.
Recent thread………
Any idea why Andrew Revkin is saying that these results suggest climate sensitivity has been overestimated?
http://twitter.com/#!/Revkin/status/168038256146006016
Thanks!
[Response: I saw Andy’s tweet and tweeted a reply almost instantly (MichaelEMann). Andy subsequently tweeted a correction. It was an honest error that was quickly corrected. -mike]
This type of message control minimizes diversity of opinion and treats alternative theories as an attack instead of a debate. I am a big fan of Gavin for the most part – he is a strong voice that sticks to the facts – even if that means ignoring the point of a contrarian opinion. Non the less I command this blog for taking a fair approach to the topic it is helping others understand.
The fact you have censored my comment shows you are running scared. Your case is gradually falling apart. The sad thing is, you can’t even be pleased at the prospect of AGW alarm stories not coming true. You want them to come truen. Proving yourselves right is more important than the state of the world. Too bad. [not censored—just boreholed]
“In other words, of course short-term natural variation can push global temperatures up and down. That is a separate issue form the long-term temperature rise based on the increase in radiative forcing.”
The largest variations in radiative forcing are associated with short term natural variation. While it is difficult to prove that long term trends are a result of the coupled system, the idea that ‘it just doesn’t, but CO2 does’ is amateur at best, particularly given the magnitude of the energy the earth is ‘throwing around’.
Going by your logic, the younger dryas ‘couldn’t have happened because there is nothing to adequately explain the physics’? What was it any way, 10 deg C in a year or 2? Impossible in the land of CO2, unless the system is really, really sensitive…..cough!
Or how about ‘we should be in an ice age now’ for the same reason…physics?
Or how about the cessation of warming between 1940 – 1975? It’s fascinating that people are still trying to flog the aerosol idea, I think I missed the real climate review on that one (you know, the one where you explain how you were completely wrong).
It gets to a point where there are so many holes in the bucket that carrying the water becomes uneconomical.
Oh please! Trying to portray scientists as martyrs because they’ve become involved in the nasty, dirty and often violent world of politics is just ridiculous. Most of these folk were happy to take the money and power associated with stepping out of the lab and into the forum. Yes, there are nutters out there, on both sides, get over yourselves and deal with it, like the rest of society has to! There are laws to deal with intimidation, threats and violence, use them, I’m sure your universities will fund the legal costs. But, if you are trying to paint a deceitful picture about people who genuinely disagree with you, be careful. The public will see through any such attempts at replacing rigorous scientific debate with political propaganda. Of course part of political propaganda that has no place in scientific debate is censorship, but that doesn’t happen here does it!
Michael,
I applaud you for trying to thrust some reason into this debate. Your comments are quite appropriate. I agree that climate change is not “life and death” like other, more pressing issues are.
Also, any scientific idea should be able to stand the test of time. If it cannot, then it should be abandoned. What some here are claiming is that we should ignore this practice for climate change. Is the concept so fragile, that it collapse under its own weight? I do not where some people got the idea, that their ideas are correct, and that everyone else is simply misinformed, ignorant, or just plain liars. It is reminiscent of religious intolerance, or the defense lawyer who cannot dispute the testimony of a witness, but instead attempts to question his credibility in the eyes of the jury.
The rampant name-calling that occurs here should also be abandoned for the good of the site. Why it has continued for so long, baffles me.
Michael,
I applaud you for trying to thrust some reason into this debate. Your comments are quite appropriate.
Any scientific idea should be able to stand the test of time. If it cannot, then it should be abandoned. What some here are claiming is that we should ignore this practice for climate change. Is the concept so fragile, that it collapse under its own weight? I do not where some people got the idea that their ideas are correct, and that everyone else is simply misinformed, ignorant, or just plain liars. It is reminiscent of religious intolerance.
The rampant name-calling that occurs here should also be abandoned for the good of the site. Why it has continued for so long, baffles me.
Thomas,
I know they are not the world. But I was responding to Susan, who specifically mentioned them. That was why I included a world graph also. If you have an issue with those two locations, I would take it up with Susan.
Ray,
I noticed you did not mentioned the large decrease in the drought index prior to 1950. Comparisons of recent indices to the early 1900s show a decline. I believe you just said htat “Science requires looking at all the evidence in aggregate …” Maybe you should heed your own advice.
If your bath tub is filling as fast as it can with the hot tap turned on fully it will indeed fill faster if you also turn the cold tap on.
If the Earth’s surface is filling with thermal energy (ie it is warming) as fast as it can on a sunny morning with the Sun shining fully it will indeed fill (warm) faster if you also radiate extra thermal energy from a colder atmosphere if and only if you violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
“If you are a science teacher, teaching biological evolution as you describe, and a student says ‘My mommy and daddy say that evolution is a secular humanist fraud and the Earth is 6000 years old and God created dinosaurs and humans on the same day’, do you just say ‘Oh, OK. Fine’ so as not to ‘fray the bond’ between that student and his parents? Do you really think that doing so helps that student’s ‘life prospects’?”
Depends on how you want to play it. You can admit a variety of views or play the dogmatic jerk, whichever leaves the parents in the best position. If you accept the theory of evolution by natural selection, you must believe that humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years without Darwin. Abundant evidence suggests that children do not thrive without parents (consider: 1. crime rates of fatherless children, 2. juvenile arrests in Hawaii fall in summer, when school is not in session, 3. the superior socialaization of homeschoolers). People who defend the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel’s school system (the “public” schools) often blame the family environment for the cartel’s failures. Suppose we accept this argument. Why would anyone then seek to undermine parent authority?
Absurd? Why? Anonymous reviews hardly serve to provide comfort for the public. It may serve science fine; but we are not talking about science per se we are talking about science in policy.
I do policy for a living. There is today huge resistance and disbelief in science. I find it dismaying. I have reading this blog for years. When I started the “science was settled”. Both parties were on board. Hardly any scientists were speaking against doing anything. Most of the discussion was about how much should be done what could be done.
Then Climategate hit. Talk of suppressing information for clarity and strength of opinion. Almost totally unheard of in the professions. Hey professionals make mistakes don’t misinterpret what I am saying here.
Today so many people are having their lives affected in the name of science that is poorly supported in science.
There is little accountability. And its not just policy makers misinterpreting science its scientists testifying as scientists.
Or scientists openly taking advocacy positions on issues they are being paid to be independent about. Its not about a scientist never being an advocate its about a scientist being an advocate on something he is supposed to be neutral on.
The climate issue is a huge boondoggle for science. Today it doesn’t even matter who is going to turn out being right. There are scientists being advocates on both sides of the issue. The dogfights occurring between scientists is in the public view has not a shred of air of professionalism. And it is far from being limited to climate science. I have not worked at all in climate policy.
Regulation is always controversial to the regulated. Like I say I have experience in this area. But here what we are talking about is a greater good, a greater thing to look up to. And that is the scientific method.
As to the lack of accountability for the recent credit collapse, that one is on Congress. GMO oversight was non-existent. I was shocked that in essence the S&L crisis repeated itself but this time on steroids. Nobody got the message.
GMO wasn’t even under the administration where you have agencies of oversight professionals but instead relegated to a Congressional errand boy agency and regulatory policy was established via campaign donations. As Greenspan pointed out it might have happened anyway but there was policy stuff that did need doing and giving oversight to the professionals might have helped. But thats all aside. The objective I am talking about isn’t going to mean science gets everything right. It has more to do with respecting science and enforcing standards. And finally I am not offering up the financial model as THE model, simply A model. Any model like any regulatory process has to involve those who would be regulated to create a workable solution. For example the financial model probably has more accounting standards than they have practice standards. I would suspect for science it might be the other way around. Documentation, full disclosure, perhaps levels of service with regards to using statistics to divine answers seems to me Steve McIntyre is well up on such science and statistics standards for mining opportunity offerings. . . .could be the beginnings of a model.
So six pages of comments and not a single comment about the memo that’s getting everybody up in arms being a hoax. I search for the words “Fake” and “Hoax” on every page and found no hits except for something about “fake skeptics”. So have there been comments about the document being a hoax and they’ve been deleted? Or is it that the people that mostly post here don’t care that it’s a hoax because the document reinforces their hatred of skeptics?
I also find it interesting that there are few comments addressing how little funded the Heartland Institute is. I mean in comparison to WWF, Green Peace, WHO, etc. it’s the veritable drop in the bucket. But it hear it from AGW crowd, Heartland Institute is out spending the “The Cause” 50 to 1. When in actually it’s the reverse times 10.
Global warming has produced several ways of looking at the world. Here’s one:
If you take the highest temperature of a day (Tmax) and add the lowest temperature of that day (Tmin), you get a number. Divide that number by two and you get an average for the day. If you add up the numbers for a month and plot them on a chart and compare it to the previous year, you get a better idea. If you add up all the numbers for a year and compare it to previous years, you get the chart below:
http://bit.ly/yiQjcK
Or do you? What if the temperatures are taken with different thermometers and thermocouples, and some of them are near a hot piece of asphalt and others have been moved to a busy airport? What if the first part of your series isn’t thermometers at all, but from estimates of temperature derived from analysis of the thickness of tree rings? And what if those estimates are suspect, declining during a period when we know temperatures rose?
The chart above was used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their 3rd report on the state of the Earth’s climate, called TAR and published in 2001. Its dramatic shape and view—that temperatures were rising faster than they ever had—that we were moving into uncharted and dangerous territory. That we needed to act now…
Here is another way of looking at the world (http://bit.ly/5pcHs6)—and it’s the way we looked at temperatures for close on to 40 years, before worries about global warming made the previous chart popular.
CLIMATEGATE
THE CRUTAPE LETTERS
Page 11-12
Steven Mosher
Thomas W. Fuller
Which view is winning at the moment?
The truth!
The globe is cooling => http://bit.ly/nz6PFx
The sooner AGW advocates see the writing on the wall the better for everyone. It is sad to waste talent and resources on a non-problem.
translated from the TU:
“The head of the IPCC says that he has received and still receives death threats.
– I’d rather not talk about it. But yes, there are people who can be extreme in the debate on climate change, says Rajendra Pachauri to TU.
Want decency
The head of the IPCC will not go into detail about the threats.”
Death threats are a crime. They arrest people for that.
Have them arrested and expose these anti-climate deniars.
Unless its not true.
While we are at it, if the head of the IPCC says their is a debate, why doesn’t he allow himself to be involved in a debate with these anti-climate deniars?
Pathetic.
Two other iortpmant considerations: 1 The inverse relationship between cosmic ray flux on cloud formation and variation in solar wind explain a great deal on yearly and decadal time scales. 2 Over $100 billion has been portioned out by Nat Science foundation, NASA, NOAA, etc over past 20 years to support AGHW theory. Hundreds of academic scientists in dozens of Atmospheric Science and Environmental Engineering departments owe their living to these grants. 40 years ago there was no such stand alone discipline. AGHW at this point has little to do with science it’s all money and politics at this point.
Frankly, I am surprised that so many people are condoning the actions of Peter Gleick. I guess anything goes as long as they are on your own side. I imagine the same group would be thoroughly outraged if the reverse occurred, and someone faked a memo about pro-AGW tactics.
The other surprise is the claim that HI prints lies about climate change, and these same people try to pass off statements like a 97% consensus believe that global warming is real and the debate ended 20 years ago. It seems that the door swings both ways.
Quite boring.
Desmog blog basically saying ‘Hey look, we were right, fossil fueled denial’
And Skeptics saying ‘Ha, talk about confirmation bias! How quickly did the warmists lap up the faker-y bakery’
The UCS response was interesting. “The science of climate change is clear” Clearly unsettled! Its like a whole union of scientists saying ‘It’s settled!’
lol
:)
So what’s the point of a hypothesis that can’t tell me the magnitude of a temperature increase in my country over any timeframe, or at a global scale in a reasonable timeframe?
The US 5 year mean is colder than what it was in the 1930s:-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif
The Central England Temperature has only warmed by 0.6C since the start of the industrial revolution, well below the 0.2C per decade, the IPCC AR4 climate models predict:-
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
The global mean temperature also has hardly warmed at all, and certainly much less than 0.2C per decade since 1998:-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif
Finally, over the temperature record since 1880, there have only been 2 periods where it can be said to have warmed (1910 to 1940 and 1978 to 1998). The majority of the temperature record has been flat. Yet, we are told that the current flat trend is too short, but 30 years is statistically signficant. How about the 1940 to 1978 (38 year flat trend)
The IPCC AR4 report only had model runs with a likely range (1 standard deviation, approx 68% of model runs) rather than the broader 2 standard deviaton, approx 95% of model runs) range that you’ve published. If you’d stuck with the IPCC range, 2008 and 2011 would have breached this, making the climate models by definition unlikely. Sure we can wait for it to break the very unlikely range, but given that the scientist has to prove their predictions, not his critics disprove them, I’d say the models are already demonstrably wrong, so need to be tuned downwards, thus producing less than alarming stories about what the world temperature will be in 2100.
Explain to me how you can see a significant trend fron NASA itself, that why me skeptical
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2012.png BTW its now at -1C or less Feb 2012 so far. Maybe its what we all want to see cause Connolley just posted same graph on WUWT maintaining it shows AGW
Were I asked the Doran and Zimmerman questions, I would stand with the 97%. And yet I am not even close to being an AGW alarmist. It is these kinds of essentially political efforts to persuade that cause the credibility of AGW alarmists to diminish. And is it Realclimate’s defense of these kinds of efforts that cause Realclimate’s credibility to diminish.
A related point. It is not be the burden of anyone to “falsify” unproven claims by AGW alarmists. If any group, regarding of how many others they get they get to say ‘amen’ to their pronouncements, claims a diagnosis of a disease and advocates a cure, the effect of which may be much worse than the effect of the disease, it is that group’s burden to prove, by a very high standard, that their diagnosis is correct. To date, that burden is not even close to being sustained. And that problem cannot be fixed by insisting others must disprove their diagnosis.
#525, 542 Ray, the reason the SPM seams so one sided, is that it is written from a climate change mitigation/adaptation point of view. Which is fine – it has its purpose. But read down through it and tell me why almost all of these wouldn’t be better served by looking at them from the resource management point of view. Over the last century we have dealt with resource scarcity, agricultural booms and busts, pest outbreaks, depleting aquifers, dust bowls, droughts. These are not new problems. We know how to deal with them. And I’m pretty sure the solution to any of them was not “bring the temperature of the climate down a few degrees C”.
I respect your risk mitigation experience, but are you sure you can look at all the problems we face from that perspective? I don’t see how you factor in positive trends. Things do improve on a regular basis. In the US we have restored fisheries, established parks, improved air quality, banned harmful substances, agriculture productivity is increasing, tree planting is increasing, populations are stabilizing.
Keep in mind, I’m not saying everything’s rosy. I’m just countering a doom and gloom picture. Yes, I’m with you, the thought of 10 billion people scares the crap out of me. But baby Michael W in the mid 70’s would have been just as scared to go from 4 to 7 billion in his lifetime.
#531 Phil, the earth is less like Gaia and more like Medea with ill intentions toward her children, killing them off with global extinction events, ice ages, & volcanoes. Climate is chaotic, episodic, and nonlinear on short, medium and long timescales, at the local, regional(e.g. Petes post #551) and global levels. Which is why its odd to think we have arrived somewhere if we stop emitting co2. In such a scenario we are still at the mercy of the climate.
Yes, how successful predictions were in the past? Enter Mercer 1978 Nature paper “West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster”. 5-10K increase below 80 degree south before 1978+50=2028. So if this prediction turns to be correct I would change my believe. If it turns out to be false, would you?
It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.
Richard Feynman.
You really could not make this up. “A few years”, the man says.
Can I ask any unprejudiced reader to visit the HADAT site of the UK Met Office, click on “frequently used charts and graphics” and look at the lower stratosphere chart. Agree that there has been no cooling for at least the past 15 years. (Lower stratospheric cooling is one of the two main fingerprints of AGW, as presented here).
Then look at the lower troposphere and surface anomalies chart.
No significant warming for almost 50 years between the fifties (when temperatures were lower than the previous peak in the forties, after the little ice age) and 1997.There follows a sharp step (1998, 0.8 degrees), and no warming since, for 14 years.
Then Google the charts at “Global Warming at a Glance” site.
Go to the HADAT chart from radio-sondes at all altitudes (if AGW exists it is a Top of the Atmosphere phenomenon). Agree that there was no warming to worry about for 50 years to 1998, that everything moves together, and that there has been no warming for the past 14 years. The crucial fingerprint of AGW is simultaneous warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere.
Then stop worrying and get on with life.
543 Ray said, “So you do not think that refusal to consider the evidence is dishonest”
Anthony Watts is a good example. He considers the evidence and is convinced that the mainstream is full of baloney. I haven’t seen any evidence that Watts, Pielke, Curry, and the rest are dishonest. Have you? All by himself, Watts has more influence than the RC crowd, Skeptical Science, and probably all mainstream climate sites combined. #1 science site and all that.
Many skeptics think mainstream scientists are dishonest, so the evidence “we” want them to consider is suspect. In their minds Gavin et al are just leaches who are solely interested in sucking down as many undeserved taxpayer dollars as possible, with lying being the best way to increase the largess. Thus, everything Gavin says is evidence that the opposite is true. Once the two sides have each determined the other side is lying in a way to deliberately destroy the economy, freedom, and/or the planet for personal gain or even just the jollies, then debates and the exchange of data and ideas becomes incredibly unproductive. “I have two facts for you. 1) You’re a lying evildoer who wants to instil horrible suffering and death on innocent people. 2) xxx.” Gee, how many folks are going to even hear 2) xxx?
My dad is probably the most honest and honorable man I know, and he believes everything Fox News spouts. “Liberal” is a dirty word to him and the ultimate insult, and the “liberal” label has been plastered all over mainstream climate science. For him and many other skeptics, climate change is just not a big deal. Yep, folks waste time on Real Climate discussing Liberal Nonsense, but that’s not even on his radar. If climate issues become relevant, then the Market will automatically fix it to the exact extent required and at the least cost possible. (Geoengineering is cheap.)
I’m sure some skeptics are lying for personal gain (Interestingly, that means they aren’t skeptics!), but most are either convinced by Watts or just ignoring Liberal Nonsense and getting on with the Important Business of creating Wealth and Prosperity.
It’s funny to see the WSJ doubling down on a graphic data splice ugly as any mixed proxy palaeocimatology presents, but without the redeeming necessity of an absent instrumental record.
If the 16 authors insist on reinventing the hockey stick, why don’t the WSJ’s Editors demand a Nature style corrigendum?