Deltoid

Now give some evidence, even a little tid-bit, that your blog or any other has ever made any difference to people with political influence.

Even when there is broad political acceptance (the UK is supposed to be a 'leader'), the UK Treasury is largely sceptic and controls the money. You also have closet sceptics like Peter Mandelson that give out money for Brown jobs such as car manufacturers, Airbus etc. and withhold money from Green jobs in renewables.

Posted by: Paul UK | August 20, 2009 5:05 AM

Your headline is misleading. He is not issuing a challenge to the skeptics; he’s just conducting a talk. Big deal. The AGW Believers never want to debate the skeptics anymore, because they ALWAYS lose. The skeptics on the other hand are still demanding debates but the Believers never accept.

Oh by the way, the UN IPCC wrote in their 3rd report that climate is a non-linear chaotic system and long term predictions of climate are not possible. Not possible! So how is smarty-pants Matthew England going to show climate predictions to the year 2100, when even his employers at the UN IPCC say that it is not possible? Good luck with that Matthew buddy! LOL!

Posted by: Klem | August 20, 2009 8:27 AM

Clem@4

Please provide a citation from the Third Assessment Report (TAR) where the claim is made that predictions of future climates are not possible. If you could, please provide a chapter and page number.

I only ask as I simply cannot find such a claim in the TAR, and that statement seems to be contradicted in more than a few different places in TAR itself. It's a big report, and I may have missed it.

Thanks

Posted by: ChrisC | August 20, 2009 8:52 AM

Klem, there is an old saying, Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference." Hence the AGW believers avoid debating deniers.

A non-linear chaotic system does not automatically mean anything can happen.

The term "Believers" implies some sort of faith without evidence, but we KNOW the Earth is warming and we KNOW why it is warming, because we have looked closely and honestly at all the evidence.

Posted by: Berbalang | August 20, 2009 9:18 AM

what the Klems of the world provide

Posted by: Eli Rabett | August 20, 2009 10:46 AM

Hi Mark,

To quote from your comment:

Why, george, does the source code have to be put through an IV&V process? The ALGORITHMS are put through a far more rigorous trial-by-combat test than any computer algorithm: in the peer reviewed papers.

The answer is that the algorithms may not have been coded correctly. Don't confuse apples and oranges. There is a big gap between science and software engineering. Unfortunately, it is common that many scientists believe they know all there is to know about software engineering. It is also common that many software engineers believe they know all there is to know about software quality assurance.

You also say:

PS will YOU do the process? Under NDA (since you don't want to abrogate copyright merely because you'd like the source code of software to be free: that would be PIRACY)?

I could I guess -- I have the necessary technical qualifications and naturally skeptical attitude required. I was not aware the climate algorithms or code was under NDA.

Posted by: George Crews | August 20, 2009 11:41 AM

The answer is that the algorithms may not have been coded correctly.

And this is HOW likely?

There's not the one model, you know. There are plenty of other models and if one has an algorithm coded incorrectly, it will stick out like a sore thumb (unless the effect has no effect on the system, in which case, being wrong will have no effect either).

There WILL be code reviews.

And the output is validated against other scientists working in the area. Something that Word 2003 hasn't had to deal with...

I was not aware the climate algorithms or code was under NDA.

I am not aware that NVIDIA code used in their drivers is under NDA either.

But bloggers insist that this is the reason why they don't GPL their drivers.

And the algorithms are not under NDA. The code can be. Why do you conflate the two?

Posted by: Mark | August 20, 2009 12:00 PM

Chris@6 "Please provide a citation..."

the citation is here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.PDF page 78, section G2, 4th paragraph.

Jeff @10 "please tell me how many of the sceptics are actually doing climate-based research and are publishing it in rigid journals?"

Not sure how many Jeff, but I know of one skeptic by the name of Dr. Richard Lindzen who happens to be the number one climate scientist in the world. He likely taught half of the climate scientists working in the field today. Oh and he’s not being paid by Exxon sorry, so you needn’t pull out that old favorite.

"sceptics lie, distort and mangle the science". You mean it was the skeptics who produced the Hockey Stick graph? Hmm, not sure about that one Jeffy.

Posted by: Klem | August 20, 2009 12:16 PM

George Crews.

Now that Eli has pointed you to some model links, and as you "have the necessary technical qualifications and naturally skeptical attitude required", can you inform us when and where you will be posting the results of your "IV&V"?

Klem.

The fact that you believe Lindzen to be "the number one climate scientist in the world" indicates to all here the irretrievably erroneous misapprehensions under which you labour. You really don't go out much, do you? Especially to a university library...

By this one statement of yours, you are forever revealed for the ignorant troll that you are.

Posted by: Bernard J. | August 20, 2009 12:45 PM

Could someone direct me to the peer reviewed study that contains the empirical data that irrefutably connects CO2 as a climate driver? Also, how is it possible to 'model' a non-linear chaotic system? ....maybe there's also a peer reviewed study that provides that explanation also.

Posted by: Freddy | August 20, 2009 12:55 PM

Also, how is it possible to 'model' a non-linear chaotic system?

I sincerely hope you don't fly in modern jet airliners, just to be consistent ...

Posted by: dhogaza | August 20, 2009 1:02 PM

At least Klem, after he said:

the UN IPCC wrote in their 3rd report that climate is a non-linear chaotic system and long term predictions of climate are not possible. Not possible!

was good enough to provide the reference when asked. What the TAR, section G2, 4th paragraph actually says is [my emphasis added]:

The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

Readers, make your own minds up. But this "original" (oh, if that were true!) comment by Klem is another oft-perpetuated beloved canard of denialists.

Oh, and Freddy, here's some modelling of nonlinear chaotic systems not to do with climate... one of many such modellings. Of course it's possible!

Posted by: P. Lewis | August 20, 2009 1:04 PM

I sincerely hope you don't fly in modern jet airliners, just to be consistent ...

Posted by: dhogaza

It's OK as long as nobody else is hurt...

Posted by: Mark | August 20, 2009 1:05 PM

...thx i'll have a look at that. Btw any links to the other? Just looking for the study that has some form of directly measured CO2 correlation to temps etc.....is it somewhere in the IPCC report?

Posted by: Freddy | August 20, 2009 1:10 PM

Shorter Freddy and Harvey:

We ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY 100% REFUSE to even bother to hear Matthew England's explanation out. This shows that we're very open-minded people, just like Galileo.

Posted by: bi -- IJI | August 20, 2009 1:18 PM

Hi Mark,

The criteria, depth, and degree of rigour that assures the quality of commercial/OS software are (no pun intended) qualitatively different from that of high-consequence analysis software. So I do not see the logic of bringing up required QA processes (or lack of) for one to compare the other.

You also comment that:

There's not the one model, you know. There are plenty of other models and if one has an algorithm coded incorrectly, it will stick out like a sore thumb (unless the effect has no effect on the system, in which case, being wrong will have no effect either).

Not necessarily. The climate algorithms present interesting SQA difficulties when implemented. As most everybody here knows, an ensemble of program results are used. That's because each model has its own strengths and weaknesses. (Modeling is all about artfully making the appropriate simplifications.) So in a sense, they are all "sore thumbs." Of course, that does not necessarily disqualify the ensemble. But IMHO it explains at least some of the reluctance to formal IV&V.

BTW, code reviews are good. IMHO, formally documenting the code reviews would be better. Complete traceability of the entire software development process -- better still. There is a difference between doing good code development and demonstrating good code development (SQA).

Posted by: George Crews | August 20, 2009 1:23 PM

["]The Greenland ice sheet is likely to disintegrate completely if we warm in excess of 2.5 degrees C, that's a seven-metre sea level rise" he says.

England says we have already emitted half the greenhouse gases we can if we are to have a reasonable chance of staying below a net 2 degrees Celsius global average warming.

So how many years of business-as-usual are left before our fate is sealed?

Posted by: Sortition | August 20, 2009 1:31 PM

The criteria, depth, and degree of rigour that assures the quality of commercial/OS software are (no pun intended) qualitatively different from that of high-consequence analysis software.

Explain.

Posted by: bi -- IJI | August 20, 2009 1:33 PM

George Crerws said:"There is a difference between doing good code development and demonstrating good code development (SQA)."

Has it crossed your mind that MAYBE there is also a difference between scientific code development and developing code for widespread use?

Posted by: t_p_hamilton | August 20, 2009 1:38 PM

Look it comes down to this; Skeptics and Believers agree that the earth's climate changes, they simply disagree on the cause. The Believers say it's humans, the skeptics say it's something else. The skeptics just ask for conclusive evidence that CO2 is the driver of the earth's climate. We're not asking for proof, just conclusive evidence (it's not alot to ask really). Climate science has been trying for decades to show that CO2 is the driver of the earth's climate, but they have never been able to deliver. They conclude that it's CO2 because they can't concieve of any other explanation. Sorry, but that's not conclusive evidence.

And remember folks, pictures of melting glaciers and weeping polar bears are evidence of climate change only, they are not evidence that CO2 is the cause.

And have a nice day.

Posted by: Klem | August 20, 2009 2:09 PM

Shorter Klem:

I'm not listening! I'm not listening! I'm not listening to Matthew England! I'm open-minded!

Shorter George Crews:

I wave my hands frantically and ignore all your questions. Climate models may be buggy! Climate models may be buggy! Climate models may be buggy! Climate models may be buggy! Climate models may be buggy! Climate models may be buggy! Climate models may be buggy! Climate models may be buggy!

Posted by: bi -- IJI | August 20, 2009 2:30 PM

Sortition asks:

So how many years of business-as-usual are left before our fate is sealed?

About 25, before India turns into a charnel house and takes the rest of us with them

Posted by: Eli Rabett | August 20, 2009 3:14 PM

...Says the man whose site appears to claim that the greenhouse effect involves a change in albedo instead of a difference in opacity by wavelength. Your theoretical example assumes the Earth has no atmosphere.

Try your experiment again, this time manipulating the right variable.

Posted by: Brian D | August 20, 2009 4:21 PM

I personally just want to seem some evidence that increased concentrations of CO2 will drive the climate to change in a way differently than it is already always changing.

I really do apologize to everyone here before hand, but I would prefer not to accept climate models as such empirical evidence. Is there any other corroborating source of real world evidence? I'm open minded and I just want to be convinced, as a layman.

Posted by: Joe | August 20, 2009 4:49 PM

Brian D: "Try your experiment again, this time manipulating the right variable."

You compared closed boxes with normal air vs. 100% CO2 and found a difference. This is like comparing Venus to Earth, which does nothing for telling us how the Earth's atmosphere behaves, or will behave even if we doubled CO2 concentration.

Try your experiment again, this time manipulating the right variable the right way!

Posted by: Joe | August 20, 2009 5:00 PM

I have no stake in this, I just want some info.

Everyone on this planet has a stake in this. You want info? Go find info. There are reliable sources for scientific information, you know.

You could go to Real Climate and click on their "start here" link, if you're really interested in climate science.

The fact that you don't accept models as being evidence exposes your mindset, however.

Posted by: dhogaza | August 20, 2009 5:43 PM

Shorter Joe: dhogaza is shrill and therefore I am right.

As for your attempt to rebuke me, I did not assemble that web page (which can clearly be discerned by comparing its writing style to mine). It was just the first simple page I could find where they were manipulating the right variable (the concentration of GHGs). Compare this to Bob's experiment, where he manipulates albedo and claims it rebukes the greenhouse effect.

If I wanted to properly experiment on the impact of doubling CO2 on a climate like the Earth's, I'd need two things: 1) A spare planet or two and 2) A time machine.

Alternatively, we could run the experiment on our own planet, and hope the outcome isn't bad. Oops, that's already what we're doing.

In the meantime, the best we've got are physics simulations. I believe Matthew England has something to say on those...

Speaking of, Tim, any chance of that talk going online?

Posted by: Brian D | August 20, 2009 5:50 PM

Joe:

I personally just want to seem some evidence that increased concentrations of CO2 will drive the climate to change in a way differently than it is already always changing.

Since increased concentrations of CO2 ARE driving the climate change, why do you think adding more will change the direction it is being driven?

Posted by: Eli Rabett | August 20, 2009 5:53 PM

Eli: "Since increased concentrations of CO2 ARE driving the climate change, why do you think adding more will change the direction it is being driven?"

Well how is it driving climate change then? How is the climate changing in a way that is different than it already always changes?

tphamilton:

Thank you for the reference.

Posted by: Joe | August 20, 2009 5:58 PM

Yeah well I've been through most of RealClimate and I just didn't think who ever was running that site had much to say, it just seems like some armchair enthusiast's blog or something

Yeah, so you are a troll. My initial intuition was correct, and the disrespect I showed you was deserved.

Posted by: dhogaza | August 20, 2009 6:11 PM

dhogaza: " the disrespect I showed you was deserved."

You are really making it difficult to want to be on your side. That's a really mean and disrespectful thing to say! Just...please be more kind to someone who wants to learn...I'm sorry.

God bless you.

Posted by: Joe | August 20, 2009 6:16 PM

Joe:

First, if a doctor tells you that, say, eating tasty fried food daily will probably give you heart problems, do you disregard his medical advice because it sounds silly? Or do you accept it, understanding that of the two of you, he probably knows more than you do in this field?

Climatology is a complex field. This, regrettably, means it's very easy to spread misinformation about it, since the proper understanding may be too technical to fit into a sound bite. (For instance, the argument that CO2 lags temperature in the ice cores - based on a true observation - doesn't actually say what it seems like it's saying, and amounts to a straw man argument. However, demonstrating this takes quite a bit more background knowledge than simply parroting the claim, and thus takes time to explain, so some people don't bother looking into it!)

Second, the video was NOT an insult. Everyone is unskilled in different areas. I, for instance, am very unskilled in areas as diverse as ichthyology, forestry, agriculture, botany, medicine (anything more advanced than first aid), law, cooking, and plumbing. The Dunning-Kruger effect relates not to a person's skill level but rather an interesting cognitive effect relating to their skill levels.

If you think it's an insult, you obviously didn't watch it (or read the original paper it's based on; I chose the video here because it's a fine introduction at a good pace). Please do, and after you return, re-evaluate your comment #57 in light of knowing who RealClimate's run by and your own level of understanding. You'll see why I linked it.

Note well the conclusion of the video, which will demonstrate a "cure" of sorts.

Posted by: Brian D | August 20, 2009 6:23 PM

frankis:

I'm FULL of humility and I came here to ask questions and have had nothing but being put down and told I'm an idiot. THAT's how my humility was treated! That IS NOT PLEASANT! I don't know who the other people are. I don't know how to prove I'm me. It's not like giving out personal info on the internet is smart! Gee what is it with this place?

And I AM capable of understanding science too. But no one here seems able or willing to share it. I did get one book reference and I am reading reviews of it now, so I guess at least I got that. The rest of the people here...

God bless you all.

Posted by: Joe | August 20, 2009 6:27 PM

Scientific programming is not "run-of-the-mill software", so why should "run-of-the-mill software quality assurance (SQA) gab be necessarily the way to judge it?

The software is not the end product of the process, as would be the case of a word processor.

The highest priority is that the science be correct. The QA there is peer review. Next priority is to get it done quickly. Second to publish is the same as not publishing.

I suggest that people who think otherwise ask themselves why if SQA used by Microsoft is so great, why isn't a group coming along and blowing the "amatuers" out of the water?

Posted by: t_p_hamilton | August 20, 2009 7:12 PM

Joe,

Spencer Weart's book, as mentioned by tphamilton, is a great, readable resource with hundreds of citations if you have further questions. It's available for free at the American Institute of Physics website. Here's a link.

Also, if you are interested in empirical evidence, here's an overview with links to some of the more important papers. Happy reading!

Peace.

Posted by: Boris | August 20, 2009 7:24 PM

Joe, since you end you posts with 'God Bless' I imagine you have a working familiarity with the bible - can I recommend you re-read Luke 16:19-31.

I am an athiest and a skeptic - but not a 'climate skeptic' - we are driving climate change and to keep claiming that so many scientists are wrong (or liars) seems rather like the rich man in hell asking Abraham why he wasn't warned.

I'm not suggesting you have made such claims but you are clearly heading in that direction - it is the inevitable claim that remains once you decide you don't like the 'science'.

Posted by: Grendel | August 20, 2009 7:30 PM

Joe,

I feel your pain. When I began looking into the AGW issue, my first stop was Real Climate. I, too, was green on the subject and asked some basic questions. My treatment was the same as yours: "We're not going to do your homework for you", "That question has been dealt with so it's no longer relevent", and "You're an idiot if you can't see we're right". So I had to do my own research. Today, I am thankful for that treatment because it forced me to read everything I could find, both pro and con. It took a while but eventually I found that the theory of catastrophic AGW lacks credibility. The long term history of CO2 and temperature simply do not support it.

I would also counsel not to engage AGW supporters who are dug in. It will quickly degrade into ad hominem attacks and arguements to authority. It's not worth your time.

I wish you the best of luck in your trek for understanding the AGW issue.

Posted by: Steve | August 20, 2009 7:36 PM

Janet Akerman: "Joe, watch the video, and you'll have a better chance of seeing why you ought not judge others in areas were you are not competent"

The vast majority of the history of competent people have been wrong. A tiny, tiny minority have been right. I'm right about that. Claiming competence means nothing. Being told I'm not smart enough to understand something when the questions get too uncomfortable is a sad last bastion of defence.

I could just be TOLD what the evidence is, simply, instead of being sent on a turkey chase to websites where the comments are totally damning to the arguments the websites try to make. (aka Boris' links)

Posted by: Joe | August 20, 2009 8:00 PM

It took a while but eventually I found that the theory of catastrophic AGW lacks credibility. The long term history of CO2 and temperature simply do not support it

Steve: Physics is not wrong because some mean people hurt your feelings.

My feelings are also hurt when someone tells me that fundamental physics is wrong because the world's scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to trick the worlds governments into spending vast sums of money (sometimes into the hundreds!) on this problem.

Posted by: MarkG | August 20, 2009 8:09 PM

Tim (81) - thanks, explains everything.

Joe: "I think I am done here"

Good riddance.

Posted by: dhogaza | August 20, 2009 8:47 PM

Morano's marauders. You must be regarded highly to unleash all those m&m's.

Posted by: DavidK | August 20, 2009 9:01 PM

"Can anyone produce an example of a blog post has that has resulted in anyone changing to or from a denialist?" - Alan

Changing opinion requires the prerequisites of good faith and an open mind, both which are lacking in the denialists.

Posted by: Michael | August 20, 2009 9:17 PM

Joe writes:

"*The vast majority of the history of competent people have been wrong. A tiny, tiny minority have been right. I'm right about that. *"

Joe, what’s the breakdown of historical conflicts between people competent in a subject whe in dispute with people incompetent in that subject?

For your argument to be relevant to this case, you would need evidence that history shows that in conflict on a subject competent people (those who have studies and understand the evidence) are more often wrong on that subject when they argue wjti people without competent on that subject.

Hence you are wrong to claim: “*Claiming competence means nothing. *”

Joe writes:

"Being told I'm not smart enough to understand something when the questions get too uncomfortable is a sad last bastion of defence."

Joe, there is a difference between competence and being smart enough. You need not resort to strawman arguments (the last bastion of incompetence?). Contrary to seeing any question that was “too comfortable”, my reply was in response to this statement of yours:

”Well gee, I think it is kinda funny that even I, an amateur, found his scientific reasoning amateurish! I know competence when I see it, and I'm just not convinced about it in this case.”

Your statement in response to being offered a useful link was evidence that you are likely a concern troll. The probability of this being correct is increased with the knowledge that there is an influx of insincere trolling from Marc Morano site.

Incidentally your original question was:

”I personally just want to seem some evidence that increased concentrations of CO2 will drive the climate to change in a way differently than it is already always changing.”

This evidence was provided at real climate (which you were given) and the Spencer Weart. But if you were sincere I'd suggest you read the AR4 (chock a block full of such evidence) but I doubt you are.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | August 20, 2009 9:31 PM

Hi Tim Thanks for the tip-off. The Morano trolls are revelling in their day release. No doubt, as always, they will scuttle back to their sheltered stink tanks once the light of reason starts burning their brains.

Posted by: Eat The Rich | August 20, 2009 10:10 PM

This post by Tamino gives another heavy does of evidence without computer models.

Though computer models provide strong evidence as well.

Regarding 'concern trolls', here is an intereting confession of a concern troll, though at troll that was more subtle and careful than "Joe".

Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 20, 2009 10:12 PM

All of your rage and name calling will do you little good if the politics of AGW loses out. And based on recent polling in the US support for AGW is sliding downhill fast. I'd bet that cap & trade legislation will not by passed by Congress this year. Certainly not by Copenhagen. Even the Chinese and Indians have flipped the bird at you---saying to the West go ahead but if you want "us" to play provide the technology and 1 or 2 percent of your GDP. As voters find out what is in the details of any such deal I doubt US voters would support it at all. Poor Ban Ki-moon may miss his 4 month deadline to save the planet.

Posted by: Troll | August 20, 2009 10:41 PM

troll@95

Your apparent belief that your commentary could make the slightest difference to anyone here possessed of functioning neurones and the desire to protect the biosphere on which all life depends underscores how irredeemably unhinged you right wing culture warriors are.

I do feel sorry for you, but you should do yourself a favour and work out your angst someplace where professional clinicians can help you.

Posted by: counter-troll | August 20, 2009 10:50 PM

@97 You may not like it but we do vote. If your theory can't convince enough voters you may be stuck with calling those same voters nasty little names. You'll be left with saving the biosphere in your imagination. ;-)

Posted by: Troll | August 20, 2009 11:00 PM

Girma,

Here is a summary of a lot of evidence that you belive does not exists.

Thanks for sharing your faith based beliefs though, very entertaining.

God bless ;)

Posted by: Janet | August 20, 2009 11:10 PM

"Are you making a prediction about human civilization?" Someone need to pull their head out of their ass and read "six degrees".
The question is no longer "how many millions will die" but "how many billions will die" If that number approaches 6, then it is all over. And no, I won't live long enough to see the bitter end, but my children likely will.

Posted by: elspi | August 20, 2009 11:20 PM

Troll,

You are proudly trolling here based on what confidence? Are you assuming that the laws of physics and nature will change in the face of US public opinion?

How pleasent it must be for you if you believe that olligarchal PR and concentration of media ownership will validate your views on the science of climate.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | August 20, 2009 11:35 PM

Someone (I forget who) once said that debating a creationist was like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon will knock over the chess-pieces, crap all over the board, and then fly back to its flock to proclaim victory.

The same can certainly be said about AGW deniers. Hopefully Morano's pigeons have finished crapping all over this message board and are now on their way back to rejoin their flock (to proclaim victory whilst crying about persecution, no doubt).

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2009 11:42 PM

@98--If you're saving the biosphere--then per capita emissions of GHG and selfish hypocrisy is irrelevant--it is the total amount of those gases that are released into the atmosphere that counts

That doesn't parse. Steps to reduce emissions are

a) taken by individual jurisdictions b) will confront each jurisdiction with site-specific costs

but

c) CO2 doesn't respect jurisdictional borders

If there is to be a global carbon budget, it is both fair and most feasible that the burden of avoiding these emissions be settled according to

1) Historic contribution to the existing dangerous inventory 2) Continuing per capita contributions 3) Wealth per capita (especially since it is argued that this was a consequence of burning the said fossil fuels, clearing the land, forming the concrete etc)

Given that political support must be obtained for such programs then the concept of fairness in settling burdens associated with mitigation policy is indispensible.

Basing contribution on emssions by jurisdiction would simply skew the burdens of any program away from wealthy countries with small populations but high per capita carbon fuel usage and settle it on large countries with comparatively modest usage who have done little to contribute to the existing problem. If China were to break itself up into 5 smaller jurisdictions each a little smaller than the US in population then each would then be a minor emitter, but little aside from the accounting would be different.

If emitting industrial scale CO2 is essential to maintaining the basic usages of contemporary society in the short term but we must live within a global carbon dioxide budget, then it makes sense that everyone should have the same budget regardless of where they live, with only modest allowances to take account of specific site-based human need issues. In so far as technology transfer can abate these in some places, given financial assistance, this could then be a trade-off.

But simply pointing to China and India and asserting that they are entitled to emit less per capita than we are is cynical and disingenuous and a backdoor attempt to do an end run around mitiagtion policy through subverting its effects.

Posted by: Fran Barlow | August 21, 2009 12:01 AM

Girma at #.

It was Frank Luntz who coined the term climate change, in a cynical attempt by the Republican administration to manipulate public perception and make the sheep believe that the problem was not an important one.

Even Luntz now believes the science of warming, and in interviews has expressed his chagrin at having coined the phrase.

And you should be mortally ashamed of your cherry-pick so nicely rebutted by Gaz. The rest of your points are equally without merit - as, in fact, are the points of all of your trollish pack-mates. It is especially evident that this is the case, because not a one of you made a case with even a skerrick of evidence. Your guru Morano enjoys a science-free world, does he not?

Following on from the themes of elspi and Vince Whirlwind, I can't help but think (in my idle fantasies) that one should be forced to publicly register either one's support or Denial of AGW.

Thus, when the time comes that the costs of whatever action humanity takes begin to manifest, people should be penalised according to how they contributed to the decisions made... The Denialists should all be given no opportunity for rescue from the economic and ecological sequelæ of global warming should it occur, and if on the other hand there is no warming in 30-50 years, the AGW proponents (or their estates) should compensate those who resisted any action - after the benefits that acrue from transitions from fossil fuel industries are deducted...

I know who would come out on top in either case - and it wouldn't be the Denialists.

Posted by: Bernard J. | August 21, 2009 1:59 AM

Re # 45 and responses 46 and 53 :

Please don't read more than I am writing .

Yes "Emissivity/absorption are functions of wavelength" . I am currently implementing the extension to my implementation of Stefan-Boltzmann/Kirchhoff to full spectra at which time I will have experimentally verifiable values for whatever assumptions of surface and atmospheric spectra you may wish to make .

I have not mentioned any experiment here , just basic , classical theory . And the issue is that at least 2 pages on Wikipedia , and at least one climate text that those pages reference , and a not uncommon assumption in blog comments I have seen , start with the gray-body case with a scalar Absorption/Emission , AE , parameter :

  ( AE * SunSolidAngle * TempSun ^ 4 ) = ( TempEarth ^ 4 )

This equation is wrong by a factor of ( 1 - AE ^ .25 ) or about 9% on the common assumption that earth has an absorptivity of about 70% . The equation is structurally wrong not even containing a factor for the emissivity of the earth .

From this foundation , I have never seen a quantitative theory of "forcings" , which I don't find surprising since this foundation is wrong .

Instead I keep seeing absolute impossibilities such as the notion that Venus's extreme temperature is due to some sort of "runaway" effect . Utter physically impossible garbage .

Posted by: Bob Armstrong | August 21, 2009 2:18 AM

Girma at #.

It was Frank Luntz who coined the term climate change, in a cynical attempt by the Republican administration to manipulate public perception and make the sheep believe that the problem was not an important one.

Even Luntz now believes the science of warming, and in interviews has expressed his chagrin at having coined the phrase.

And you should be mortally ashamed of your cherry-pick so nicely rebutted by Gaz. The rest of your points are equally without merit - as, in fact, are the points of all of your trollish pack-mates. It is especially evident that this is the case, because not a one of you made a case with even a skerrick of evidence. Your guru Morano enjoys a science-free world, does he not?

Following on from the themes of elspi and Vince Whirlwind, I can't help but think (in my idle fantasies) that one should be forced to publicly register either one's support or Denial of AGW.

Thus, when the time comes that the costs of whatever action humanity takes begin to manifest, people should be penalised according to how they contributed to the decisions made... The Denialists should all be given no opportunity for rescue from the economic and ecological sequelæ of global warming should it occur, and if on the other hand there is no warming in 30-50 years, the AGW proponents (or their estates) should compensate those who resisted any action - after the benefits that acrue from transitions from fossil fuel industries are deducted...

I know who would come out on top in either case - and it wouldn't be the Denialists.

Posted by: Bernard J. | August 21, 2009 2:40 AM

In this “Global Warming Swindle” an organization called the Inter GOVERNMENT Panel on Climate change was formed by GOVERNMENTS to summarize the so called “peer reviewed” papers written and reviewed by people whose projects are all funded by GOVERNMENTS to come up with results that give GOVERNMENTS more economic power and revenue. Would you believe the summaries if I replaced GOVERNMENT in the above sentence with BUSINESS? Why?

The result of the summaries is the claim that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.01% since the industrial revolution has caused global warming, ignoring the effects of 1) variation in solar radiation, 2) variation in the orbits and tilt of the earth, 3) variation in the green house effect of from 1% to 4% water vapor in the atmosphere, 4) variation in the circulation in the atmosphere, 5) variation in the circulation of the sea and 6) variation in other variables that affect global temperature.

The method they use is by scaring us that global temperature is increasing like a hockey stick that it was flat before but is increasing vertically now, despite the fact that the global mean temperature has not increased for more than a decade:

Mean Global Temperature Anomaly

Fortunately, they admit the technique to be used to achieve their objective:

“… we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.”

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DetroitNews.pdf

They want us to believe the global mean temperature to be flat and they scare us when it is increasing as they are doing now, and when it is decreasing as they did when we were kids (Science News, March 1, 1975):

“If global temperatures should fall even further, the effects could be considerably more drastic. According to the [ACADEMY REPORT] on climate, we may be approaching the end of a major interglacial cycle, with the approach of a full-blown 10,000 year ice age, a real possibility. Again, this transition would involve only a small change of global temperature 2 or 3 degrees but the impact on civilization would be [CATASTROPHIC]."

Why did they change the term “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”? Why do they state the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere as 380 parts per million, but never as 0.038%? In their mean global mean temperature graph, why don’t they show the temperature as it is, say, as 14.3 degree centigrade for one year and 14.6 for the next (a true small change of 2.1% on the graph), but they show only the decimals of the temperature as 0.3 degree centigrade for one year and 0.6 for the next (an artificial massive change of 100% on the graph)?

Fortunately, the global mean temperature has refused to match their computer prediction (proof of garbage in – garbage out) by not increasing since 1998 as shown in the link above. What do you call a belief contrary to reality? What do you call Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)?

Cheers

Posted by: Girma | August 21, 2009 2:50 AM

The result of the summaries is the claim that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.01% since the industrial revolution has caused global warming

shows us that Girma is innumerate.

Why do they state the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere as 380 parts per million, but never as 0.038%?

shows us that Girma has no familiarity with numerical psychology.

In their mean global mean temperature graph, why don’t they show the temperature as it is, say, as 14.3 degree centigrade for one year and 14.6 for the next (a true small change of 2.1% on the graph)

Shows us again that Girma has no familiarity with numerical psychology, nor with basic science - else s/he would have used the kelvin scale to exaggerate his/her claims even more, whilst simultaneously understanding that degrees and fractions of degrees changes to global mean temperature have significant biotic and abiotic impacts.

Why did they change the term “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”?

shows us that Girma is unable to assimilate the information from a (repeated!) post that explains how the term "climate change" was used by a Republican (= conservative, fundamentalist, denialist) government in an attempt to hijack the public's response to the of implications global warming. It was not promoted in the public domain by AGW proponents in order to create 'hysteria'.

Girma, you're not a very clever person, are you?

Posted by: Bernard J. | August 21, 2009 3:13 AM

Girma writes:

"In this “Global Warming Swindle” an organization called the Inter GOVERNMENT Panel on Climate change was formed by GOVERNMENTS to summarize the so called “peer reviewed” papers"

Are you disputing that the evidence is peer reviewed Girma?

Girma continues:

"written and reviewed by people whose projects are all funded by GOVERNMENTS to come up with results that give GOVERNMENTS more economic power and revenue."

Not a clever conspiracy theory Girma, it falls over when considering that George Bush was both trying to gag the scientists while also being responsible for funding the scientists from the country with most representation in the IPCC.

"Would you believe the summaries if I replaced GOVERNMENT in the above sentence with BUSINESS? Why?"

Why not, because business are forced to into positions where they are dominated by the profit motive. Leading to examples like suppression of smoking science, suppression asbestos health risks and melamine contamination of food. Government on the other hand, with proper regulation (i.e. when they are not bought by business interests)can be forced to be accountable to the demos rather than profits.

The rest of your post regarding claims of what the IPPC ignore is utter bollocks. Go back and read the reports and stop parroting such false and utter garbage.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | August 21, 2009 3:23 AM

Girma, you really need to examine your paranoia about governments.

Is democracy really so flawed?

You know, the system where the people elect governments, which then govern? And if they don't do what the people want, they are voted out? Sure, it ain't perfect, but really!

You seem to have the view that whoever does scientific research must be always, by definition, be lying because they receive funding from somewhere. Do you check under your bed for monsters every night before you go to sleep? Are you stockpiling ammo and canned food for the day when the UN takes over? Come on, get a grip!

And do you really think there's something so wrong with scientists talking about a temperature anomaly rather than "the temperature as it is", as you call it?

I mean, what they're examining is how much temperatures have changed from what they were before, so why not compare temperatures with what they were before? What could be more obvious?

Anyway, expressing the temperature in, say, the Celcius scale is really just comparing it with the freezing point (well very close to it - let's not get bogged down in talk of triple points) of water at sea level. It's just an anomaly using a different base.

What would you prefer to hear:

a) The global average surface temperature has risen by 0.7 K from 284.9 K in the first half of the 20th centruy to 285.6 K in the past decade,

b) The global average surface temperature has risen by 0.7 from from 13.7 degrees C in the first half of the 20th century to 14.4 degrees C in the past decade, or

c) The global average surface temperature has risen by 0.7 from from -0.3 degrees C below the 1961-1990 average in the first half of the 20th century to 0.4 degrees C above the 1961-1990 average in the past decade?

You can take your pick because they say the same damn thing!!!

And by the way, bonus points to you for bravely following up your ludicrous cherry-pick of 1878 and 2008 at #96 with another at #117.

Playing the 1998 card - it really is the weapon of choice when you want to blast any remaining traces of your credibility to smithereens.

Posted by: Gaz | August 21, 2009 4:06 AM

Klem says:

I know of one skeptic by the name of Dr. Richard Lindzen who happens to be the number one climate scientist in the world.

Says who? You? Lindzen hasn't published a climatology paper in 17 years. And that was the "iris" paper which was shot down by satellite observations.

He's also the guy who repeats denier garbage like "global warming stopped in 1998!" As a professional scientist (at one time, though not recently), he had to have taken at least one data analysis course and he must know that's a crock, and more importantly, know why it's a crock. But he repeats it anyway. What does that tell you?

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 21, 2009 4:31 AM

More Freddy:

Just looking for the study that has some form of directly measured CO2 correlation to temps

Try here:

http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Correlation.html

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 21, 2009 4:37 AM

I am a Computer Scientist and Software Engineer working in various fields for the past 30 years. I have been browsing through and inspected various parts of a couple of these GCM's for a while now (General Circulation Models .. ie: THEY ARE NOT CLIMATE MODELS).

Most notably, I have spent some time inspecting Model-E by Gavin Schmidt's team at the GISS. I am truly astounded at the atrocious quality of the code I have reviewed. This type of coding would never get a passing grade in any job I have ever had, and further, I would not have a job if I were to produce garbage such as contained in the models I have reviewed. While I understand that the bulk of this code is legacy and has evolved over a long period of time, by Gavin's own words, the code within the GCM's at GISS are of sub-standard quality. Further, by Gavin's own words, there is NO review of these codes and processes. Further still, by Gavin's own words, there is NO emphasis placed on quality control, validation, source control management or review processes. Continuing further, by Gavin's own words, they deem these processes unnecessary and completely dismiss any quality control standards or review.

In my view, there is a plethora of issues surrounding the design, development and coding of all of the GCM's that I have reviewed. To suggest that these applications can predict anything is extremely foolhardy. I simply laugh at these people that accept results of these models as empirical evidence and hard foundation for future events. It is simply laughable.

Consider this, Microsoft employs many thousands of programmers. Microsoft enjoys one of the largest monetary budgets on the planet for software development. Microsoft also employs one of the largest Quality Assurance teams in the world. Microsoft also releases garbage software all the time (ie: various Windows releases, especially first releases). If Microsoft were creating a GCM, given their track record, would you trust the results? We are talking about the largest and most successful computer software company in the world.

Now, consider the fact that there are very few actual Computer Scientists or Software Engineers engaged in the coding and production of GCM's. By-in-large, most of the programmers are Mathematicians and Physicists. None of which have any qualifications or proper knowledge of software design, which is why most CGM's are still written in FORTRAN (and rather old versions at that). Few, if any, of the "Climate Modelers" are in any way competent Software Engineers or have any acceptable knowledge of software design. They know the physics, but they do not know how to effectively program a computer to use those physics.

Finally, there has not been a single GCM to date that has been able to effectively, within reasonable error, been able to predict the climate of the past 10-15 years. Why would one have faith (and at this point it IS nothing more than faith), that these GCM's are able to do this for climate out to the year 2100? Again, it's simply laughable.

Not only did the UN IPCC AR4 report cite little to no confidence in GCM results (yes, it IS in there, you must read the actual report contents, not the summary for policy makers), many additional papers and studies have concluded the very same things. The climate is simply not responding as GCM's have suggested or predicted. This is not to say that GCM's will never be able to perform these functions within acceptable error constraints (although I personally believe they won't), but they certainly can NOT do this now, not by any stretch of the imagination. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous if not fraudulent.

I have found it utterly amazing what people will believe. Just because some nerdy guy in a lab coat tells them that they have a machine that will predict the future, sheeple will believe it.

In closing, I seriously doubt that Professor England will debate anyone at this roadshow. I do not believe he will accept any rebuttal at all. If he would, I would love to be there to provide that rebuttal. I will enjoy ready about the results of this dog-and-pony show and hear what he as to say as he is claiming he "will prove the skeptics wrong". This would be some event, as it would be a landmark first for sure.

Posted by: Squidly | August 21, 2009 4:51 AM

Alan posts:

Can anyone produce an example of a blog post has that has resulted in anyone changing to or from a denialist?

It's rare, but it happens. I think I've convinced the guy on the amazon.com forums who signs himself "Vainamoinen."

Guys, we really do need to cut the deniers a break. They don't know the stuff we know, and what they've picked up from denialist blogs and right-wing talk radio sounds plausible to them and prevents them from realizing how many of their questions sound. Answer the questions! The hard-core science deniers won't be affected, but those with an open mind will be, as will lurkers trying to figure this issue out. Remember that the vast majority of the public is NOT science literate. Politeness matters.

I have been impolite myself on many occasions when I didn't have to be, so this remark is aimed at myself as much as anyone else here.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 21, 2009 5:02 AM

Klem:

They conclude that it's CO2 because they can't concieve of any other explanation.

Wrong! They conclude that it's CO2 because of radiation physics. Go look up Arrhenius's paper; it's available free on the web.

Sorry Klem, if what you are saying is true, then they would have blamed it on water vapor, not CO2, as water vapor is clearly an overwhelming forcing by comparison to CO2, and, overlaps and saturates most all of the long-wave spectrum of CO2. So that you are suggesting is simply illogical.

CO2 is the culprit because nobody can gain (ie: Governments for control, or Al Gore for money) anything from trying to blame water vapor. I suspect that if cars were fueled by water, and electricity was made by water, then we would be seeing water vapor demonized just like CO2. Governments would want to ration and control water, and Al Gore would have created a water vapor offset exchange.

This stuff is such silly nonsense. Has nobody learned anything from the past? We've been down this road before. The scenery has not changed.

Would love to debate this stuff with you further, but I need to get back to coding (real coding).

Posted by: Squidly | August 21, 2009 5:12 AM

Girma:

The result of the summaries is the claim that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.01% since the industrial revolution has caused global warming, ignoring the effects of 1) variation in solar radiation, 2) variation in the orbits and tilt of the earth, 3) variation in the green house effect of from 1% to 4% water vapor in the atmosphere, 4) variation in the circulation in the atmosphere, 5) variation in the circulation of the sea and 6) variation in other variables that affect global temperature.

All those factors and known and taken into account. In detail:

1. Global climate models use TSI reconstructions to include the solar influence. It's negligible for the past half century.

2. The Milankovic Cycles operate on a time scale of tens of thousands of years. They're irrelevant to climate modeling on a century scale.

3. Every global climate model accounts for the radiative effect of water vapor. You can't get a realistic temperature for the Earth's surface without it.

4. What do you mean by "variation in the circulation in the atmosphere" and how does that affect the mean global annual surface temperature (Ts)?

5. Ditto the sea. Are you talking about sea-air temperature exchanges like El Nino? They don't affect the trend.

6. Since the known variables account for almost all the variance, the rest can be ignored, by definition.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 21, 2009 5:18 AM

@ Bob Armstrong:

Really, this is my last post, I promise, but I just couldn't help myself on this one.

Bob, go back and study just a little bit more, I think you will find some very inconvenient information about Venus that just won't fit the illogical idea (and physically impossible) that Venus somehow had a runaway greenhouse effect. This Venus issue, which originated from an out of context quote from Stephen Hawking back in 1983, is just an exercise in hilarity. I have been down this road with my father (retired MIT engineer) in which he finally had to concede that I was in fact correct that Venus is not some mystical "greenhouse", and is in fact, still a "hot rock". Little to no shortwave radiation even makes it to the surface. Dig a little deeper, you will find that the heat on Venus is easily explainable without the magical "greenhouse effect".

More laugh's this morning than I deserve...cheers!

Posted by: Squidly | August 21, 2009 5:31 AM

@ 135 Girma:

Sorry, lied, last one this time for sure.

Girma, you know these things? How many GCM's (General Circulation Models) have you reviewed? And I don't mean reading resulting output somewhere. I mean, how many models have you opened the hood on and inspected for yourself? How many routines have YOU pulled apart to validate their processes? Are you sure what you are claiming is true? I have been under the hood of a few, and I can tell you, they are missing far more processes than they are including. I am not a physicist, but I have still been left thinking, "where is this?", "where is that?", "why isn't this considered?", almost endlessly. And if I have these questions, I suspect others would have far more. To date, I have seen no answers to any of these questions (and I HAVE questioned people like Gavin Schmidt of the GISS).

Posted by: Squidly | August 21, 2009 5:40 AM

Folks, I am disturbed and disappointed by the responses to Joe & Freddy upthread. Whether they be trolls or genuine seekers after knowledge the response can be better, and how can one be sure which they are on the strength of one or even two posts? Is there a reputable web page* that provides empirical data that irrefutably connects CO2 as a climate driver? If so, is it not just as easy to link to that page than to exhort them to “do their own homework?” In addition, linking to said page will have two benefits – education of the questioner and any others who follow it, and also an increase in the web page’s hit rate. Let’s bear in mind that the only access to education in this field for most people is Dr. Google. The scorn heaped on these people, though entertaining at times, only serves to alienate the very people we need to actively engaged.

The denialsphere has got its act together recently and by-and-large are all singing from the same hymnsheet. Contrast this with the scattergun responses we see to standard denier memes we see so frequently here & at similar sites and the outlook looks poor. I propose some measures to increase the co-ordination of responses in order to improve communication of the important issues.

1) The collation of a set of links that everyone uses to counter the standard denialist memes & FUD questions.

2) A reining in of the attack dhogs so they restrict their bile to those who repeatedly demonstrate a lack of willingness to understand the issue.

3) A concerted attempt by those who care enough and know the science to resist the temptation to scornfully declaim like a preacher and instead adopt a more tolerant teacher approach.

There are trolls on both sides of the debate, let’s not let those who are tolerated because they are ‘on message’ lose it for us.

*Unfortunately Real Climate has been the subject of a concerted smear campaign and, like it or not, s%!t sticks. Understandably the proprietors of that site have become weary of the continued accusations & insinuations but their recent responses have appeared (to me at least) petty & (more importantly) unconvincing. We have to regard RC for the time being as a lame duck who’s impartiality is – to those already suckered by the denialsphere – questionable.

Posted by: Chris S. | August 21, 2009 6:00 AM

Squidly, please define "this", "that" and "this" surely if you had some (legitimate) examples your previous post was a fine opportunity to present them?

Posted by: Chris S. | August 21, 2009 6:13 AM

How many GCM's (General Circulation Models) have you reviewed?

To date, I have seen no answers to any of these questions (and I HAVE questioned people like Gavin Schmidt of the GISS).

Posted by: Squidly

How many have YOU reviewed and looked under the hood?

After all the GISS model has been out there for you to do so for ages. Yet apparently you haven't (else you would have mentioned it).

I HAVE questioned people like yourself about what they consider to be wrong and they still insist that the models are fitting to the data not phsyical models like the one that they use to show CO2 has no effect: Beers' Law.

That they consider this to be true shows they have not looked at the code in even the most cursory manner: they don't WANT to know if they are right (and neither do you), so they (and you) don't want to check up.

Posted by: Mark | August 21, 2009 6:15 AM

The "saturation" argument was debunked 50 years ago. But recognizing that would require "learning from the past."

http://onramp.nsdl.org/eserv/onramp:16572/n7.Plass_1956corrected.pdf

And the idea that the "Venus Runaway Greenhouse" originated with Stephen Hawking in 1983 is demonstrably false. Google Scholar returns 55 hits of publications before 1983 with the words "Venus" and "runaway greenhouse", two of which Barton has already mentioned.

Posted by: cce | August 21, 2009 6:30 AM

You are correct in that I personally am one of those that seeks truth and knowledge.

I nearly laughed out loud (I hate LOL unless you REALLY laughed out loud) at this.

Yeah.

You seek truth that you want to BE the truth. You seek knowledge that you're right.

Posted by: Mark | August 21, 2009 6:36 AM

Some simple examples are cloud cover, cloud reactions, precipitation, GCR's, just to name but a tiny few.

1) cloud cover: can warm or cool depending on height. And unless water vapour today acts considerably different from the way it did in the past, the paleo record shows that this cannot move the temperature change to CO2 doubling outside the 2-4.5C range per doubling from the models.

2) cloud reactions: what? you think they'll be upset and cry on us? What "cloud reactions" that aren't in "cloud cover"?

3) Precipitation: when it comes to climate, it doesn't matter if the rain is 3 hours late. Look in an atlas. It'll have a graph there of climatic rain for the region you see mapped. There IS no problem wrt precipitation when it comes to climate. Weather forecasting is different, but that's not climate.

4) GCR: Since there is no change in GCRs that make any significant difference over the last 50 years and the temperature has gone up, what about GCRs needs to be worked on? Some have fitted a graph to data (Svenmark?) and put in unphysical constraints to get a fit and have said that this means GCRs are at fault. Yet forget to project what will happen when GCR's change.

So (1) is constrained by evidence and still falls within the model output. (2) is nonsense. (3) is no problem for climate. (4) doesn't explain what's going on at the moment so even if it were modelled incorrectly, it would still have no effect.

Posted by: Mark | August 21, 2009 6:44 AM

"You are correct in that I personally am one of those that seeks truth and knowledge. I am a scientist myself and I must say, this certainly is NOT a scientific blog".

This coming from the same person (Squidly) who said:

"CO2 is the culprit because nobody can gain (ie: Governments for control, or Al Gore for money) anything from trying to blame water vapor".

And then, when challenged on several points, he/she claims that they are seeking "truth and knowledge".

Utter hypocrisy. Squidly, you didn't come on here to debate science. Come clean, will you? If you write the kind of nonsense you did above and then claim that this isn't a scientific blog, then its because the shallowness of your arguments have been exposed. I am a senior scientist in population ecology and I am always challenging the so-called sceptics to discuss the effects of climate change on natural communities and ecosystems. More often than not I read responses like that from Girma, basically grade school level stuff that has been dismissed in the empirical literature for years.

The problem is that, like it or not, there are very few environmental scientists/population-evolutionary ecologists who are climate change/AGW sceptics. If you exist, come out, come out wherever you are! As I said above, there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about the rate of climate warming and its effects on already seriously simplified and stressed natural ecosystems and their biota. I am afraid that I will require better arguments than 'C02 is a nutrient, not a pollutant', or 'an increase in atmospheric C02 will create a green utopia' or 'warming is good for the planet and its inhabitants' if I am to engage in serious debate. These arguments have been shredded innumerable times by myself and others on other threads and by many colleagues in the life sciences in the empirical literature.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | August 21, 2009 6:51 AM

@sod (#148) It is unfortunate but RC is viewed in the same way in the denialsphere as we view Watts & his ilk. Thus, if a claim is backed up by a link to RC this is viewed by the "suckers" I mention above in much the same way as you or I view a claim backed up by a link to Lindzen or Morano. i.e it is dismissed out of hand. The smear campaign has been successful we have to live with that fact and deal with it. Repeatedly stating the truth (that "it is written by the guys who do the real science. who support their peer reviewed papers with real facts") will only fall on deaf ears.

Sad, but true.

Posted by: Chris S. | August 21, 2009 6:55 AM

Wow, that was quicker than expected. Odds have changed. i'm going for two more adieux and also two ad-homs.

Posted by: jodyaberdein | August 21, 2009 6:57 AM

where e is Earth's emissivity. He concludes, "How can anybody claim to have a science , when they have the most fundamental physics wrong ?"

BPL you miss the weaselling there.

Bob IS RIGHT.

He cannot claim to have a science because he has the most fundamental physics wrong.

What he missed out was the trifling point that he was demonstrating what he was complaining about.

And he rolled in a couple of suckers who thought Bob was showing science.

Posted by: Mark | August 21, 2009 7:05 AM

All of your rage and name calling

Posted by Troll

Irony: See above.

Posted by: Mark | August 21, 2009 7:13 AM

a single GCM can predict the climate to 2100.

Only tecnically true in that you have to read that as "predict THE climate to 2100". As in the actual real track of climate over that time.

But like rolling a ball down a bumpy hillside, you don't know the EXACT track the ball will take, but you DO know it's going DOWN.

Posted by: Mark | August 21, 2009 7:17 AM

Mark @154 demonstrates precisely the post that I find counterproductive. I don't take Watts etc. to task because I see no need to visit their sites, filled as they are with pseudoscientific garbage. I visit RealClimate and read their posts but have long ago stopped reading the comments filled as they are with argumentative tripe. Commentators like Mark obviously enjoy the argument and, as such, flail around at anyone & everyone they feel they can attack.

As far as respect is concerned - how can someone who knows nothing gain any respect in the subject? As things stand here & elsewhere anyone who asks a question is treated with scorn & derision. There seems to be an increasing paranoia on these lines - anyone asking a question must be a denialsit troll. Again, this outlook can only do harm to the cause.

We can either behave like idiot bullies, or we can behave like concerned teachers - choose your masque.

Posted by: Chris S. | August 21, 2009 7:32 AM

"It's so depressing to read the same old faux sceptic comments and questions yet again."

And why do we see the same over & over again? Because they are better disseminated and because refutations in comments threads are nearly always encased within personal attacks and kneejerk "you're a denialist" accusations. How better to send someone running to the protective bosom of the Watts crowd who tell them, kindly, what they want to hear?

Posted by: Chris S. | August 21, 2009 8:01 AM

don't take Watts etc. to task because I see no need to visit their sites, filled as they are with pseudoscientific garbage.

But despite that AND that their site does the same stuff you're complaining of, NOBODY IS LEAVING DENIALISM because of the rudeness.

YOUR post is what I call timewasting.

It's a problem that, like many denialist points are MADE UP.

Find an example where the problem exists against denial of AGW.

You won't.

All you'll find is people who have NEVER shown any reasoning that accepts AGW saying "I used to think it was real until all the ad-hom and sarcasm from the pro-AGW religious zealots...".

The "problem" you point out DOES NOT EXIST.

Posted by: Mark | August 21, 2009 8:08 AM

Girma tries to sneak one by, unfortunately he succeeds

The result of the summaries is the claim that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.01% since the industrial revolution has caused global warming

CO2 has increased from ~280 to ~380 ppm since the industrial revolution. that is an increase of over 30%. CO2 comprises the majority of greenhouse gases where the atmosphere effectively radiates to space (the water vapor condenses out lower down)

Posted by: Eli Rabett | August 21, 2009 8:22 AM

"Are you suggesting that denialist posts be deleted?"

No, I'm suggesting a more co-ordinated response to them than scattergun attacks from those with little knowledge & plenty of ire.

A quick question for you so I know where we stand and can decide whether to continue paying any attention to your posts: Which do you care more about - the continuing negative effects of climate change, or winning an argument on a forum?

Personally I care more for the former which is why I am advocating a better engagement with questioners than just shouting "You're wrong you ignorant f^ck" in their faces.

Looking up I see an example of the tenor of answer I would prefer from Eli - though the inclusion of a weblink to the citation would round it off perfectly. And the last sentence is unnecessary.

Posted by: Chris S. | August 21, 2009 8:28 AM

Bernard J #119

I wrote, “The result of the summaries is the claim that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.01% since the industrial revolution has caused global warming”

You wrote, “…shows us that Girma is innumerate”

Thank you for that.

Let us look at the data.

1) Proportion of CO2 before the industrial revolution was 280 ppm. 2) Proportion of CO2 now is 380 ppm. 3) Increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution is 100 ppm. 4) Therefore, the proportion of this increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.01%

Am I innumerate?

Posted by: Girma | August 21, 2009 8:39 AM

Girma,

Like other things, you are very innumerate. You are mistaking the actual contribution of C02 to the total pool of atmospheric gases with the actual increase in this gas alone which is of course much higher than 0.01%. This increase has profound implications for global and regional climate patterns, just as a trace amount of dioxin in the human system or venom from Atrax robustus might be fatal to a human being. So let's settle on middle ground and just say that you are intellectually dishonest. Fine.

Your ealier inane comment with respect to C02 being a nutrient and not a pollutant totally belies the fact that you know nothing about complex adaptive systems and terrestrial ecology. Its clear to me that you've gleaned your knowledge, if one can call it that, from web sites such as the Greening Earth Society, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, or others set up and funded by polluting industries with an axe to grind. Speaking as a scientist, my advice is to get off your butt and read some of the primary literature, instead of parroting arguments from those who are distorting science. Avoiding appalling web sites like Morano's would be a good start.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | August 21, 2009 9:03 AM

It helps, Girma, if you get your terminology right.

A proportion is a statement that two ratios are equal. It is an equation with a ratio on each side.

2/5 = 4/10 is an instance of a proportion.

A proportion is not a percentage.

Feel free to try making a proportion out of your data. 380/280 = 1/10000 WRONG. 380/280 = 19/14 CORRECT = ~1.36

The amount of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 was ~280 ppm. The increase has been about 100 ppm.

The percentage increase in going from 280 to 360 ppm is [(Final - Original)/Original] * 100 and the answer is ~36%.

That's probably about Key Stage 3 maths (in UK educational parlance): about 11 or 12 years old probably.

Ooo! And look: ~1.36 and ~36%. Now, I wonder if ...

Posted by: P. Lewis | August 21, 2009 9:16 AM

"I could just be TOLD what the evidence is, simply, instead of being sent on a turkey chase to websites where the comments are totally damning to the arguments the websites try to make. (aka Boris' links)"

You expect us to write a book in comments at Deltoid?

But, anyway, dhogaza was right I guess. My score so far:

People dhogaza said were trolls: 473 People who weren't really trolls: 0

Posted by: Boris | August 21, 2009 9:19 AM

AGW believers, is this global warming (aka climate change)?

True Mean Global Temperature

Posted by: Girma | August 21, 2009 9:23 AM

Andrew Dodds #178

Thank you.

You wrote, “If you wanted to be use the word 'proportionate', you could say that 'The proportion of the atmosphere that is CO2 has increased from 0.028% to 0.038%, an increase of roughly 35%'. That would be clearer.”

I would prefer you instead wrote, “If you wanted to be use the word 'proportionate', you could say that 'The proportion of the atmosphere that is CO2 has increased from 0.028% to 0.038%, an increase of roughly 0.01% (0.038-0.028)'. That would be clearer.”

Posted by: Girma | August 21, 2009 9:35 AM

My previous comment referenced the graph.

An increase from 0.028% to 0.038% is an increase of 36%, as others have said. Not sure how you keep getting this wrong.

Posted by: Andrew Dodds | August 21, 2009 9:40 AM

You AGW believers, I dare you to use the term “Global Warming” instead of “Climate Change”. You would not, because you will always win when you use “climate change”: cooling is climate change, warming is climate change, forest fire is climate change and so on and so forth.

The only issue was “Increase in CO2 causes global warming”. Unfortunately, now global warming has been replaced by “climate change” and CO2 by “carbon”. The deception continues.

Posted by: Girma | August 21, 2009 10:05 AM

I wonder if Girma's bank manager has had to adopt the Girma method of calculating increases?

No 6.25% rates for Girma. No, his stoic bank mamager traipses off to his trusty abacus, calculates the net worth of the world, compers it to Girma's investment and then reports back - 'We can offer you a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

increase in your investment today sir!'

Posted by: Michael | August 21, 2009 10:08 AM

preview you fool!

Posted by: Michael | August 21, 2009 10:11 AM

When it comes to the issue of whether the software solves the correct problem, this is a matter of traceability between each release of the software and the algorithms - as expressed in scientific articles, which have been reviewed by the scientific community - which are in fact a specification of the problem to be solved.

This is an excellent comment, which brings me to squidly's complaint that Model E "isn't professionally documented".

If you look at. say, the dynamic cloud modeling module, on the surface it appears to be very poorly documented, indeed. However the code references a refereed, published paper by a subset of the modeling team. It is there that you'll find the physics and an overview of how the physics is being modeled. For scientists, this is far more accessible than the code. Getting the physics right is the hardest part. And it does serve very much as a specification, one that's very precise, and one that can be used to check the resulting implementation.

Posted by: dhogaza | August 21, 2009 10:13 AM

It's gotta be said ...

Squidly don't know squidlyshit.

Don't waste your time.

Posted by: dhogaza | August 21, 2009 10:16 AM

New hottest ocean temps on record

Global warming!

Posted by: MAB | August 21, 2009 10:17 AM

The scenario I'm envisaging would negate the need for expending too much energy on refuting long debumked claims. I'll try a bit harder to spell it out:

Stage 1) A question is asked that may appear to originate from the denialsphere, or it may not. Respondent(s): "That's covered here (link) have a look and come back to us. (IMPORTANT: every responder gives the same link)

Stage 2a) Questioner returns with further questions related to the link given - these also may be denier memes but they show they have read the initial link. Respondant(s): "Good point - see here (link) for further work in this area"

Stage 2b) Questioner returns with further questions that make it clear that they have not read the link. Respondant(s): "You don't seem to have read the last post come back when you have (no further reponse)

Stage 2c) Questioner returns with unrelated question to his/her first. Respondant(s): "Did you check the link I gave you earlier - what did you think? (No further response until 2a is fulfilled or 3b occurs)

Stage 3a) Questioner returns with further related questions - continue linking to answers.

Stage 3b) Questioner continues to ignore the link(s) given or continues to post unrelated FUD. Respondant(s) "Dhogaza, Mark etc. he's all yours, have at it"

There, no extra work, no chance of accusations of ad hom or unreasonableness and denialist memes firmly refuted.

Now, this approach requires two things - a repository of standard (good) answers to possible questions and, more importantly a degree of co-ordination amongst the AGW blog community that we have not yet seen. We know that there is such a community - it includes such regular commentators as (in no particular order) BPL, dhogaza, Hank Roberts, Marion Delgado, Eli, Truesceptic, ScruffyDan, John P Reissman, tamino, MAB, Penguindreams, CM, Ray Ladbury, Greenfyre, Timothy Chase, frankbi, Mark, Mark Byrne etc. etc. (apologies to those I've left out). If this community can come together & form a united front refusing to be distracted by FUD then we can start chipping away at the edifice of crud that the deniers have constructed.

One last thing - although the questioner may be a denialist troll, there may be genuine seekers for knowledge "lurking" looking for the answers and looking to see if the answers they've been given by the Watts crowd have any traction - these are the people we should be taking into account in these exchanges.

Aggresion never works in the teaching environment, we must view these comments threads as opportunities to teach, not get our rocks off shouting down the ignorant.

Posted by: Chris S. | August 21, 2009 10:19 AM

"Oh by the way, the UN IPCC wrote in their 3rd report that climate is a non-linear chaotic system and long term predictions of climate are not possible. Not possible!" - clem @4

Chris replied: "Please provide a citation from the Third Assessment Report (TAR) where the claim is made that predictions of future climates are not possible"

Mark, none of your snippets are such a citation. Predictions of climate are possible of course, noting the IPCC's own clear statements of what this means - "the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states".

Posted by: Michael | August 21, 2009 10:24 AM

@140&138-"As a senior scientist"--Bottom line is that both sides cherry pick evidence & scientist to support their views on these blogs. Harvey, perhaps you are a senior scientist of ecology (although I'd say you're more like a frustrated political scientist playing a version of my penis is bigger than yours) We all know that scientists are infallable particularly those that agree with the theory of AGW. As for critising those for taking money from the fossil fuel industry, I suppose then those scientist taking money from greenpeace,sierra club,government grants, etc are pristine in their scientific views and not influenced similiarly? I'd also like to read your peer review papers on the subject even if I'm dragging knuckles on the ground. If you're not published, a little less time raging on the blogs and time time presenting a coherent scientific argument might help you win the day. Blogs are for sport not serious debate. ;-)

Posted by: TJeff76 | August 21, 2009 10:33 AM

It may be naive, but it seems to me that the current method aint working...

Take another look at Mark's post @ 154 and tell me he hasn't assumed I'm some kind of denialist.

Then again, given Mark's track record I'm sure he'd pick a fight in an empty room if he could.

Posted by: Chris S. | August 21, 2009 10:34 AM

Someone who evidently can't use google feels it necessary to comment? Dhogaza - he's all yours but I'll take first stab - Try here dumbass.

No-one can spend 8 hours a day on this which is why we need to start collating good replies in comments and good blog posts for ease of access for the rest of the community - a one stop shop as it were. Mark seems to have plenty of time on his hands, I wonder whether he'd fancy having something constructive to do?

Posted by: Chris S. | August 21, 2009 10:44 AM

207 Chris S,

What is not working and how do we judge if it is?

I thought Mark @154 merely gave an example of the "being reasonable" idea not holding water when we look at the "other side".

I agree about his argumentative nature, though. Try the Tamino thread starting here (I assume it's the same "Mark", apologies to both if I'm wrong.)

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 21, 2009 11:02 AM

We all agree the increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution is 380-280=100 ppm, which is 100 * 100/1,000,000 = 0.01%. Which is NOTHING!

AGW believers, let us not use force in the form of government legislation before we are sure. How about waiting until the mean global temperature for any of the next ten years to return to the 1998 value of 0.55 deg C before the use of force?

I am cheering for China and India to continue to refuse to increase the cost of their energy and save us from the chain of AGW believers. The argument being all jobs will go to China and India and we in the developed countries will be unemployed and return back to the stone age. Their aim is destruction. Look at the last year fire in Melbourne, Australia. The environmentalist prevented any controlled burning of the forest bush, and this fuel in a hot summer day started fire and destroyed more than one hundred human life and thousands of other life. The world needs to shake itself from its green shackle.

Posted by: Girma | August 21, 2009 11:10 AM

I agree about his argumentative nature, though.

Likely the same one.

But please explain where the nature is either

a) counterproductive (as in causes a problem where none existed) b) wrong

Posted by: Mark | August 21, 2009 11:13 AM

And the one who became argumentative and snarked instead was Dhogaza.

"Read before you post" from someone who knee-jerked their way to a snide.

I never start a fight, but I always finish it.

Posted by: Mark | August 21, 2009 11:15 AM

We all agree the increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution is 380-280=100 ppm, which is 100 * 100/1,000,000 = 0.01%. Which is NOTHING!

No it isn't.

Its, what? 10^12 tons, or something like that.

YOU lift that "nothing".

Posted by: Mark | August 21, 2009 11:19 AM

Mark seems to have plenty of time on his hands, I wonder whether he'd fancy having something constructive to do?

Posted by: Chris S.

cf

Sorry chaps, would like to contribute more today, but there's something special happening at the Oval & I'm off to find a T

Posted by: Chris S.

Plenty of spare time to watch something you can't change and can read about in the paper tomorrow.

And when it comes to you responding, there doesn't seem to be a "must".

Which is right. There is no "must". But it is the opposite stance you take in print for other people to work to when compared to what you think you should do.

Posted by: Mark | August 21, 2009 11:27 AM

Take another look at Mark's post @ 154 and tell me he hasn't assumed I'm some kind of denialist.

Take a look and see if you can find "you're a denialist, Chris".

I'm pointing out that denialists make those arguments.

I'm pointing out WHY they make those arguments.

I'm pointing out why those arguments are spurious.

I also argue against people who use * *bad arguments * whatever they are using their *bad arguments for.

The enemy isn't denial of science or lying or any of the other things. The enemy is bad arguments. One reason for which is one of those other things.

e.g. a bad argument because you don't care if you have an idea, just that someone else's idea be wrong (denial) e.g. a bad argument because you want to mislead someone (lying) e.g. a bad argument because you hate someone's POV (ad hom attacks)

Posted by: Mark | August 21, 2009 11:31 AM

Why reply to a post containing a link which might refer to you without snatching a quick look first?

Posted by: TrueSceptic

Because it doesn't really matter what the post was. I can be argumentative.

And if that post wasn't a post of mine I wouldn't be upset or annoyed and therefore the "I apologise if not" wasn't required.

But I know that some people can be anal-retentive about the unimportant and that you posting "I apologise" over something that was unimportant could indicate you are one of those, then I looked.

Posted by: Mark | August 21, 2009 11:49 AM

@ Gaz #123 : ONLY in Kelvin do ratios make sense . By your values of a 0.7K increase from 284.9K over a century , this whole suicidal insanity is over a change 0.25% in our observed mean temperature . That is barely a human JND and the effects attributed to it are lunacy .

Posted by: Bob Armstrong | August 21, 2009 12:02 PM

@ Squidly 137 : We agree ! Venus is radiating 16 times as much energy as any object in it's orbit can be absorbing from the sun . The idea that its temperature is caused be "greenhouse gas trapping" is absurd on so many grounds , anyone who presents it as evidence of a "runaway" effect shows they don't have a clue about temperature physics .

Posted by: Bob Armstrong | August 21, 2009 12:19 PM

Germa.

What concentration of cyanide is lethal to humans? How much ozone in the atmosphere is required to prevent UV radiation from sterilising the planet's surface? What level of fluoride in water benefits tooth strength - and as a supplementary, what level of fluoride is lethal to humans?

What concentration of testosterone in your serum caused your gonads to drop (I'm assuming that you're too ignorant to be female), and what increase in this concentration would send you into a fit of 'roid apoplexy?

If you're the visual sort, and you need kindergarten experiments to drive some understanding into your head, what concentration of potassium permanganate would you need to add to water in order to detect a noticable colour change? How would optical density change with concentration of said potassium permanganate?

What is the thickness of the gold film on the inner surface of an astronaut's visor? How does this compare with the overall thickness of the visor?

Are you getting the picture yet?

And please parse yourself if you are still confused about why you demonstrate innumeracy:

The result of the summaries is the claim that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.01% since the industrial revolution...

You see, "an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere of 0.01%" is grammatically the same as "an increase in CO2 of 0.01%", and as Andrew Dodds explain to you the increase in CO₂ is actually around 36%.

That's the second time this month a troll has used this ploy, although I can't be shagged to figure out who the first one was, in order to show Germa that s/he is not even original. Anyone?

Posted by: Bernad J. | August 21, 2009 12:20 PM

100 ppm is about 800*10^9 tonnes but it doesn't really matter in this case.

Aye, I only got a ball-park figure from what I remembered.

It is rather strange though.

For example, as far as the IR radiation is concerned, there's H20 and then there's CO2.

All that diatomic stuff doesn't even exist.

So if you want to talk absolute %'s and IR effects from it, you have to start with all the IR active gasses as 100% and then talk about the fraction of that as a percent.

Adding 10 septillion tons of O2 to our atmosphere will do NOTHING to the IR blocking effect.

But it will have a huge effect on the % of the atmosphere CO2 is.

But doing the maths CORRECTLY doesn't stay "on message" for knuckle-draggers who merely want to proclaim AGW is all a storm in a teapot, so they don't do it.

Mind you, as Bob amply demonstrates, they'll jump massively on you if you don't use your maths scrupulously correctly if it is to show AGW is a problem...

Posted by: Mark | August 21, 2009 12:24 PM

I agree with the comments about registering people's beliefs on global warming, i.e. whether they agree with it or not. People are going to need to take responsibility for causing confusion and inaction on this issue - we know how this is going to end, when the climate gets totally screwed! My god why can't people understand how important this issue is!?

I suggest people carry some sort of identity card, or maybe even just tattooing it on people. Might as well have IBM keep track of the registrants, since they're good at tabulating that sort of stuff. Then when the time comes, it will be easy to identify the people and, I don't know, maybe we should put them on trains on hold them in education camps where they can no longer be a danger to society, or themselves for that matter! We can care for them since they're obviously incapable of rational thought. There might be overpopulation issues in the camps, but we can keep them from breeding which is good for the rest of us anyway. They could even present a viable work force, and they could help build equipment needed to combat the dangerously changing climate. And if worse comes to worse, and so many of us die from the effects of climate change and fighting it, then we can have some sort of euthanasia program for them because the LAST thing we want to do is to leave the world to these idiots just for them to destroy it all over again!

Posted by: GD | August 21, 2009 12:36 PM

I suggest people carry some sort of identity card, or maybe even just tattooing it on people.

Why?

To hark back to the "Final Solution" of the Holocaust and tie that to being persuaded by AGW science that it is happening?

It's not necessary because we can, you know, ASK what people think of AGW.

Now it would be nice if they didn't LIE and said "I deny AGW" rather than the porkie-pie version "I'm just skeptical of AGW", but that's just because the person being asked doesn't want to tell the truth, not because they're afraid they'll be chucked under a bus.

Posted by: Mark | August 21, 2009 12:43 PM

Global Average Temperature Jumps By The Highest Ever Amount In One Month.

I'd say that as long as the switch to El Niño is maintained until the end of the year then the period 1998-2009 (and all periods to 2009 at least a few years long) will have a positive trend in all global surface temperature estimates (GISS, NOAA and HadCrut3). This may shut the trolls up to some degree but it will never stop moronic arguments from the likes of Steve Fielding who pick February 1995 and say "Gee, there's been no warming for 15 years" because February 1995 was warmer than last month.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | August 21, 2009 1:11 PM

@ Barton Paul Levenson 134

Where's the energy to keep Venus hot coming from ? See 229 . It's not the sun .

As computed in my Basic Temperature Physics of Radiantly Heated Balls It's not coming from the sun .

Other reasons why it is absurd is that Venus has the highest albedo of all the inner planets so by the AGWer's Wikipedia equation should be the coolest relative to the black body temperature for its orbit . Further , its day is about as long as its year . Yet its day and night sides are virtually the same temperature , again , 2 times what the sun could make them .

Embarrassing .

Posted by: Bob Armstrong | August 21, 2009 1:42 PM

Re: dhogaza@202

My post was responding to Chris@6, which reminded me of the disconnect I felt between the "Catastrophic Global Warming" media reporting and what I read in the TAR WG1 report (which I bought a paper copy of) at the time (2000/1).

There is a difference between "quote-mining" and "editing someone's post to make it say the opposite of what they wrote".

In general, I have found that SOME quotes, though by no means all, are in fact true.

Re: Mark@224

NB : Two threads "colliding" which include two different "Marks" may lead to some confusion ...

My (probably naive) approach has 3 basic rules :

1) Just because YOU think something is true does NOT mean it is in fact true.

2) Just because I think something is FALSE does NOT mean that it is in fact FALSE.

3) In both cases, (real-world) data / evidence is required to support the statement.

There is still debate as to HOW MUCH of the 1975-2003/4/5 warming phase was due to CO2. Lindzen and Svensmark, among others, will probably disagree with the numbers you think are correct.

I am (impatiently) waiting for the CLOUD09 experiment to start producing results at CERN. It is entirely possible that they will DISprove the proposed "Svensmark effect" (cosmic rays -> low level clouds -> global cooling). It is also POSSIBLE that the data will support this hypothesis.

I think it is most likely that the actual results will surprise BOTH sides of the debate (for different reasons, of course).

Posted by: Mark - BLR | August 21, 2009 2:02 PM

We all agree the increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution is 380-280=100 ppm, which is 100 * 100/1,000,000 = 0.01%.

This increase happened in about 150 years. So the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere per year is about 0.00007%. If we wait another ten years before using the authoritarian method of increasing energy prices, the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase by only 0.0007%. Please let us wait another ten years just to make sure before we increase world energy price and wipe out millions of the poor by starvation.

If in the next ten years the mean global temperature anomaly again reaches or exceeds the 1998 value of 0.55 deg C, I will join the AGW camp.

Posted by: Girma | August 21, 2009 2:18 PM

245 Girma,

What a tortured way of calculating the annual CO2 increase! All you had to do was go to ESRL, where you can see that your average is not applicable to the present in any case. Figures in ppm:-

1998 2.93

1999 0.94

2000 1.74

2001 1.59

2002 2.56

2003 2.29

2004 1.56

2005 2.55

2006 1.69

2007 2.17

2008 1.66

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 21, 2009 2:59 PM

183

AGW believers, is this global warming (aka climate change)?
True Mean Global Temperature

Posted by: Girma | August 21, 2009 9:23 AM

Thanks for the great graph ! But even it exaggerates the variance in our temperature over the last century and a half by a factor of about 18 because true 0 is 273 degrees lower . Overall , we're damn lucky that the sun is as remarkably stable as it is .

Posted by: Bob Armstrong | August 21, 2009 3:48 PM

Bob:

Re: "Please don't read more than I am writing".

I based my conclusion on your webpage, prominently linked in your name. It implies that we're worried about planetary albedo, not the greenhouse effect, which is wrong.

Re: "substantial internal source of heat"

You're not a follower of Tom Chalko, are you?

Posted by: Brian D | August 21, 2009 4:54 PM

Girma at #245.

"If in the next ten years the mean global temperature anomaly again reaches or exceeds the 1998 value of 0.55 deg C, I will join the AGW camp."

This is an extremely rare event. A skeptic has nominated in advance a measurement that will persuade him.

Posted by: Alan | August 21, 2009 5:35 PM

If in the next ten years the mean global temperature anomaly again reaches or exceeds the 1998 value of 0.55 deg C, I will join the AGW camp.

If so Girma, you'll be joining for the wrong reason, just as you deny AGW for the wrong reasons.

One year of weather data is much too noisy to infer a climate trend. You are likely to have your wish at the next El Nono or Solar Maximum (both of which are likely very soon, but on your logic, you should depart 2 years later if 'warming has stoppped/been wiped out'.

That would not be a scientific method but mere subjective nonsense.

Posted by: Fran Barlow | August 21, 2009 5:43 PM

@ BPL 130

We seem to have a failure to communicate . I had a math prof who , when facing totally blank stares from his class , would say "Ok , I'll say it again louder" .

My point is exactly that for a gray body a = e in the formula a theta Ts^4 = e Te^4 in your notation , and so drop out thus predicting that a gray body will come to exactly the same temperature as a black body , whatever its "gray value" .

Wikipedia and apparently a lot of "climate science" texts have this wrong , because their , not my formula completely leaves out the earth's emissivity parameter . As a result , they claim that , given the earth's approximate 0.3 albedo( Eli , there is no argument here ) , the temperature of the earth would be about 255k without their forcings rather than the proper computation of about 279k . This creates a false deficit of somewhat more that 30k rather than perhaps around 5k from this crudest of computations . Any theory which purports to fill that gap is clearly crap .

After agreeing with the above equation , in the next paragraph you revert to a formula which re-asserts the ( 1 - A )^0.25 fallacy . Alan Siddons points out that for every single planet , whatever their atmosphere , this formula , not surprisingly , produces numbers lower that the planet's measured temperature .

Finally , your last equation S = (R / a)^2 es sigma Ts^4 where "R is the sun's radius, a the Earth's (or another planet's) semimajor axis" is obviously absurd because the energy density at any distance sun is dependent solely on the sun's temperature and its distance . You have it independent of distance , but dependent on the receiving object's size .

Hopefully anyone on this blog can see that that is nonsensical .

I would like to emphasize that I have never been able to find a concise quantitative mathematical explanation of the supposed physics of forcings comparable to what is easily found for the derivations of Planck and Stefan-Boltzmann . Where are the equations ? This lack of rigor is evident , for instance , in the lack of any quantitative theoretical prediction of whatever the experiment cited by Brian D , 46 , is supposed to show .

If you want to convince us "skeptics" , show us your equations , and show us your quantitative experimental proof .

46

Posted by: Bob Armstrong | August 21, 2009 5:50 PM

@ CapitalClimate 254 :

Typical attempt at ad hominem insults rather than argument so common on the alarmist side .

I'm not a follower of anybody . I've come to parallel conclusions . And in both physics and freedom , I find classical theory most thoroughly proven .

Posted by: Bob Armstrong | August 21, 2009 6:14 PM

259 Bob Armstrong,

Typical attempt at ad hominem insults rather than argument so common on the alarmist side .

Exactly.

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 21, 2009 6:59 PM

@ Lee 260 & BPL :

. The semi-major axis IS the distance from the sun.

I apologize . I didn't recognize the term , tho now it rings a bell .

Our only apparent disagreement is over the ( 1 - A ) ^ % 4 factor .

Posted by: Bob Armstrong | August 21, 2009 7:23 PM

b) Does increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere lead to warming? No, there has been no change in temperature at Mauna Loa since 1978 despite CO2 as measured there continuing to increase.

This is jaw-dropping hilarious (and I'm still refusing to do a denialist's homework for them).

Posted by: dhogaza | August 21, 2009 7:43 PM

Several here have demanded that so-called “denialists” wear a badge, so I show you mine.

Do I believe that climate changes? Of course I do. Climate has always changed everywhere and it always will.

Do I think humans alter climate? Yes, of course they do and in several ways. For example, it is warmer in each city than in the surrounding countryside.

Do I know what causes global climate to change? No, I do not and nor does anybody else (although Milankovitch cycles probably give a clue).

Do I think that emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global climate change? No, I do not because the empirical evidence denies it.

Several here seem to think radiation physics is all that needs to be known to decide if anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) exists. They are wrong because the climate system is complex and varies in several ways for unknown reasons. For example, causes of changes to cloud cover are not understood and have great effect. Cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid 1980s and late 1990s. Over that period, cloud cover decreased such that if the Sun’s heat were constant the extra surface warming was 5 to 10 Watts/sq metre. This is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 W/sq metre).

It seems that AGW-believers here are confusing four issues; viz. (a) the existence of global warming, (b) the indication of that warming, (c) the cause of that warming, and (d) the significance of the 'hockey stick' of Mann, Bradley and Hughes.

Considering each of these issues:

The existence of global warming is not evidence of anthropogenic global warming because warming of the Earth does not prove humans warmed it. At issue is whether emissions of greenhouse gases from humans’ activities are or are not affecting changes to the Earth's temperature that have always happened naturally.

It seems that global warming did occur over the twentieth century. The degree of this warming is debatable but there are several indications that it happened. These include the assessments of thermometer readings (i.e. HadCRUT and GISS) together with, for example, general retreat rates of glaciers and estimated rates of sea level rise.

Thus, the issue to be determined is whether the global warming over the twentieth century was significantly affected by anthropogenic warming. And this brings us to the 'hockey stick'.

It is self-evident that a constantly varying system varies. A change to the observed variations provides a reason to suppose that the system has obtained a change to the cause(s) of its variation. The alteration to the variations could be an observed change to the magnitude, frequency and/or rate of the variations.

And no observed alteration to the variations indicates that there has been no significant change to the cause(s) of the variations. This indication of no significant change remains true whether or not there is a reason to suspect that there has been a change to the cause(s) of the variations.

Simply, this is an application of the scientific principle known as Occams's Razor which says that the explanation requiring fewest assumptions is most probably correct. So, no observed change indicates that nothing significant has changed.

Put another way, the null hypothesis is that the system has not changed. And, therefore, those who wish to claim that it has changed need to provide evidence for the existence of the change (and this is true whatever their reason for suspecting that a change has occurred).

But there is no indication that the observed global warming of the twentieth century was affected by anthropogenic effects. The globe has warmed for about 300 years as it has recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the highest temperature of the twentieth century (recorded in 1998) seems to have been cooler than the global temperature that several proxies indicate existed at the peak of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP).

Also, the warming of the twentieth century occurred as two warming periods with one of those periods prior to 1940 (i.e. ~1910 to ~1940) and the other after 1940 (i.e. ~1970 to ~1998) according to the HadCRUT and GISS estimates. But about 85% of all the emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity was after 1940. These two warming periods occurred at the same rate of warming. Clearly, there is no reason to suppose that the period of warming from 1970 to 1998 was mostly induced by the emissions from human activity when the earlier - and similar - period of warming could not have been.

Hence, there is no observed alteration to the variations of global temperature to indicate that there has been a significant change to the cause(s) of the variations in the twentieth century. And, therefore, the scientific conclusion is that there has not been a significant anthropogenic effect on those changes.

The 'hockey stick' of Mann, Bradley and Hughes purported to show that there has been a significant anthropogenic effect on those changes. It suggested that the MWP and LIA did not exist. This was an extraordinary suggestion because there is much evidence to demonstrate that they did exist.

Upon investigation it was determined that the 'hockey stick' is an artifact of several analytical errors most notably incorrect statistical analysis of the data: almost any data - including random data of the form of red noise - usually provides a 'hockey stick' when subjected to those statistical procedures.

Furthermore, global temperature fell from the El Nino high it had in 1998 and has been stable in recent years. This demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that if anthropogenic effects are forcing up global temperature then those anthropogenic effects were overwhelmed by natural effects that forced down global temperature after 1998.

In summation, the scientific conclusion remains that there is no discernible anthropogenic effect on global temperature.

I will not bother to read this blog again because I know from past experience the nature of the personal abuse this posting will attract from AGW-believers whose superstitious faith it denies. But it seemed worthwhile to provide some science when the above postings mostly consist of rants and insults from AGW-believers.

Posted by: RichardSCourtney | August 21, 2009 8:33 PM

TrueSceptic #247.

Thanks for that information.

So, last year, the increase in the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere for last year of 2008 was 1.66 ppm, which is 0.000166%. In ten years, the increase would be 0.00166%. Which is nearly nothing, zip & nil.

Posted by: Girma | August 21, 2009 8:49 PM

Tiddles you've obviously been misled by ludicrous Mauna Loa argument put by Tim Curtin.

His insincere arguments have been dealt with here.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | August 21, 2009 9:36 PM

Richard, thanks for that very lengthy...discussion.

I did find it just a little curious that you deny any empiracal evidence for AGW, yet at the same time acknowledge both an increase in CO2 and temps in the 20th C.

I assume that you acknowledge that CO2 is a GHG? If so why do you think that rising CO2 wouldn't cause any temp increases?

Yes, there are fluctutions from year to year. And yes, those flucutations can mask AGW effects - but only in the short term, that's why we are talking about climate, ie. 30 year averages. Otherwise, if the expected El-Nino eventuates later this year and we get a repeat of 1998, you'll have to come back here and recant on your above statement and say that the increased temps show that AGW is overcoming "natural effects". But that would be wrong too - a slightly cooler year or a slightly warmer year do not disprove or prove AGW.

Posted by: Michael | August 21, 2009 9:48 PM

Boob Armstrong (one does have limits):

My point is exactly that for a gray body a = e in the formula a theta Ts^4 = e Te^4 in your notation , and so drop out thus predicting that a gray body will come to exactly the same temperature as a black body , whatever its "gray value" .

It is perfectly true that for the surface a=e. OTOH, the temperature of the atmosphere is not the temperature of the surface even for a gray atmosphere and a and e for the atmosphere are not the same as a and e for the surface. During the day there is another term describing the absorption of solar radiation.

Go read Goody and Young.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | August 21, 2009 10:14 PM

. But it seemed worthwhile to provide some science

Yeah, It seems you forgot that CO2 is a GHG. How do you write a 1,000 word comment on AGW without even mentioning CO2? Pretty impressive dodge.

Posted by: Boris | August 21, 2009 10:51 PM

Richard Courtney misleads and runs:

Upon investigation it was determined that the 'hockey stick' is an artifact of several analytical errors most notably incorrect statistical analysis of the data: almost any data - including random data of the form of red noise - usually provides a 'hockey stick' when subjected to those statistical procedures.

Of course, since the original Mann Bradley and Hughes papers of 1998 and 1999, there have been additional reconstructions using additional proxy data and better statistical analysis, extending the reach of the method further back in time. They pretty much all match the Mann Bradley and Hughes result. Displayed on a common figure, they have come to be known as the spaghetti graph

The issue with red noise is that one can get a ten times smaller upturn at the end using Mann's original method with red noise. No one has been able to force the red noise stick to be anywhere near as high in the last century using red noise. Oh yeah, the Dick's "almost any" is, as they say, not even wrong, but he flees to harumph again.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | August 21, 2009 11:24 PM

In June, Russia said it would release 30 per cent more greenhouse gases by 2020, with President Dmitry Medvedev stating: "We will not cut off our development potential."

Thanks Russia, China & India for possibly saving us from the self-destruction of the west by the greens!

The greens say they are for forest, but they make it only ready for the next forest fire.

Similarly, they say they are for the poor, but we will see energy price skyrocket and cause misery on millions of people all over the world.

Posted by: Girma | August 22, 2009 12:19 AM

squiddly @ 129, that's a very amusing post, which completely misses the point. (It gave me the best laugh I've had today.)

I'm also a computer scientist, and I happen to have spent a large part of my professional career maintaining other people's code, to the point where I'm no longer surprised at just how crappy supposedly professionally-written software can be.

Your complaints about the climate modeling software are particularly risible. Firstly, it's written in FORTRAN for two reasons, the more important of which is that it needs to be fast and numerically stable. (The other is that FORTRAN tends to be the language that mathematicians and physicists are most comfortable with, and often the only one they know. See main reason for an explanation of this.)

I can guarantee that the people who write climate modeling software have little to no interest in elegance. They probably won't be too fussed if it has a shitty interface and doesn't fail particularly gracefully. As I said, it needs to be fast and numerically stable, and it needs to produce a result which is a reasonable, if simplified, model of the world.

Posted by: David Irving (no relation) | August 22, 2009 1:17 AM

Tim, this has been one of the more informative websites that I have followed in a long time. In essence you have taken the classic "How to lie with statistics" (Huff, 1954) book into the 21st Century via the internet...a book I recommend to all of my students because the very nature of science and statistics is designed to prevent scientists from lying to themselves.

This is my first post here and I frankly skim such blogs to learn more about interesting new papers (I have found many here but it takes some digging). Public debates with opponents don't interest me (exluding those published in the relevant literature) -- but teaching the general public/voters/policymakers more about how science actually works is of critical importance.

In that vein I expecially wish to thank Dr. Harvey for participating. Sir. You have done some very nice work. Yes I've been reading many of your papers, and I'm pleased to see another population ecologist on this website. Many others of course have also offered great venues for further education for those who truly wish to learn more.

In dealing with the classic denial comments, in my humble opinion the best procedure when dealing with comments such as Girma #171 is just a) find the common ground of facts and b) show why his calculation was wrong in language understood and replicated by most people on their Ipod or laptop version of Excel. I fully appreciate that this would be impossible for more complex models.

So we agree the start figure is 280 ppm (parts per million, 1880) End figure is 380 ppm (same measure, 1998) Note that we use common measures here.

A) start (1880) = 280 ppm B) end (2008) = 380 ppm C) calculate 380ppm divided by 280ppm = 1.38 D) So excluding what was there already (the 1.00), CO2 has increased by about the 0.38 measure. This is 38%.

This is a trivial example, but that took about 15 seconds to download the original data, another minute with excel, and another 30 seconds to write the email. But I didn't have to call anyone nasty names or talk down to others on this forum.

The climate issue is vitally important as you know, and as an ecologist I use that adjective in the very literal sense.

Best wishes and keep up the good fight. Andrew

Posted by: Andrew Bryant | August 22, 2009 1:53 AM

Girma writes:

In June, Russia said it would release 30 per cent more greenhouse gases by 2020

My Goodness! that is 3000 times more than 0.01%!

Girma, are you sure you don't want to retract your silly arguments about units which seem whole designed to muddy the waters.

[Girma is making silly arguments like their has been "an increase of 0.01% in CO2 since the industrial revolution". And arguing that we should to plot the changes in temp and CO2 on a scale that hides the real changes].- Talk about desperate nonsense.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | August 22, 2009 2:27 AM

Squidly:

I think you will find some very inconvenient information about Venus that just won't fit the illogical idea (and physically impossible) that Venus somehow had a runaway greenhouse effect.

Nothing physically impossible about it, Squid.

This Venus issue, which originated from an out of context quote from Stephen Hawking back in 1983,

The idea that Venus's high temperature is maintained by the greenhouse effect was first proposed by Carl Sagan in 1960.

is just an exercise in hilarity. I have been down this road with my father (retired MIT engineer) in which he finally had to concede that I was in fact correct that Venus is not some mystical "greenhouse", and is in fact, still a "hot rock".

You're a Velikovsky fan, I take it.

Little to no shortwave radiation even makes it to the surface. Dig a little deeper, you will find that the heat on Venus is easily explainable without the magical "greenhouse effect".

No, it is not. And the shortwave radiation is enough to feed the greenhouse effect, considering Venus's thick greenhouse atmosphere. Surface illumination averages about 16.8 watts per square meter according to landers, but IR back-radiation from the atmosphere is about 16,000 W/m^2, which explains the 735.3 K average surface temperature.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 22, 2009 4:23 AM

Sorry, that last post was me. Just realised there is another Alan on here.

Posted by: Alan C | August 22, 2009 4:28 AM

Girma:

Why do we need CO2 for global warming? During summer, increase in temperature results in increase in water vapor from evaporation from the sea. This could increase the water vapor from a low of 1% to 4% of the atmosphere. Why does not this 3% increase in water vapor does not cause run away global warming, but an increase of 0.01% in CO2 since the industrial revolution causes catastrophic global warming?

1. When it is summer in the northern hemisphere, it is winter in the southern hemisphere, and vice versa.

2. The volume fraction of water vapor in the atmosphere is highly variable from place to place, but on average it sticks very close to 0.4%. It is limited by the Earth's temperature through the Clausius-Clapeyron relation and the hydrological cycle. An average water vapor molecule stays in the atmosphere only 9 days.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 22, 2009 4:39 AM

Girma:

We all agree the increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution is 380-280=100 ppm, which is 100 * 100/1,000,000 = 0.01%. Which is NOTHING!

Volume fraction doesn't matter, Girma. The 99%+ of the atmosphere that is nitrogen, oxygen, and argon is not radiatively active. There's no volume fraction term in Beer's Law.

What matters is the absolute amount--and that has increased 38% since the industrial revolution began.

As for 0.01% being nothing--try breathing in air laced with 0.01% fluorine. I'll watch--from a safe distance.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 22, 2009 4:50 AM

Bob Armstrong:

Venus is radiating 16 times as much energy as any object in it's orbit can be absorbing from the sun .

Of the 2,611 watts per square meter Venus solar constant, the fact that Venus is a sphere cuts this to 653 W/m^2. Venus's bolometric Bond albedo of 0.750 cuts this to 163 W/m^2, which is the amount Venus actually absorbs into its climate system. It radiates as much out in infrared. Venus is in radiation balance. See Taylor et al. in the 1983 Venus compilation from U. of AZ Press. This is from Pioneer Venus observations.

The idea that its temperature is caused be "greenhouse gas trapping" is absurd on so many grounds , anyone who presents it as evidence of a "runaway" effect shows they don't have a clue about temperature physics .

As I explained before, the runaway greenhouse effect is something that happened to Venus in the past. Its present high temperature is caused by the greenhouse effect of its carbon-dioxide-thick atmosphere. It's not absurd on any grounds at all. You don't know radiation physics.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 22, 2009 5:00 AM

Bob Armstrong:

Where's the energy to keep Venus hot coming from ? See 229 . It's not the sun

It is the sun. You have energy confused with temperature. You also clearly don't understand how the greenhouse effect works, or basic radiation physics, for that matter. And your web page is absurd. Will you please, PLEASE, crack a BOOK? Not Wikipedia, not a Heartland Conference web page, but A BOOK ON PLANETARY PHYSICS? And work the problems?

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 22, 2009 5:07 AM

Michael:

I received an impertinent spam this morning and it prompted me to return here to see what was being said in response to my post. To my pleasure and surprise, I found your polite and reasoned message saying:

“Richard, thanks for that very lengthy...discussion. I did find it just a little curious that you deny any empiracal evidence for AGW, yet at the same time acknowledge both an increase in CO2 and temps in the 20th C. I assume that you acknowledge that CO2 is a GHG? If so why do you think that rising CO2 wouldn't cause any temp increases? Yes, there are fluctutions from year to year. And yes, those flucutations can mask AGW effects - but only in the short term, that's why we are talking about climate, ie. 30 year averages. Otherwise, if the expected El-Nino eventuates later this year and we get a repeat of 1998, you'll have to come back here and recant on your above statement and say that the increased temps show that AGW is overcoming "natural effects". But that would be wrong too - a slightly cooler year or a slightly warmer year do not disprove or prove AGW.”

I will try to address all your points in turn, but space is limited.

I do not deny “empirical evidence for AGW”. As my post explained, there is no such evidence.

Of course atmospheric CO2 concentration and mean global temperature both rose in the twentieth century. But they do not correlate: there has been steady rise in the CO2 while the temperature has fluctuated. The IPCC overcomes this by comparing 5-year averages of the data. However, any data sets can be processed so they ‘fit’, and there is no known reason to apply these 5-year averages except to obtain a spurious ‘fit’.

Correlation does not prove causation, but absence of causation disproves causation.

Furthermore, the atmospheric CO2 concentration and mean global temperature cohere such that changes to the CO2 follow changes to the temperature. At shortest time scales the delay is between 6 and 9 months and differs with latitude.

A change cannot follow its cause in the absence of a time machine.

In one of the papers we published in 2005 (ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, 'The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle' E&E v16no2 (2005) ) we showed that the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration cannot be “accumulation” of a proportion of the anthropogenic emission of CO2 in the atmosphere (as e.g. the IPCC asserts).

However, we also demonstrated in that paper that the anthropogenic CO2 emission could be the major cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration because the emission may be disrupting the equilibrium of the carbon cycle. As that paper says; “This slow rise in response to the changing equilibrium condition also provides an explanation of why the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere continued when in two subsequent years the flux into the atmosphere decreased (the years 1973-1974, 1987-1988, and 1998-1999).”

Do I think this possibility is correct? No, I do not. But the data does not allow it to be rejected.

So, the empirical evidence does not show the atmospheric CO2 concentration is the cause of the recent rise in mean global temperature. And the empirical evidence fails to show that the anthropogenic emission of CO2 is the cause of the rise of the atmospheric CO2 concentration .

It is pure arm-waving to say that the overall rise of mean global temperature over the last century is AGW but the fluctuations in the global temperature are “weather”. The AGW-hypothesis says the GHGs in the air are increasing positive radiative forcing to push the temperature up. The larger of opposing forces overcomes its opponent. So, only the effect of the larger force is observed.

This is like people pushing on opposite sides of a swing door. The door moves in the direction of the greater force.
(a) If the AGW-induced radiative forcing were sufficient to overcome natural cooling effects then the global temperature would ratchet up. An El Nino (such as in 1998) would force the temperature up, and the AGW radiative forcing would keep it up.
(b) If the natural cooling effects were sufficient to overcome the AGW-induced radiative forcing then the global temperature would rise and fall. An El Nino (such as in 1998) would force the temperature up, and after that natural cooling effects would force it down.

The repeated coolings prove that until now the AGW-induced radiative forcing have not been sufficient to overcome natural cooling effects.

Of course, CO2 is a GHG. And that does mean that a change to atmospheric CO2 concentration will induce some change to radiative forcing. But that does not mean a system as complex as the climate system will discernibly alter its temperature in response to a change in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The Earth is never in radiative balance in a global scale and it cannot be. The Earth warms almost 4 °C from January to July each year and has equivalent cooling from July to January each year. This is because the Earth obtains radiant energy from the Sun and radiates that energy back to space. The energy input to the system (from the Sun) may be constant (although some doubt that), but the rotation of the Earth and its orbit around the Sun ensure that the energy input is never in perfect equilbrium with the energy output.

So, at no time is the Earth in radiative balance except in the meaningless way that a stopped clock is right twice each day.

And the Earth is very insensitive to large changes in radiative forcing. The Earth has been bi-stable (i.e. stable in the glacial and stable in the interglacial state) throughout the 2.5 billion years since the Earth obtained an oxygen-rich atmosphere. And the Earth is heated by the Sun which is a g-type star. The life-cycle of such stars is known and, therefore, it is known that the Sun has increased its thermal output by about 30% over the last 2.5 billion years. But the Earth has had no significant change to its temperature in either of its two stable states throughout that time. And the oceans have had liquid water throughout that time. If radiative forcing had a direct effect on temperature then the oceans would have boiled to steam long ago.

I ponder why some people have superstitious fear that 0.4% increase to radiative forcing from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration may cause catastrophe when it is a known fact that 30% increase in radiative forcing from the Sun has had no discernible effect.

This blog was initiated by silly statements of a climate modeler. So, it is important to note that the climate models are based on assumptions that may not be correct.

The basic assumption used in the models is that change to climate is driven by change to radiative forcing. And it is very important to recognise that this assumption has not been demonstrated to be correct. Indeed, it is quite possible that there is no force or process causing climate to vary. I explain this as follows.

As I explained above, the climate system is seeking an equilibrium that it never achieves, and its thermal input/output is oscillating. Such a varying system could be expected to exhibit oscillatory behaviour. And, importantly, the length of the oscillations could be harmonic effects which, therefore, have periodicity of several years. Of course, such harmonic oscillation would be a process that - at least in principle - is capable of evaluation.

However, there may be no process because the climate is a chaotic system. Therefore, the observed oscillations (ENSO, NAO, PDO, etc.) could be observation of the system seeking its chaotic attractor(s) in response to its seeking equilibrium in a changing situation.

Very, importantly, there is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP). All the observed rise of global temperature in the twentieth century could be recovery from the LIA that is similar to the recovery from the DACP to the MWP. And the ~900 year oscillation could be the chaotic climate system seeking its attractor(s). If so, then all global climate models and ‘attribution studies’ utilized by IPCC and CCSP are based on the false premise that there is a force or process causing climate to change when no such force or process exists.

But the assumption that climate change is driven by radiative forcing may be correct. If so, then it is still extremely improbable that - within the foreseeable future - the climate models could be developed to a state whereby they could provide reliable predictions. This is because the climate system is extremely complex. Indeed, the climate system is more complex than the human brain (the climate system has more interacting components - e.g. biological organisms - than the human brain has interacting components - e.g. neurones), and nobody claims to be able to construct a reliable predictive model of the human brain. It is pure hubris to assume that the climate models are sufficient emulations for them to be used as reliable predictors of future climate when they have no demonstrated forecasting skill.

I hope this provides the clarification of my view that you wanted.

Posted by: Richard S Courtney | August 22, 2009 5:20 AM

Tiddles:

b) Does increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere lead to warming? No, there has been no change in temperature at Mauna Loa since 1978 despite CO2 as measured there continuing to increase.

It has increased everywhere. Local temperatures differ because local climates differ. The increase ("global warming") is in the average.

Mauna Loa is an island, its temperatures moderated by the sea and air currents surrounding it. You wouldn't expect it to warm as fast as a continental interior.

BTW, where is your temperature series for Mauna Loa? I'd like to see it.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 22, 2009 5:26 AM

Tiddles:

CO2 itself is inert of course but its radiative forcing can in no respect be larger than the original energy from which it derived. Yet that is what the IPCC would have us believe, with its disregard of both Laws of Thermal Dynamics. Here are some stats: anthropogenic emissions of CO2: c 10 GtC in 2008; primary energy consumption in 2008: 11 Gt oil equivalent. If you think the CO2 has the same energy and heat potential as the oil be my guest.

"Thermodynamics."

The heat of formation has nothing to do with how the greenhouse effect works.

Please crack a book. I'd recommend starting with Houghton's "The Physics of Atmospheres," or if the math intimidates you, try Philander's "Is the Temperature Rising?" Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming" is available free on the web.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 22, 2009 5:35 AM

Thanks, Sod, and others who have been complimentary. I appreciate it. :D

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 22, 2009 5:44 AM

Janet Akerman #288

You wrote, “[Girma is making silly arguments like their has been "an increase of 0.01% in CO2 since the industrial revolution". And arguing that we should to plot the changes in temp and CO2 on a scale that hides the real changes].- Talk about desperate nonsense.”

Thanks Janet for that.

Janet, in the city you live, let us say the average temperature for today is, say, 18.62 deg C. Don’t you think we should plot that measured temperature without any modification. Why go through the additional step of effectively chopping the integer part of the temperature? Look at it yourself. Do you get the same perception about global warming from the following identical data but plotted differently?

True Mean Global Temperature.

Mean Global Temperature Anomaly.

Posted by: Girma | August 22, 2009 5:55 AM

Richard Courtney,

Your article (Rorsch et al.) does not appear on the ISI Web of Science. Pray tell me why. If its groundbreaking, why publish it in an obscure place? Moreover, neither of your co-authors are climate scientists. Why write an article with colleagues lacking any expertise in this area? Just wondrin'.

Also, I find it hard to locate articles by you on the Web of Science. This is the site where its possible to separate the wheat from the chaff. In fact, putting your name and 'climate' in the search engine yields exactly one hit. This paper (published in 1997) has precisely 0 citations.

Where's the beef Richard? Or is it true that the AGW sceptics publish just a lot of chaff and little wheat?

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | August 22, 2009 6:22 AM

Girma,

Your ploy is simply ridiculous! Do you measure your weight in grams? or in metric that is relevant to the scale of your weight such as kilograms? Why don't we set speed limits at say 36 m/s?

With your silly argument we may as well do away with the whole concept of statistical significance. Replace it with fidelity to unit relativity. If the change is not well matched to the SI unit (say within 3 sig figures) than it should not be considered important.

The fact (supported by massive evidence) is the change in temperature is having significant effect on the environment. Changing the ice and of balance ecosystems and species that have remained for thousands of years). Hence it is plain stupid trying to hide that significant change behind inappropriate units and decimal points . Its a denialist tactic not the tactic of someone seek knowledge.

But hey, you keep pushing the point! See how far you get with that idea. Again your smoking your own belly button lint. I am entertained by how bad arguments like yours can be. Could you come up with a worse one?

Posted by: Janet Akerman | August 22, 2009 6:57 AM

Your analysis does not compensate for autocorrelation. If you make that necessary correction and then check the r^2 statistic then you will find that my statement is correct.

actually Barton DOES compensate for autocorrelation at the end of his article. (read the addentum)

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html

your claim that they do not "correlate" is simply false!

Of course atmospheric CO2 concentration and mean global temperature both rose in the twentieth century. But they do not correlate: there has been steady rise in the CO2 while the temperature has fluctuated.

you have fluctuations in most noisy data. that doesn t make a correlation to a non-noisy data impossible!

And the empirical evidence fails to show that the anthropogenic emission of CO2 is the cause of the rise of the atmospheric CO2 concentration .

this claim is false. what is happening to the CO2 that we add to the atmosphere?

It is pure arm-waving to say that the overall rise of mean global temperature over the last century is AGW but the fluctuations in the global temperature are “weather”. The AGW-hypothesis says the GHGs in the air are increasing positive radiative forcing to push the temperature up. The larger of opposing forces overcomes its opponent. So, only the effect of the larger force is observed. This is like people pushing on opposite sides of a swing door. The door moves in the direction of the greater force.

your example is completely false.

imagine a bouncing ball (fluctuation). now i lift up the table, on which the ball is bouncing.

the fluctuation will NOT stop!

The repeated coolings prove that until now the AGW-induced radiative forcing have not been sufficient to overcome natural cooling effects.

what cooling? at the moment we have a new record of sea surface temperature!

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/record-july-2009-sea-surface-temperatures-the-view-from-space/

Posted by: sod | August 22, 2009 7:29 AM

Oh so now your running away from all your ridiculous arguments and prentend that you only asked:

Do you get the same perception about global warming from the following identical data but plotted differently?

Well at least you have backed away from your initial claims.

Now, your delusions of Grandeur, comparing yourself with Galileo. This on the basis that your arguments were called silly and your tactics denialist. How many pervayers of silly arguments through the ages have consoled them selves that they are just like Galileo?

Unfortunately from them (and you) Galileo was different. he was committed to evidence, a practitioner of good science. But if you think you can be like Galileo by trying to disappear significant change, hiding it away with irrelevant units then you go for it! Genius.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | August 22, 2009 8:10 AM

Handy that real data and good analysis holds sway over bluster and hand waving.

Cheers Barton, and thanks for the clarification sod.

Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 22, 2009 8:18 AM

Richard,

Thanks.

I tried lookin gtup your article but couldn't find it. All I can say is that what you claim doesn't have much support in more accessible material.

And I'm with sod - your door analogy is not convincing. I think the problem is that you try to explain in it a way that is simple summation of vectors. But what we have is not simple addition or subtraction of energy but various factors, such as El Nino-La Nina phases, that effect the flow of energy in the system.

Posted by: Michael | August 22, 2009 8:33 AM

Girma (#318),

Why do you plot the y-axis of your temperature graph at 0? By doing this your aim is to dampen the impression one gets when looking at global mean surface temperatures recorded over the past 120 years. Given how deterministic the system is, your graph tells us nothing about (a) the significance of the line, and (b) how this works out in a long term framework.

Basically your graph is pure deception because it gives the impression that not much has changed. But of course, the warmest 10 years have all occurred since 1995, and, given the immense scale of the climate control system, the majority of the climate science community would argue that this kind of temperature shift over such a limited time scale is significant.

What is clear to me is that you have trouble disentangling determinstic from stochastic processes, and that in your way of thinking 120 years is a long, long time. Certainly it is in terms of local scale processes which are much more variable, but certainly not for processes generated over immense spatial and temporal scales. All your posts do is reveal that you are out of your depth in discussing earth science.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | August 22, 2009 8:51 AM

Mean Global Temperature Graphs and Mountain profiles

Posted by: Girma | August 22, 2009 9:22 AM

Falling asleep must check spelling...

Jeff, what are some of the ecological evidence that the change in temp is significant?

Girma,

I look forward to reading your reply tomorrow.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | August 22, 2009 9:28 AM

If the photo hasn't been manipulated, than no, it's not a distortion.

The analogy might be though, unless you tell us which mountain it is, it's height, and the actual scale in the enlarged photo.

Posted by: Michael | August 22, 2009 9:36 AM

Girma, the one and only important question about the change is: does this amount of temperature change have an effect?

the obvious answer to that question is: it does!

plotting it in a way, that makes changes of up to 1°C nearly impossible to spot is simply stupid!

calculating and analysing anomalies is a rather normal approach in science. if you think it is not, please check some books!

Posted by: sod | August 22, 2009 10:06 AM

For those of you who are complaining about using inappropriate scales on graphs, please, please be patient. I'm sure Jennifer Marohasy will be arriving any day now, to explain the right way to do it. After all, she made a promise:

"I will get to your issue - how to graph temperature data - soon."

Yes, indeed... soon. Since we're only a few days away from the anniversary of Ms. Marohasy's promise, I've no doubt she'll be rising out of the pumpkin patch any minute now.

Posted by: Bruce Sharp | August 22, 2009 10:37 AM

Girma asks:

Do you get the same perception about global warming from the following identical data but plotted differently?

Once more I will point put that you are confusing the psychology of visual perception with the statistical significance of trends in a time series.

There are two conventions in science, relevant to this thread, that you need to wrap your head around.

Firstly, graphs are constructed with a ratio of x to y of somewhere between 1:1 and 3:2. The scale of each axis is generally selected so that the maximum and minimum values for the data encompass somewhere between 50% and >90% of the scales. In some instances the minimum might encompass a zero value, but usually in such cases there is an explicit reason for including the zero value, and the spread of the data is greater than about a third of the scale.

The second concept is that we use our eyes to understand the spread of data, but not to analyse it. For analysis we use statistics, and statistics give us these useful things called means, standard deviations, and standard errors, confidence intervals, (and a host of other parameters) which may be added to a graph to indicate properties of the data.

Given your apparent experience you should know this. If you do not, you have either lied about your qualifications, or you do not deserve them. If you do know this and persist in commenting as you have, then you are a mendacious little troll of the worst sort.

Either way, I wouldn't let you within a bull's roar of anything to do with data analysis, no matter your claimed experience to do so.

Tell me Girma, how would you construct a graph of the surface temperature of the sum over the last one hundred million years? And if you plot it in the same manner that you insist global surface temperature should be graphed, how would you comment on the trend in the surface temperature of the sun over the same period?

Posted by: Bernard J. | August 22, 2009 10:50 AM

326 Girma,

I agree entirely, and we see similar distortion in clinical thermometers. These exaggerate tiny differences in human body temperature to a huge degree and are clearly designed to make people anxious about small changes that really don't matter. I wonder if the medical profession designed them this way to make more money out of people whose temperature has in fact deviated from the ideal only by a small percentage.

I think these should be replaced immediately with thermometers scaled from 0°C to 100°C, or better still with thermometers scaled from 0K. Then we would see that "fevers" and "temperatures" are nothing to worry about and any talk of someone "burning up" is just ridiculous exaggeration.

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 22, 2009 11:31 AM

334 Boris,

You beat me to it! Isn't it great that we can agree on how misleading those clinical thermometers are?

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 22, 2009 11:40 AM

Girma (#311) said:

Janet, in the city you live, let us say the average temperature for today is, say, 18.62 deg C. Don’t you think we should plot that measured temperature without any modification. Why go through the additional step of effectively chopping the integer part of the temperature?

Girma, you do claim to have some experience in engineering don't you?

Then how come you don't understand the difference between "rounding" i.e reducing the number of significant figures in data and the use of "anomaly" to describe how two sets of data differ from one another? Are you deliberately trying to confuse people?

It seems to me that you have no clue as to the science behind AGW (or any scientific knowledge at all) if that is how you think.

Posted by: Ian Forrester | August 22, 2009 11:47 AM

344 Lee,

I don't think Galileo was called those anyway but if anyone knows different...

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 22, 2009 12:03 PM

Lee at #344.

I am not sure if your use of "Grima" was deliberate or not, but 'Wormtongue' is an absolutely marvellous imputation.

High five!

Posted by: Bernard J. | August 22, 2009 12:18 PM

Sod #333

How is it possible that a change of 0.85 deg C from the mean temperature of 37 deg C in a human body is normal, but a change last year of 0.33 deg C from the 30-year mean temperature of 14 deg C in the globe is catastrophic?

Mind you, at a given grid point on earth, for a given specified time of the day, the temperature range within a year could easily be more than 10 deg C.

Compare 10 deg C with 0.33 deg C?

Posted by: Girma | August 22, 2009 12:20 PM

Girma at #349.

It is painful to watch you display your ignorance of science to ever more howling extremes.

Go get thee to a learnery, and meditate upon physiological tolerances in both press and in pulse contexts. Contemplate also the lessons arising from the parable of the apple and the orange.

Or just go get thee away entirely, and write copy for tabloid diet pill ads. You don't seem to have the capacity for anything more intellectually strenuous.

Oops, did I just do an ad hominem? Oo, naughty me.

Posted by: Bernard J. | August 22, 2009 12:33 PM

Grima teaches denier math:"We measure and plot the mean global temperatures in deg C, not in Kelvin. As a result, we cannot calculate the percent changes in Kelvin."

NASA measures temperature anomalies, using zero as the average temperature anomaly for the 1951-1980 mean. The anomaly in July 2009 was 0.60, so the % increase was... infinity. OMG!!!11!!!ONE!!

Posted by: t_p_hamilton | August 22, 2009 1:06 PM

"We measure and plot the mean global temperatures in deg C, not in Kelvin. As a result, we cannot calculate the percent changes in Kelvin."

ROTFLMAOMSOMN

Girma, All I can say is "Who turns the computer on for you. " That is literally the stupidest thing that has ever appeared on this blog...

In related new Usain Bolt ran 100 meters in 9.58 seconds which is 10.438 meters per second. We would like to know what his average speed was in miles per hour, BUT WE CANNOT BECAUSE IT WAS MEASURED IN METERS AND SECONDS.

If I were you I would stay away from your high school physics teacher, because if he ever catches up to you, there isn't going to be enough of you left to bury.
And after reading this, the jury is not going to convict him for murder, but rather you for slander.

(or did you not ever have a physics teacher?)

Posted by: elspi | August 22, 2009 1:35 PM

348 Boris,

Yes. I'm just annoyed that I didn't cotton on to their little game earlier.

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 22, 2009 2:22 PM

322 Girma,

Your calculation grossly exaggerates the difference between the 2 temperatures. Why start from 0°C when it gets much colder than that on Earth? The lowest recorded is -89 so why not take that as the start? The percentage then becomes (103.6-103.3)*100/103.3 = 0.29%

But you can't use percentages like that. We can only do that if we start from absolute zero and use K. The percentage then becomes (287.6-287.3)*100/287.3 = 0.10%. So it really is a tiny change!

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 22, 2009 3:14 PM

Lee #358

Were I live, we are told by the weather man something like a maximum temperature of 20 deg C and a minimum of 12 deg C. I have never ever heard a temperature of 0.33 deg C and so on. I am talking about the plots that the public sees.

I guess when the AGW camp first plotted the TRUE mean global temperature, they found it flat. So they devised the method of in effect chopping the integer part of the mean global temperature and plotting the decimal parts called anomalies to exaggerate the perception of change in global temperature by 14 times (for a mean global temperature of 14 deg C, as the range of the anomaly plot is 1 deg C).

Posted by: Girma | August 22, 2009 3:26 PM

361 Girma,

I agree that it is shameless what they did, pretending that 14.5 is 0.5, and so on, but they really shot themselves in the foot because if the actual temperature is 15.5 or 16.5 and you chop off the integer part, you would still get 0.5. What fools!

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 22, 2009 3:49 PM

362 sod,

It's no good going on about text books and science. The whole of science has been taken over by these AGW fanatics. Mathematics has also been perverted by these zealots, so even simple percentages don't mean what they used to!

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 22, 2009 3:55 PM

Sortition, why do you think Eli's argument about India is silly?

Posted by: Eli Rabett | August 22, 2009 4:07 PM

I think Bob Armstrong may have been embarrassed by Gimra, but in case he is still lurking, as Nick Stokes has pointed out to many who have tried the same gambits you are attempting, the emissivity and absorptivity are properties of materials, not systems. e(Wavelength) = a (Wavelength) for the earth but e(Wavelength) for the earth is not equal to a (Wavelength) for the air.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | August 22, 2009 4:13 PM

Richard Courtney returns, breaking his vows, and lays a ripe one. Since Richard is an IPCC Expert Reviewer, we must assume that he knows this and is simply trying to mislead:

The Earth is never in radiative balance in a global scale and it cannot be. The Earth warms almost 4 °C from January to July each year and has equivalent cooling from July to January each year. This is because the Earth obtains radiant energy from the Sun and radiates that energy back to space.

In fact, if we look, say at the NCDC Global Surface temperature anomaly record (land+ocean) for any year, there is much less than 1 C change during any year. For 2008

Month Anomaly (C) 1 0.2178 2 0.3458 3 0.7054 4 0.4297 5 0.4330 6 0.4829 7 0.5084 8 0.4844 9 0.4568 10 0.6069 11 0.5998 12 0.4808

Three misleads= a lie Richard

Posted by: Eli Rabett | August 22, 2009 4:35 PM

Holpern, Eli, Rabbit, Charlatan or whomever you may be:

I see no point in addressing all the falsehoods and ad hominem here, but one is so outrageous and based on such ignorance that I will not let it stand. You say:

"In fact, if we look, say at the NCDC Global Surface temperature anomaly record (land+ocean) for any year, there is much less than 1 C change during any year. For 2008

Month Anomaly (C) 1 0.2178 2 0.3458 3 0.7054 4 0.4297 5 0.4330 6 0.4829 7 0.5084 8 0.4844 9 0.4568 10 0.6069 11 0.5998 12 0.4808

Three misleads= a lie Richard"

No! Not a lie. A fact.

I cited global temperature variations and NOT monthly anomaly variations. Each monthly anomaly (i.e. the anomaly for January, for February ... for December) is the difference from the mean value of the temperature of the same month for the 30 years of the standard period. (Similarly, each annual anomaly is the difference of the annual temperature from the mean value of the annual temperatures of the 30 years of the standard period.)

Hence, the monthly anomalies cannot show the variation I mentioned because that variation is deleted by the subtraction to create the anomaly values.

It is especially offensive to be accused of a lie from a person (or persons) who operates a web site that only has the purpose of providing lies and smears, and when that person (or persons) hides behind a false name because the coward (or cowards) lacks the courage to be accountable for his (or their) lies.

Posted by: Richard S Courtney | August 22, 2009 6:22 PM

Tiddles: "the lack of any discernible radiative forcing at Mauna Loa"

First, TC, what the hell are you doing outside your own thread.

Second, what evidence do you have of a "lack of any discernible radiative forcing at Mauna Loa?" Temperature is not the same thing as radiative forcing.

Hell, before that - define the phrase "radiative forcing at Mauna Loa"in physically realistic terms that are relevant to AGW - where "G" means Global.

Posted by: Lee | August 22, 2009 7:11 PM

@Tiddles

My earlier question on on CO2 was wrt the radiative physics behind CO2 induced warming. Something that can easily be verified experimentally by a ten-year-old with a beaker, a thermometer and a light bulb. I thought I had seen everything when you responded with your off-the-wall Mauna Loa correlation masterclass in point-missing, but now you've followed up with this gem:

The idea that an exhaust gas like CO2 has more warming potential than the original generation of energy from which it derives, as claimed by IPCC AR4, WG1 and the ludicrous Matthew England, is preposterous.

This is the new "wrongest" thing you've ever written I think.

Do you genuinely think its claimed global warming is caused by the heat of exhaust fumes? Is that the shallowness of your knowledge? Or... what? Its utterly perplexing. By your logic, cavity wall insulation could never work. Or warming of the atmosphere by water vapour. Or conventional glass greenhouses, for that matter.

Posted by: Dave | August 22, 2009 7:34 PM

Really? Then how come Mauna Loa temps trend does not match its CO2 trend?

For the same reason no climate scientist would predict that the Mauna Loa temp trend would match its CO2 trend, nor that the odds that any single point on earth will is more than infinitesimal.

Uneven heating across the planet's surface, while global CO2 levels rise about the same everywhere, is a prediction of climate science.

Posted by: dhogaza | August 22, 2009 8:24 PM

Grima, please do not put these letters after your name. Most people understand what they usually mean but I haven't a clue what they mean in your case. They certainly don't mean that you have had a proper education or are even moderately intelligent. You are a pathetic denier troll who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Posted by: Ian Forrester | August 22, 2009 9:11 PM

"Michael August 22, 2009 5:04 AM quoted me as saying: "CO2 itself is inert of course but its radiative forcing can in no respect be larger than the original energy from which it derived." and added: "There is no relationship between the two. You're confused."

Really? so anthropogenic CO2 emissions have no relationship with energy produced at coal fired power stations and oil refineries? That is news. I think you are the one who is seriously confused." - Tiddles

BPL also pointed out how nonsensical this is.

Again - there is no relationship between the energy of production of CO2 and it's subsequent atmospheric effect. None. Zero. Zilch.

On what basis do you think that there is ( I mean scientific basis)?

It's like suggesting that you can't operate your home oven past a point of energy consumption equivalent to the energy that was required to manufacture it - bizarro.

Posted by: Michael | August 22, 2009 9:47 PM

Grima, to be able to have a "thought experiment" one must have a functioning brain. You fail.

If you were able to think in a rational manner you would see why your experiment was doomed to failure. Try reading some elementary physics texts and report back once you have reached about Grade 7 or 8 level.

Posted by: Ian Forrester | August 22, 2009 9:50 PM

It is for you to explain why the warming arising from the radiative forcing from an extra 3.3 GtC of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa (end June 2008- end June 2009)is more than that from the fossil fuel production etc of 10 GtC that contributed to those CO2 emissions (the difference of c6.7 GtC is due to the biotic absorption of CO2 emissions that Matthew England says do not exist).

It is not. It is for you Tim, either here or back in the thread where you are not banned, to explain why the average change in the global system must exist at the locations you specify. I expect that there are many individual locations where this is not true. Finding a few proves nothing. Mauna Loa in particular being at the top of a mountain will not reflect changes at the surface.

It has been explained previously, by myself and others that global change due to CO2 drives changes in the system in an average sense. The atmosphere is highly turbulent. There will be many locations that do not show the mean. As you close in on finer scales the local changes dominate the trend. Today, in front of my mouth the air gets warmer when I breathe out. This does not constitute a problem for radiative transfer physics.

Posted by: MarkG | August 22, 2009 10:21 PM

I'm trying to understand Tiddles argument from a logical pov. Given his strange obsession with ML and ideas on CO2 production, the best I can do is this - Tiddles thinks that the extra heat in AGW comes from the actual burning of fossil fuels and this heat is carried by CO2 molecules, hence, given the presence of increased CO2 at ML, there should be a corresponding increase in temp at ML.

Wrong, but is this the internal logic??

Posted by: Michael | August 22, 2009 10:52 PM

I just conducted a thought 'experiment' in my head.

In this 'experiment' I contacted the institutions that Grima claims to have been educated at. They denied all knowledge of his attendance of course, because their standards are sufficiently high that one such as he would not be passed.

Therefore I conclude that Grima does not exist, or if he does exist, he does not have the qualifications that he claims to have.

Discuss.

Posted by: Bernard J. | August 22, 2009 11:07 PM

Girma:

Finally, the Greens are a party that is founded on human fear, not human self-confidence... They might say, Columbus, don’t cross the Atlantic because it is risky. Wilber and Albert, don’t try to fly because it is risky. Neil, don’t go to the moon because it is risky.

This reminds me of footage of Bob Brown (leader of the Australian Greens) going down one of the big rapids on the Franklin River on a raft WITHOUT helmet, bouyancy vest or wetsuit.

In any species, the young is fearful

Obviously never even heard the saying "young and stupid".

Girma, you are full of bullshit.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | August 23, 2009 12:19 AM

Grima.

There are many examples of empirical demonstrations of the greenhouse effect, ranging from Tyndall's seminal work in the 1850s to simple contemporary exercises (here, here, here, and here) for high school students.

You know, it staggers me that someone would dare to post so much obvious scientific and mathematical ignorance when, in this day and age, an employer seeking to know more about an applicant could use Google to find the terms Girma Orssengo and professional incompetence in the same sentence. Once they read this thread, you'd be on the "no, thank you" pile faster than the blink of an eye.

Posted by: Bernard J. | August 23, 2009 12:34 AM

By the way, Girma (post #380), would you plot your body temperature record on the y-axis scale of 0 - 40? If you have some serious fever (39C), you might not spot it on the graph - only if you reference it to 37C (presumably the mean of your body temperature) then you'll see the anomaly. i.e., more sensibly you want to zoom your graph with the y-axis on the range 35 - 40, or equivalently present it in the form of an anomaly plot (referenced to 37C) - unless your body temperature occasionally hits 2C or 15C. What does this tell us then? We should look at variations referenced to the 'normal' or 'expected' value of the system (also referenced to the relevant time scale - obviously if we plot our body temperature over 100 years, it could reach 0C.. in the morgue).

Posted by: AJW | August 23, 2009 1:01 AM

Raging Bee (#392)

Thanks for an EXCELLENT post. I agree.

However, as a science graduate when I see the deception and the fear mongering it annoys me and I will do everything in my power to expose it.

Posted by: Girma Orssengo | August 23, 2009 1:08 AM

Girma: I just read your "thought experiment" in #380; and I gotta say it's the dumbest fucking thing I've read from a global-warming denialist in a long time. If you really think a small closed container of air is in any way comparable in behavior to a whole planet, then you are simply too stupid to be worth debating. And that doesn't even count the fact that a "thought experiment" doesn't exactly stack up to huge numbers of real experiments and systematic observation of actual events.

This, I suspect, is a central tactic of denialists: drag every adult debate down to a level of unmitigated stupidity and infantilism where absolutely nothing can be accomplished.

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 23, 2009 2:46 AM

@392 Raging Bee

The problem with your post is it represents a switch to a political and socio-economic argument - the anti-AGW brigade posting here are flat wrong on the science, and letting them get away with that rankles.

Its akin to - when faced with someone who disputes the physics that leads us to believe that jumping from a plane naked will result in death (after conducting a thought experiment in which they jumped off a small wall and survived) - tacitly accepting that they may have a point but that the money spent on chartering a flight could be better spent elsewhere. It cedes intellectual ground to gibberish, and needlessly so.

Posted by: Dave | August 23, 2009 2:58 AM

Tiddles, glad to hear that you think it's wrong - cause it is. I was just looking for whatever, if any, underlying internal logic might exist for your very odd statements about CO2.

I see you prefer BGW (Boeing global Warming) to AGW. How quaint. So is this the origin of your completely wrong idea - 'radiative forcing can in no respect be larger than the original energy from which it derived'???

As for your points 1) and 2), you're again confused. What exactly is the problem with those 2 statements. Do you think that they are different things?

Posted by: Michael | August 23, 2009 3:12 AM

MarkG,

You only think that becuase you don't follow Tiddles-Logic (Pat. Pend.).

This is how it works - Tiddles is told the average height for a person of his gender is 180cm. Tiddles says - 'no that can't be right, I'm 160cm tall' It's an average Tids. 'Yes, but I'm not 180cm, I'm only 160cm'. Umm...you know what an average is, right. 'Yes, but that can't be right as I'm not 180cm tall'

Now aply to AGW, specifically temp at ML.

Posted by: Michael | August 23, 2009 4:18 AM

Now there's a surprise!

Tim must try to remember that his brand of stupid qualifies as a unique identifier.

Posted by: Michael | August 23, 2009 4:54 AM

"Incidentally, I ponder why an increase to mean global temperature of 2 °C has been decided - e.g. by the UN - as being necessary to avoid catastrophe when nearly double that rise - and commensurate fall - occurs each year." - Richard

One word Richard - oscillation.

Posted by: Michael | August 23, 2009 5:46 AM

We humans hate any one to challenge our belief or religion.

The abuse I got in this blog include idiot (#107), Crap (#109), innumerate (#118), garbage (#120), jerk (#121), primary school nonsense (#141), bullshit (#107), illiterate (#177), etc. Why? Because I made the following impersonal statements:

1) Let me demonstrate that the global mean temperature anomaly plots magnify the perception of the actual change in temperature.

Let us say the global mean temperature changes from 14.3 to 14.6 deg C. The TRUE percentage change in temperature is (14.6-14.3) * 100 / 14.3 % = 2.1%. If we use the anomalies, for a long term mean temperature of 14 deg C, the DISTORTED change in temperature is a (0.6–0.3) * 100 / 0.3 % = 100%. Which is obviously a massive distortion. Since Science is the antithesis of distortion, all the anomaly graphs must be withdrawn.

2) Why I am a skeptic of CO2 being the knob of Global Warming.

Like Einstein’s train ride thought experiment, I did the following thought experiment.

I got two 10,000ml transparent plastic containers. I capped one of the containers, and I capped the other one after adding 1ml of CO2. This 1ml represent the proportion of CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans since the start of the industrial revolution (100 ppm). I exposed both containers to same amount of solar radiation, and measured their temperature as a function of time. My thought experiment tells me that the temperature difference between the two containers would be insignificant. Actually, this would be the maximum possible difference in temperature that is possible due to the effect of CO2 on the temperature as there is no cooling due to convection in the container.

From the above FACTS, I conclude that AGW is built on quicksand!

Posted by: Girma | August 23, 2009 6:35 AM

Richard S. Courtney writes:

Your analysis does not compensate for autocorrelation. If you make that necessary correction and then check the r^2 statistic then you will find that my statement is correct. It would be much more cogent if you were to do this for yourself instead of my citing our own work.

Clearly you did not read the link I posted. If you had, you would have seen that when I performed Cochrane-Orcutt iteration to compensate for autocorrelation in the residuals,, ln CO2 still accounted for 60% of the variance in temperature anomaly over the 128 years of the data set.

Never accuse someone of not having done the work if they have not only done the work, but posted it on the internet.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 23, 2009 6:43 AM

Girma:

Let me demonstrate that the global mean temperature anomaly plots magnify the perception of the actual change in temperature. Let us say the global mean temperature changes from 14.3 to 14.6 deg C. The TRUE percentage change in temperature is (14.6-14.3) * 100 / 14.3 % = 2.1%. If we use the anomalies, the DISTORTED change in temperature is a (0.6–0.3) * 100 / 0.3 % = 100%. Which is obviously a massive distortion. Since Science is the antithesis of distortion, all the anomaly graphs must be withdrawn.

Even your calculation is incorrect. As Bob Armstrong, of all people, pointed out, temperature in physics is measured from absolute zero and a change from 14.3 to 14.6 C, being a change from 287.45 to 287.75 K, is only a change of only 0.1%.

Which matters not at all. Differences in temperature affect climate drastically. As I said to BA, a change of 1 degree in the mean global annual surface temperature is enough to shift agricultural growing belts by hundreds of miles. When someone has a core temperature of 102 F, he has a fever of 3.4 degrees F, not a fever of 0.6%.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 23, 2009 6:50 AM

Girma:

they devised the method of in effect chopping the integer part of the mean global temperature and plotting the decimal parts called anomalies

For the Nth time, that is NOT how anomalies are calculated! They do not "chop[] the integer part." They subtract the mean temperature in the base period from the measured temperature.

Example. The measured temperature at Denver on June 5th is 14.8 C. The mean during 1961-1990 was 14.5 C.

The anomaly is then 14.8 - 14.5 = 0.3 C.

Your way: 14.8, "chop the integer," leaving 0.8 C. Wrong answer.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 23, 2009 7:00 AM

Eli: Month Anomaly (C) 1 0.2178 2 0.3458 3 0.7054 4 0.4297 5 0.4330 6 0.4829 7 0.5084 8 0.4844 9 0.4568 10 0.6069 11 0.5998 12 0.4808

Three misleads= a lie Richard

RSC: No! Not a lie. A fact.

I cited global temperature variations and NOT monthly anomaly variations. Each monthly anomaly (i.e. the anomaly for January, for February ... for December) is the difference from the mean value of the temperature of the same month for the 30 years of the standard period. (Similarly, each annual anomaly is the difference of the annual temperature from the mean value of the annual temperatures of the 30 years of the standard period.)

Hence, the monthly anomalies cannot show the variation I mentioned because that variation is deleted by the subtraction to create the anomaly values.

RSC: You need to pick up an introductory algebra text, read it, and work the problems. You failed to learn something called "the associative property of addition."

The difference between an anomaly of 0.7 and an anomaly of 0.2 is 0.5 K.

The difference between a temperature of 14.7 K and a temperature of 14.2 K is also 0.5 K.

This is because

0.7 - 0.2 = (14 + 0.7) - (14 + 0.2)

Read that over until you understand what happened. And crack a book!

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 23, 2009 7:06 AM

The important point is that global climate is determined by several interacting effects. The empirical data demonstrates that variations to global climate are not mostly determined by radiative effects, and the Earth having a “radiative balance” is a myth which is denied by observations.

Of course there are long term climate impacts that are not the effect of changes in the radiative balance. Noone denies this. However, your reading of the empirical data is in error. For instance, aerosol emissions from the Pinatubo eruptions were observed to have a net cooling effect for several years. This is an empirical climate impact from changes in the radiative balance, so let us dismiss this nonsense that it cannot happen. The CO2 argument is also strong; we expect from CO2 spectroscopy that CO2 will be significant, and temperature is rising with CO2 concentration. BPL has done the correlation for us and posted the results, there are others in the literature who have done the same.

Incidentally, I ponder why an increase to mean global temperature of 2 °C has been decided - e.g. by the UN - as being necessary to avoid catastrophe when nearly double that rise - and commensurate fall - occurs each year.

The cycle you refer to ensures that we have a steady state over the medium to long term, summer melting is offset by the following winter freezing. Changing the long term state to a new average temperature is a significant change to the energetics of the climate system. You should expect new climate patterns will appear to better mix this heat throughout; that's bad enough but worse when you take into account increased polar and glacial ice melt.

Posted by: MarkG | August 23, 2009 7:09 AM

Barton Paul Levinson:

I write to apologise to you.

I clearly failed to read you blog correctly and, having checked the matter, it is as you say. You did correct the time series for autocorrelation. Sorry.

And as you say, for that 128 year data set you do obtain the correlation which you claim.

However, that data set has to be suspect because the longest continuous measurement series for atmospheric CO2 concentration is that obtained at Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO) which began data collection in 1958 (i.e. 51 years ago). Hence, more than half the data you have analysed is inferred.

CDIC.ORNL provides data sets of measured atmospheric CO2 concentration from MLO, Estevan (Canada)), Alert (Canada) and Shetland Islands. None of these data sets for measured atmospheric CO2 concentration correlates to mean global temperature when compensated for autocorrelation. None of them, not one.

I am grateful for your drawing my error to my attention. Clearly, you are trying to assess available information and this is in stark contrast to the attitude of several here (e.g. see the recent response of Jeff Harvey to his being presented with inconvenient truths).

Posted by: Richard S Courtney | August 23, 2009 7:15 AM

Richard S Courtney writes:

The modulation is severe and demonstrates that the climate system is extremely robust.

This assertion is contracdicted by the interglacial/glacial cycles.

Courtney continues:

As I said, 30% increase to the heat from the Sun over geological times has had no discernible effect on global temperature.

When the sun was 30% weaker, there was a lot more atmospheric CO2 warming the planet.

Richard are you able to provide a source reference for this earlier claim:

"Cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid 1980s and late 1990s. Over that period, cloud cover decreased such that if the Sun’s heat were constant the extra surface warming was 5 to 10 Watts/sq metre."

Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 23, 2009 7:35 AM

@Girma

I just clicked through and I love your mountaintop analogy. It actually exposes another lie - why are mountain heights always discussed relative to sea level? Why not relative to the ocean floor? In fact, it you compare mountain heights in terms of absolute height from the centre of the earth, you'll see there's virtually no difference between them, and any notion that you might die after falling off one is laughable.

Posted by: Dave | August 23, 2009 8:00 AM

It was a very good talk by Prof. England

TY for bringing it to my notice.

Only 2 nutter questions - both quietly and calmly killed by the Prof. 1 was the old paleo-CO2-lags-temp chestnut wrapped in a long preamble. The second was an oddball - the faster lost of the Artic ice than was modeled in 2001 means that modelling is stuffed and another, unknown heating mechanism rather than CO2 must be at play and we thus we should pollute more.

But other than those 2 I'd say rest of the lecture room was very receptive and appreciative of the Prof's talk as was I.

Posted by: DaveMcRae | August 23, 2009 9:10 AM

Chris (#429)

Abuse is personal. AGW is just an idea.

Posted by: Girma | August 23, 2009 10:28 AM

Grima posts a link (to Himslef, I'm sure):"Exaggerated Anomaly for the Public"

Since by your methods for calculating % argument, the warming is infinity % !!!11!ONE! (calculation of 0.60 July 2009 anomaly / 0.00 anomaly baseline) I suppose you think "Infinity + 1 !!!11!ONE! would be larger, and hence an exaggeration.

Posted by: t_p_hamilton | August 23, 2009 12:20 PM

Grima:

Why I am a skeptic of CO2 being the knob of Global Warming. Like Einstein’s train ride thought experiment, I did the following thought experiment. I got two 10,000ml plastic containers. I capped one of the containers, and I capped the other one after adding 1ml of CO2. This 1ml represent the proportion of CO2 added to the atmosphere by humans since the start of the industrial revolution (100 ppm). I exposed both containers to same amount of solar radiation, and measured their temperature as a function of time. My thought experiment tells me that the temperature difference between the two containers is insignificant.

Beer's Law can be expressed as:

T = exp(-k SM)

where k is the mass absorption coefficient of the absorber at the wavelength in question and SM is the specific mass (mass per unit area). Note that there is no term for volume fraction.

Your one milliliter of CO2 would have a mass of about 1.8 x 10^-16 kilograms. Take as an example the wavelength 14.278 microns, at which CO2 has an absorption coefficient of 16.3 square meters per kilogram. If your 10,000 ml container is a cube, it is about 21.54 cm on a side. The specific mass is then 3.88 x 10^-5 kilograms per square meter. The optical depth would then be 16.3 x 3.88 x 10^-5 or 6.32 x 10^-4 and the transmissivity 0.9994. Only 0.06% of the light falling on your cube at that wavelength is absorbed. Naturally you would notice no difference in temperature.

Now, if the entire atmosphere were at standard conditions, it would be about 8,000 meters high. This is 37,100 times the height of your cube, which means the specific mass would be 1.44 kilograms per square meter. The optical depth would be 23.5, and the transmissivity about 6.22 x 10^-11. Nearly 100% of the light at 14.278 microns would be absorbed.

It is the total mass of absorber in the path of the light beam that counts, not the volume fraction.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 23, 2009 1:42 PM

@Berbalang

The deniers have a major weakness that is under-exploited. The denial of AGW is a false proposition and a false proposition implies any proposition. Given the right arguments based on their assumptions, they could be made to say and do the most amazing things.

I would disagree both that this is a weakness and that it is under-exploited.

For starters, deniers are regularly made to look foolish (to educated eyes) with their creduluous and self-contradictory positions. Witness the speed with which deniers leapt upon an imaginary Basque/Tibetan paper in another thread simply because they believed it was against AGW.

But quite simply, ever more outlandish assertions are not a weakness, but a strength, thanks to the Overton window. The ever increasing shrillness and repetition of the extreme anti-AGW position simply serves to move the perceived middle of the "debate" further away from the measured summary provided by the IPCC. Confusion results in inaction, and inaction is a win for deniers.

Posted by: Dave | August 23, 2009 2:00 PM

I just clicked through and I love your mountaintop analogy.

Even Girmo has exaggerated the mountain's profile in the left-hand photo.

This is the proper way to characterize the mountain's profile.

Obviously hiking it requires no climbing at all, as proven when it's seen from the proper perspective.

Posted by: dhogaza | August 23, 2009 4:37 PM

@dhogaza

Obviously hiking it requires no climbing at all, as proven when it's seen from the proper perspective.

You just can't help with your needless and misleading exaggeration can you?

I think you'll find this is a more appropriate frame of reference.

Posted by: Dave | August 23, 2009 5:29 PM

You just can't help with your needless and misleading exaggeration can you?

It's a perfectly legitimate extrapolation of Girma's idiocy.

Posted by: dhogaza | August 23, 2009 6:49 PM

If one wants a textbook example of the sheer offensive lack of intellectual rigour - or even manners - of the common denialist, one need look no further than BPL's patient response to Girma at 434, followed by Girma's complete failure to take this information in, and his expanded arguments from ignorance and appeals to the gallery at 441.

Girma, truly thy faith is unshakable.

Posted by: Dave | August 23, 2009 7:21 PM

Chemists of this world, please set up this experiment and show us the warming, from my hunch, would be insignificant, and save billions of the world’s poor, who barely survive now, from destruction as a result of the proposed increase in energy price.

Grima: There's a couple of pretty good physics departments in Perth. At either one I'm sure you can find someone to explain to in some detail how incredibly wrong you are. Your experiment is wrong. Your total dismissal of physics is wrong. Your ignorance of physics and data analysis is not edifying.

I should add that heating due to CO2 radiative transfer is not due to a chemical reaction. You need to be looking at the spectroscopy of a broad spectrum of radiation to see the effect of CO2. The experiment is not very hard to construct, In fact the maths and experiment is not beyond a third year physics student.

Posted by: MarkG | August 23, 2009 8:14 PM

@Dave

Your examples show that it is under-exploited. Denial of Global Warming outweights all else in their mind. Sure they can be made to jump at imaginary papers to justify their belief, but if justifying their belief required them to wear gingam dresses and bark at the Moon, they would do so. Given the right circumstances they would have seizures and memory loss rather than accept Global warming as a fact.

Try some experiments on them.

Posted by: Berbalang | August 23, 2009 8:39 PM

I, Girma of Perth, Australia, kindly request all government departments, all journals and all media to desist from publishing Mean Global Temperature Anomaly graph, as they are distortions of the True Mean Global Temperature graph and may mislead the public about global warming.

I also kindly request all existing graphs to be replaced by the True mean Global Temperature graph as soon as possible.

Science is the antithesis of distortion.

Yours Sincerely

Posted by: Girma | August 23, 2009 9:23 PM

Girma: Dude, I don't think "all government departments, all journals and all media" are reading this blog. Still, good luck. You might have more luck contacting the Cabal Who Are Conspiring To Plot Data In Evil Ways directly. They must have a website or something.

Posted by: MarkG | August 23, 2009 9:40 PM

Gaz, re Girma's:

If in the next ten years the mean global temperature anomaly again reaches or exceeds the 1998 value of 0.55 deg C, I will join the AGW camp.

I thought Fran had an excellent response to this pronouncement by Girma.

Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 23, 2009 9:47 PM

Girma pretends to be a scientist. He also acts as if he knows all about greenhouse gases and how they work.

Unfortunately, he does not have the knowledge expected of a scientist. His little "thought" experiment shows that he does not understand greenhouse gas theory (note Grima, I did not call it anthropogenic greenhouse gas theory since green house gas theory works the same whether the gas is from a natural source or from anthropogenic sources). If you irradiated your stupid little tube with solar radiation of course it wouldn't heat up. Atmospheric gases are transparent to light of wavelengths found in solar radiation. It is only after the light has been absorbed by something such as earth or rocks that the energy is re-radiated back as infra red radiation. Green house gases are not transparent to IR light. They absorb it and energize the molecules of the green house gas and the air then warms.

How on earth did you ever manage to get an advanced degree? Did you get it in Germany? I see that a large number of profs there are accused of accepting bribes to give students Ph.D degrees. That is the only way you would get an advanced degree.

You are pathetic, are you familiar with the Dunning Kruger Syndrome? You are a perfect example.

Posted by: Ian Forrester | August 23, 2009 9:59 PM

Girma,

Here is why you should pay attention to the trend in warming.

Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 23, 2009 10:26 PM

"I, Girma of Perth, Australia, kindly request all government departments, all journals and all media to desist from publishing Mean Global Temperature Anomaly graph, as they are distortions of the True Mean Global Temperature graph and may mislead the public about global warming." - Grima.

And what about those terrible medical thermometers? They should go to.

Posted by: Michael | August 23, 2009 10:28 PM

Billy (#462)

Thanks Billy.

It is sad, from my calculation, the percentage that support me in this blog is less than 0.5%. I copped abuse from the remaining 99.5%. Look what Group-think does to people.

Posted by: Girma | August 23, 2009 10:58 PM

Girma, have you read any critique of your work here that has caused you to pause and wonder if your arguments are in the least bit problematic?

Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 23, 2009 11:18 PM

We shall show that the addition of 1.66ml of CO2 into a 1,000,000 ml of transparent plastic container exposed to Infrared radiation does not result in a catastrophic rise in the temperature of the air in the container.

Do you even care that this experiment makes no sense, and that whatever the result will not show what you think it is supposed to show?

Posted by: MarkG | August 23, 2009 11:23 PM

Eli,

Billy Bob knows that you can find the truth by finding someone who'll give the ansewer you want. QED Girma must be right!

Posted by: Janet Akerman | August 23, 2009 11:30 PM

I hope, I have impressed on your mind the fact that the anomaly plots are a magnification of the true mean global temperature profile by 14 times (for a long term global mean temperature of 14 deg C). You may not admit it now, but your subconscious abhors contradictions and will, in time, identify the anomaly plots as distortions.

I'm not sure about my subconscious, but my conscious mind is having a lot of trouble with this. Probably not in the sense you would prefer I think.

Posted by: MarkG | August 23, 2009 11:50 PM

The troll invation has had an impact. This thread is currently rated as the 4th most active @ ScienceBlogs!

Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 23, 2009 11:59 PM

Girma:

We shall show that the addition of 1.66ml of CO2 into a 1,000,000 ml of transparent plastic container does not result in a catastrophic rise in the temperature of the air in the container.

Sounds great Girma. Just let us know when you've scaled it up to the 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ml of the troposphere which includes most of the 800,000,000,000,000,000 ml of CO2 that we've added.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | August 24, 2009 12:30 AM

Richard S Courtney:

The observed variation of the global temerature by nearly 4 °C within each year is a result of the climate system modulating the return of the absorbed solar heat to space. The modulation is severe and demonstrates that the climate system is extremely robust.

I would have thought it showed the exact opposite, i.e. variations in geography relative to insolation are capable of producing changes in global average temperature of nearly 4°C, even though total insolation doesn't change much. So it doesn't take a lot of change in forcing to produce a lot of change in temperature, as has already been pointed out in relation to ice-ages.

I have my own opinions on why that is, but I do not mention them now because my postings here have been in attempt to avoid this blog being a fact-free-zone.

This Courtney character is extremely arrogant.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | August 24, 2009 1:03 AM

I herby promise, in front of this blogs members, to deposit 500 AUD into the bank account of anyone who can do the following experiment.

Find out the effect of the addition of 1.66ml of CO2 into a 1,000,000 ml of transparent plastic container exposed to infrared radiation on the temperature of the air in the container.

The experimental result must be repeatable by any other person.

Yours Sincerely

Posted by: Girma | August 24, 2009 1:22 AM

Girma, what is stopping you doing your experiment? Your could then publish your results.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | August 24, 2009 1:49 AM

"I herby promise, in front of this blogs members, to deposit 500 AUD into the bank account of anyone who can do the following experiment.

Find out the effect of the addition of 1.66ml of CO2 into a 1,000,000 ml of transparent plastic container exposed to infrared radiation on the temperature of the air in the container." - Grima

What's that about fools and money?

Grima, why does it get cooler on top of mountains? The sun shines just as strongly up there??

Posted by: Michael | August 24, 2009 2:16 AM

Janet Akerman (#480)

You worte, "Girma, what is stopping you doing your experiment? Your could then publish your results."

Janet, to be honest, I don't know how to get and add exactly 1 ml of CO2 into a 1,000,000 ml transparent plastic container, how to expose it to infrared radiation, and how to measure the temperature.

Posted by: Girma | August 24, 2009 2:33 AM

MrakG (482)

How come there is NO official plot for the public of the True Mean Global Temperature on the web, but it is filled with the anomaly plots. Why?

Cheers,

Posted by: Girma | August 24, 2009 3:03 AM

Girma, don't know why... likely because these kind of plot is commonly used by scientists, statisticians, etc. They're visually and in essence the same thing. However, you've brought up an important point.. scientists need to put things into perspective for the general public easy to digest, regardless how trivial they are. This would prevent confusions in the future.

Posted by: AJW | August 24, 2009 3:11 AM

Re #484

To make the point stronger, consider the regions where annual mean temp is very close zero celsius, say 0.1 degrees C. with a warming of 3 degrees C the "The TRUE percentage change in temperature" is greater than 2900%

=(3-0.1)*100/(0.1)

Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 24, 2009 3:15 AM

Girma Orssengo is a troll, and deserves no further replies until he can address the many rebuttals of his illogical postings.

He either is playing with the board, in which case is simply a mendacious troll, or he truly believes his nonsense and he is therefore quite possibly of a pathological psychology.

And I seriously mean the latter - if he really does have the qualifications that he pretends to, the only way anyone with that training could believe the crap that he does would be to have some serious cognitive dissonance occurring. Dissonance of this scale could be nothing other than a reflection of a pathological state.

Whatever Girma Orssengo's motivation, he is irredemable, and not worth further engagement until he justifies his claims with real science. And we all know that he cannot do this, which is why he simply repeats his statements without any demonstration of evidence.

Gawd, Morano really has the intellectual dregs of society infesting his backwaters, does he not?

Posted by: Bernard J. | August 24, 2009 3:24 AM

the most funny thing is this:

the "Girma experiment" will actually show catastrophic warming! (because of the greenhouse effect of the bottle, of course and not because of the added CO2)

but because Girma insists, that the only relevant comparison of his "CO2 experiment" is to 0°C and NOT the anomaly towards another bottle without the extra CO2, in his own little universe, he has demonstrated how catastrophic CO2 is!

Posted by: sod | August 24, 2009 3:39 AM

@Girma

This graph:

http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/TrueMeanGlobalTemperature.htm

Is by your own logic a complete lie.

a) why is the temperature axis relative to the freezing point of water rather than absolute values in Kelvin?

b) why is the time axis relative to an arbitrary point in time such as 1850? Surely you should account for all time since the big bang if you want to be fair? In fact, why is the time using arbitrary relative units such as earth's orbital period?

Come back when you've replotted your graph with the vertical axis in Kelvin, and the horizontal in seconds since the big bang. Otherwise you're clearly guilty of trying to overstate the warming trend.

Posted by: Dave | August 24, 2009 4:52 AM

Girma, you've had it explained a multitude of times by the patient folk here at Deltoid. Your proposed experiment is as accurate a model of the atmosphere as the one you are critising.

That you keep repeating this is deception on your part.

Posted by: Michael | August 24, 2009 5:30 AM

This is wrong! To do the correct experiment, they should have compared one 2000mL bottle filled with air to another filled with air and 0.2mL of CO2. This 0.2mL is the 100 ppm addition of CO2 by humans since the industrial revolution.

How can you measure the cumulative effect of CO2 in a 100km thick atmosphere using a 2 litre bottle? You don't. Your experiment would vastly underestimate the warming from the billions of extra tonnes of CO2 put into the atmosphere.

However, Plimer should do the kids experiemnt, as it demonstrates the heat trapping effect of CO2 does not become saturated at 50ppm as Plimer claims.

Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 24, 2009 6:19 AM

Dave(496)

You wrote,

why is the temperature axis relative to the freezing point of water rather than absolute values in Kelvin?

Because the public hears the daily temperature in deg C "relative to the freezing point of water".

Posted by: Girma | August 24, 2009 6:40 AM

MarkG (#495)

You wrote, If you choose to display this data so that small changes are difficult to distinguish then you are being deliberately deceptive or ignorant.

What I have issue is with the magnification. If there is a magnification as in the case of anomaly plots acknowledge it. That is all I am asking.

I accept as a FACT that the anomaly plots have a magnification of about 14.

Posted by: Girma | August 24, 2009 6:52 AM

Girma,

Please study this video, I think I am suffering from this problem. Can you tell me if you think this is my problem?

Posted by: Janet Akerman | August 24, 2009 7:07 AM

Girma #410 and BPL #434 have a "debate" going about Girma's ludicrous 10,000 mL model atmosphere "(no) thought experiment," summed up by BPL thus:

Your one milliliter of CO2 would have a mass of about 1.8 x 10^-16 kilograms. Take as an example the wavelength 14.278 microns, at which CO2 has an absorption coefficient of 16.3 square meters per kilogram. If your 10,000 ml container is a cube, it is about 21.54 cm on a side. The specific mass is then 3.88 x 10^-5 kilograms per square meter. The optical depth would then be 16.3 x 3.88 x 10^-5 or 6.32 x 10^-4 and the transmissivity 0.9994. Only 0.06% of the light falling on your cube at that wavelength is absorbed. Naturally you would notice no difference in temperature. Now, if the entire atmosphere were at standard conditions, it would be about 8,000 meters high. This is 37,100 times the height of your cube, which means the specific mass would be 1.44 kilograms per square meter. The optical depth would be 23.5, and the transmissivity about 6.22 x 10^-11. Nearly 100% of the light at 14.278 microns would be absorbed. It is the total mass of absorber in the path of the light beam that counts, not the volume fraction.

I was going to say "solve for P and you can both be right", but then my lawyer stopped by and advised me that suggesting you build a benchtop neutron star (mass of atmosphere is 5 * 10^18 kg, divided by 10 L is 5 * 10^20 kg/m^3) might raise some liability issues. ;)

Posted by: Douglas McClean | August 24, 2009 8:06 AM

Janet Akerman (#503)

You wrote, Girma, its 14 stories high compared to the freeing point of H20. It is not 14 stories hight compared to the mean temp of planet. It is the mean temp of the planet. the Freezing point of H2O is not an optimal reference point in this case.

Are not all of us, every day of our life, hear the days maximum and minimum temperature relative to the "Freezing point of H2O"? And is this not our temperature reference point in our daily communication in the media and in public? Why change that ingrained reference?

Janet, please give me a DIRECT answer to this question:

You have on your computer screen the profile of a 14-story high mountain image. You cut the top 1 story high portion of the mountain profile and stretch it vertically to fill your screen. Have not you magnified the true profile of the mountain 14 times?

Posted by: Girma | August 24, 2009 8:31 AM

@Girma

Please will you answer the direct questions that have been put to you several times.

Please also insist your doctor is a lying fraud the next time he attempts to measure your temperature with one of these:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Clinicalthermometer38.7.JPG/800px-Clinicalthermometer38.7.JPG

Posted by: Dave | August 24, 2009 8:47 AM

Douglas McClean

Thanks Doug.

That is all I asked. To acknowledge that the profile of the anomaly plots have a magnification of about 14.

Thanks again.

Posted by: Girma | August 24, 2009 8:54 AM

Dave (#512)

You showed a thermometer that has a range from 35 deg C to 42 deg C.

Doctor’s Thermometer

For the same inner tube diameter, the spacing for 1 deg C is the same whether the range of the thermometer is form 0 to 100 deg C or from 35 to 42 deg C. There is no magnification of the spacing between successive marks. The only difference is the doctor’s thermometer is much shorter.

The anomaly plots have a magnification of about 14.

Posted by: Dave | August 24, 2009 9:37 AM

They don't have a magnification of "about 14," they have a magnification of about 300 or so, depending on the exact axes. Again, for the billionth time, absolute temperatures are relative to absolute zero which is -273.15 degrees Celsius, not to the freezing point of water.

Also, this "magnification" (as you call it) is not deceptive, but highly useful, for reasons I outlined in a bunch of places up thread and which you have done nothing whatsoever to address, much less rebut.

(You?) posting under the name "Dave" in rebuttal to "Dave" at #516 said:

For the same inner tube diameter, the spacing for 1 deg C is the same whether the range of the thermometer is form 0 to 100 deg C or from 35 to 42 deg C. There is no magnification of the spacing between successive marks. The only difference is the doctor’s thermometer is much shorter.

This is exactly the situation with anomaly plots. You will notice that they are correctly marked in degrees C of anomaly. Each degree C space represents 1 degree C of change, with "no magnification of the spacing between successive marks." The human thermometer analogy is perfectly on point.

Posted by: Douglas McClean | August 24, 2009 9:51 AM

Girma once again shows he knows SFA about physics.

Girma, the volume of the bulb is what is important. The larger the bulb the bigger the expansion.

You are so stupid you are comical. By the way, have you been unemployed since 2004? Doesn't surprise me.

Posted by: Ian Forrester | August 24, 2009 10:10 AM

Ian Forrester (#520),

I have not attacked you. Why do you attack me by calling me STUPID and UNEMPLOYED?

Cheers

Posted by: Girma | August 24, 2009 10:29 AM

Dave (#523)

Do you agree that to a doctor it is generally irrelevant to have a human thermometer that reaches 0 degrees C because it is wasted information that only serves to obfuscate relevant information?

YES

Do you agree that a variance of 2 - 3 degrees either side of the mean human body temperature is relevant and serious?

YES

Do you agree that if I change the aspect ratio of my monitor and then view a graph of mean global temperature it does not become wrong?

NO.

As I demonstrated in the 14 high story mountain profile analogy, the anomaly profile is magnified and when communicating to the public this must be acknowledged or only the true mean global temperature only must be shown.

True Mean Global Temperature

Posted by: Girma | August 24, 2009 10:51 AM

Wow, Girma has opened up a whole new world of deception to me.

Those damn doctors have been showing us 'magnified' pictures of bacteria and viruses. Turns out that they are actually really small. You can't even see them! Does the public know this? Just imagine if doctors had to show people viruses without Evil Magnification(TM) - there'd be no H1N1 panic or bird-flu hysteria.

Posted by: Michael | August 24, 2009 11:05 AM

Ian Forrester (#525)

Believe it or not, I consider my self to be one of the most honest and gentle persons on earth.

I just cannot make my self believe that the addition of 0.2ml of CO2 into a 2000ml transparent plastic exposed to infrared radiation causes any significant warming of the air in the container. This in no way can be considered personally attacking scientists.

As for my employment, I am doing very well thank you. I just have not updated my website in a long-time.

Posted by: Girma | August 24, 2009 11:30 AM

You have on your computer screen the profile of a 14 story high mountain. You cut the top 1 story high portion of the mountain profile and stretch it vertically to fill your screen. Have not you magnified the true profile of the mountain 14 times?

Girma, you really are a gormless wonder.

Let me explain it in little words so that you might understand. It matters not what is "cut" off the 'bottom of the dataset, or how much the remaining data is "stretched" on a graph. Why? Simply because there is a thing called a 'scale' on another thing called an ordinate a 'y axis', and this 'scale' tells the observer person looking at the graph exactly what the relationships of the data points are to each other.

The same thing is done for the abscissa x axis.

Best of all, there is a word for this 'scale'. It is called a 'range'. Can you say that word Girma? Raaange...

In your alleged degrees did you construct every graph with the x and y axes starting at the origin zero?

What I have issue is with the magnification. If there is a magnification as in the case of anomaly plots acknowledge it. That is all I am asking. I accept as a FACT that the anomaly plots have a magnification of about 14.

There is a no "magnification", because there is a scale indicating range for both the x and the y axes. The graphical illustration of the data points is always fixed to the range, and thus the values of the data points do not change. Can you really not understand this?

And please, can you explain why it is valid science to derive percentages from a relative scale rather than from an absolute one? Conversely, can you explain why it is not valid to do so?

Tell us – when you did your alleged PhD, did you sit for a viva? If so, what background subject matter were you quizzed on? I cannot believe that anyone who supposedly has a PhD could really be this ignorant of graphing conventions, and of why there is no reason for these conventions not to be as they are. If there are any issues of distorted perception, such issues lie in the innumeracy of the perceiver, and not of mathematical practice that has been around from the time of Descartes and before.

In fact I seriously doubt that anyone could pass through to a postgraduate degree and be this dumb-arse ignorant and uneducated. You are just a troll.

Be careful though Girma Orssengo – your trolling shows the world your professional malfeasance.

Posted by: Bernard J. | August 24, 2009 12:04 PM

528 Girma,

The following is all taken from your posts here.

It is a position that plots the mean global temperature graph with the integer parts chopped off and called anomalies in order to magnify the temperature variation to give the incorrect perception of larger temperature variation (like looking at a profile of a surface through a magnifying glass).

AGW is just belief without evidence.

In this “Global Warming Swindle” an organization called the Inter GOVERNMENT Panel on Climate change was formed by GOVERNMENTS to summarize the so called “peer reviewed” papers written and reviewed by people whose projects are all funded by GOVERNMENTS to come up with results that give GOVERNMENTS more economic power and revenue. Would you believe the summaries if I replaced GOVERNMENT in the above sentence with BUSINESS? Why?

Fortunately, the global mean temperature has refused to match their computer prediction (proof of garbage in – garbage out) by not increasing since 1998 as shown in the link above. What do you call a belief contrary to reality? What do you call Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)?

You AGW believers, I dare you to use the term “Global Warming” instead of “Climate Change”. You would not, because you will always win when you use “climate change”: cooling is climate change, warming is climate change, forest fire is climate change and so on and so forth.

The only issue was “Increase in CO2 causes global warming”. Unfortunately, now global warming has been replaced by “climate change” and CO2 by “carbon”. The deception continues.

There is no catastrophic global warming. It is just delusion!

Thanks Russia, China & India for possibly saving us from the self-destruction of the west by the greens! The greens say they are for forest, but they make it only ready for the next forest fire. Similarly, they say they are for the poor, but we will see energy price skyrocket and cause misery on millions of people all over the world. guess when the AGW camp first plotted the TRUE mean global temperature, they found it flat. So they devised the method of in effect chopping the integer part of the mean global temperature and plotting the decimal parts called anomalies to exaggerate the perception of change in global temperature by 14 times The Greens don’t want others to drive cars, but they do. They don’t want others to fly, but they do. They don’t want others to sit on a chair made of wood cut from a tree, but they do. They drink clean water, but they hate the chemicals that made the water clean. They don’t want others to use paper made of wood chip, but they do. As a result, I find them to be hypocrites. They also, in effect, don’t like the human species. They say, nature can continuously release CO2 along the edge of the tectonics of the earth, but humans cannot. Elephants can bring down trees, humans cannot. Beavers can build dams, humans cannot. Ants can build high-rise dwellings, humans cannot. Finally, they are a party that is founded on human fear, not human self-confidence. They say you cannot use GM, because it risky. You cannot use nuclear energy, because it risky. They might say, Columbus, don’t cross the Atlantic because it is risky. Wilber and Albert, don’t try to fly because it is risky. Neil, don’t go to the moon because it is risky. In short, they are saying: man, don’t live. In any species, the young is fearful, and the Greens have their support. I hope the time comes when self-confidence of humans reigns, which will obviously bring the end of the Greens and AGW.

Why I am a skeptic of CO2 being the knob of Global Warming.

Believe it or not, I consider my self to be one of the most honest and gentle persons on earth.

It is clear that you are convinced that AGW is a conspiracy by the evil "Greens". Or is it the GOVERNMENTS? You hate these "Greens" because they want to kill hundreds of millions. You hate them because they have taken over most of the world's scientific institutions and GOVERNMENTS. You hate them because they distort percentages and temperatures. Anyone else who "believes" AGW must be either as evil as the "Greens" or gullible and stupid. It's all deception and delusion.

It's comforting to know what a high opinion you have of so many people but care to tell us how the "Greens" managed to do all this?

And what does "CO2 being the knob of Global Warming" even mean?

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 24, 2009 12:32 PM

531 Girma,

Scary? But surely you can read graphs and understand what scale is used?

Again, what the "public" knows is irrelevant in this case. The only ones who look at graphs of anomalies are scientists and interested amateurs, who appear to understand them just fine.

Once more, members of the general public don't see these graphs unless they make the effort. Have you ever seen one on the TV news or on a billboard?

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 24, 2009 12:44 PM

Grima asks:"When I looked at the anomaly graphs for the first time the changes are scary. When I looked closer at the range on the y-axis it is actually only about two deg C and the long term mean is subtracted from the yearly mean and it is this difference that is plotted on the y-axis. Do the public know this?"

The "public" thinks summer is hotter because the earth is closer to the sun. The public doesn't even know what the difference between temperature and anomaly is. Your recommended approach is misleading, because the concern about global warming is not the temperature, but the temperature increase. Such a small increase leads to hardiness zones moving hundreds of miles this past century. That may seem slow to you, but it is infinity % faster than the sprint speed of your average pine tree.

Posted by: t_p_hamilton | August 24, 2009 1:00 PM

535 Girma,

You are 'begging the question'.

Change it from/to what? How can these graphs be "extremely important on shaping public opinion on global warming" if hardly anyone sees them?

I ask again: have you ever seen an anomaly graph on TV news?

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 24, 2009 1:09 PM

536 tphamilton,

I'm sure you're right about the public's beliefs about the seasons. Quite how they accept that the NH and SH have opposite seasons has always puzzled me, and what would they make of perihelion being on 3 Jan if they knew?

Then again, most daily newspapers still run horoscopes, at least in the UK. :D

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 24, 2009 1:23 PM

Girma,

One more thing. If you haven't already done so, I suggest you go to Anthony Watts's blog and suggest your "real temperatures, not anomalies" idea there. I think that Anthony might be quite receptive as it would fit in well with his Surface Stations project.

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 24, 2009 1:42 PM

543,

No. The baseline temperature is subtracted. This is not 13°C for the yearly figures. It might be 13°C for an individual month or 2 in some datasets, though.

But it doesn't matter. "Magnifying" is what those interested find useful. Small changes in global averages are important.

I say again: try your idea with Watts.

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 24, 2009 1:53 PM

TrueSceptic (#538)

As I mentioned before, there is visual magnification in the anomaly graphs and they are scary. When I first saw it, I was uneasy about global warming. However, when I plotted, for myself, the true mean global temperatures I found them to be nearly flat and found them comforting.

Posted by: Girma | August 24, 2009 2:06 PM

546 Girma,

Exactly: what you find "comforting". I sometimes think you simply don't read most of the replies here. 529 is one. There are many others.

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 24, 2009 2:49 PM

@Girma

Do you agree that if I change the aspect ratio of my monitor and then view a graph of mean global temperature it does not become wrong?

NO.

Priceless.

How about if I stand slightly further away from the screen?

Posted by: Dave | August 24, 2009 3:08 PM

What I have issue is with the magnification. If there is a magnification as in the case of anomaly plots acknowledge it. That is all I am asking. I accept as a FACT that the anomaly plots have a magnification of about 14.

even this is false. "magnification" is a FACTOR. but to get the desired result (ie, people can see what is relevant in the graph) you can t just multiply the values with 14.

and i really have to repeat my post #494, as Girma did obviously nor understand it:

the most funny thing is this:

the "Girma experiment" will actually show catastrophic warming! (because of the greenhouse effect of the bottle, of course and not because of the added CO2)

but because Girma insists, that the only relevant comparison of his "CO2 experiment" is to 0°C and NOT the anomaly towards another bottle without the extra CO2, in his own little universe, he has demonstrated how catastrophic CO2 is!

ps: in some parts of Germany, it is a habit among guys to drink a small glass of spirit with every beer. this habit tends to cause problems with alcohol intoxications over a night of drinking, occasionally. but how can such a small amount of additional alcohol cause any problems? i did a thought experiment, and drank one beer and one glass of spirit. no problem!

Posted by: sod | August 24, 2009 3:27 PM

539 TrueSceptic,

Looks like it's described in this paper, though I haven't read it yet: http://www.springerlink.com/content/t26248xv8p316637/

Posted by: The Other Ian | August 24, 2009 4:51 PM

Girma:

I hope, I have impressed on your mind the fact that the anomaly plots are a magnification of the true mean global temperature profile by 14 times (for a long term global mean temperature of 14 deg C).

Well, no. Anomalies are generally smaller than temperatures. And addition and multiplication are two different operations.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 24, 2009 5:35 PM

Grima:

Blog members do you, at last, agree with the above statement or not?

No. And we never will. No matter how many times you post the question, no matter how many ways you think of to ask the question, the answer will always be no. We will not agree to something that is wrong, false, incorrect, and patently stupid.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 24, 2009 5:51 PM

556 BPL,

I'd appreciate it if you addressed post 443.

Thanks.

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 24, 2009 7:01 PM

559,

I omitted this.

Girma J. Orssengo1 and David C. Pye1 (1) School of Optometry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia Received: 18 June 1998 Accepted: 21 February 1999

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 24, 2009 7:25 PM

In my view, the anomaly plots are the mean global temperature profile from 13 deg C to 15 deg C stretched vertically to fill the screen. Because of this stretching, there is magnification (visual) of the profile.

Blog members do you, at last, agree with the above statement or not?

Girma: This is not really your question, as you well know. Persisting in this rather tawdry argumentative tactic is not getting you anywhere and is not honest. If a first year physics student presented charts such as your version of global mean temperature change when we needed to see the small scale change I would require them to redo it. If such a student did not do so a bad grade is likely.

Do you agree that your plots of "True Mean Global Temperature" hide the small scale change in global temperature?

Posted by: MarkG | August 24, 2009 8:01 PM

"There is visual distortion in the global temperature plots as looking at the anomaly plot profile is a scary one, but looking at the true mean global temperature profile is a comforting one.

Instead of you always asking me, I ask you now to tell me what is the source of this difference in perception from these two plots?" - Girma

This simply means you are deluded.

Both graphs convey the same information, but the anomaly graph represents the analysis of data. And that is the relevant distinction - the squiggly lines themselves are not the point. Statistical analysis of the data is where we get our understanding. How a graph looks does not matter, but what it means. I've never seen a scary looking scatterplot, but run a regression line through it and....

Your argument is facile, and you look foolish for continually parroting it.

Posted by: Michael | August 24, 2009 8:23 PM

MarkG (#564)

You wrote, Do you agree that your plots of "True Mean Global Temperature" hide the small scale change in global temperature?

Yes, I agree.

However, who choses to suppress the true mean global temperature plot but show the anomaly plot?

Posted by: Girma | August 24, 2009 8:59 PM

You wrote, Do you agree that your plots of "True Mean Global Temperature" hide the small scale change in global temperature?

Yes, I agree.

Well then I think we're done then. Hiding data from people is bad. Residuals hide nothing. Therefore they are useful.

But since you agree that your plots hide the changes in global mean temperature is it your assertion that the science community should hide these changes from the general community?

Posted by: MarkG | August 24, 2009 9:18 PM

MarkG,

It's all about feelings. Science isn't data analysis and hypothesis testing to describe reality.

Emotional reactions are how we understand science - if it's "comforting" then that is good and we can do nothing. If it's "scary", that's bad, and bad is not "comforting" so we need to hide the bad stuff using appropriate visual aids (see True Mean Global Temperature Profile) and get back to doing nothing.

Posted by: Michael | August 24, 2009 9:33 PM

"I agree it is all about emotion. Why colour the positive anomaly values with the scary RED?" - G.

Good point Girma.

I'm sure it's that evil cabal of international scientists at it again - using red to indicate increased temperature. What a scam! Who's ever heard of such a thing?.....well my car a/c has red for heating and blue for cooling, but I'm sure that's a coincidence.

But yes, RED is SCARY. Scary is bad. We need "comforting".

An increasing anomaly is POSITIVE. Oh yes, I like that. I feel comforted now. Positive is good, let's Do Nothing.

Even better - the more positive the anomaly, the more we should Do Nothing!!

Oh, science is such fun!

Posted by: Michael | August 24, 2009 10:13 PM

I agree it is all about emotion.

It isn't. (I did not write #572 btw). It's simply basic physics and maths. Neither care what you, I or anyone else feels.

Girma, you have not answered my question at #570.

Posted by: MarkG | August 24, 2009 10:38 PM

I extend my sincere thanks to all blog members for the exiting dispute I had in the last couple of days and for mellowing me a bit in my positions. I enjoyed it very much. Thanks also for the battering you gave me as it will help me to question my own position. Wish you happiness, health and wealth to you all.

With Love

Posted by: Girma | August 24, 2009 11:08 PM

It appears Girma has signed off while I was writing my post #579.

Bye Girma, good luck.

(I'm sure that the greens that you smeared also send their love, even if they read what you wrote about them).

Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 24, 2009 11:24 PM

You wrote, But since you agree that your plots hide the changes in global mean temperature is it your assertion that the science community should hide these changes from the general community?

Mark, did not you refer to "small scale change" in your post? I agree this is all about perception, not actual data.

You are avoiding the question. Do you wish to plot global mean temperature so that changes of between 0.0 to 1.0 degrees (or so) are not apparent to the general public?

Is this your intention?

Posted by: MarkG | August 24, 2009 11:39 PM

As I mentioned before, there is visual magnification in the anomaly graphs and they are scary. When I first saw it, I was uneasy about global warming. However, when I plotted, for myself, the true mean global temperatures I found them to be nearly flat and found them comforting.

The graphs certainly are scary, but not because of any vertical 'distortion' – there is no 'distortion'. They are scary purely because of the rate of change of mean global temperature, and of what this rate of change means for the physiological functionings of species and ecosystems.

"Nearly flat"?! Compared to what? Once again, why do you not consider the mean global temperature in degrees Kelvin starting at absolute zero – this would give you a very 'flat' graph.

Except that it won't. The rate of temperature change will remain exactly as it is, and it is this rate of change that is the problem. If you have difficulty understanding the import of such (apparently small) rates of change in the context of bioclimatic envelopes, then you are simply displaying, as is your wont, your absolute ignorance of fundamental scientific matters.

There is visual distortion in the global temperature plots as looking at the anomaly plot profile is a scary one, but looking at the true mean global temperature profile is a comforting one.

For the umpteenth time, there is no 'distortion', because the scale on any and ever anomaly graph indicates the range. And person sufficiently competent to interpret a graph will understand how to compare the distribution of the data point to the ranges of both axes.

And remember too that the graphs are titled with "anomaly" – this tells the observer exactly what parameter is being illustrated. Or are you saying that anomalies should not be used in developing and communicating understanding of the science behind changes in mean global temperature?!

The only distortion that exists is in your own mind, and it results from your ideological prejudices against the idea of human impact upon climate. You need to get over it.

And if merely changing the scale on a graph gives you comfort, when in fact all the underlying parameters remain exactly as they are, then you are not in any way a scientist, and you should not be involved in the practise of science.

Instead of you always asking me, I ask you now to tell me what is the source of this difference in perception from these two plots?

The source is your scientific ignorance and your non-science based ideology

It is not fair for all of you to put me under pressure to come up with an answer.

Oh, but it is. You make an outrageous claim – you put up the evidence.

And by the way... I notice that you repeatedly link to your ridiculous graph – are you trying to increase your SE rank by upping your hits? If so, I suggest that Tim Lambert remove all but one of your links – if you want to keep redirecting traffic to your own site, you should be forced to link back to that one permitted link, so that readers realise that it is always the same page that you are directing them toward.

Nick notes:

Given Girma's professional field,why is he complaining about visual distortion? A pair of rose-tinted,scale correcting spectacles should be no problem...

Given Girma's professional field, I would be extremely concerned as his employer that he is so confused about the science and the conventions of graphing, and of what a genuine visual distortion is. His would be one contract that I would not want to renew.

I wonder if any of his colleagues realise what guff he is posting here – I am sure that he would be the butt of much tea-room derision...

Unless you show me the addition of 0.2ml of CO2 into 2,000 ml of air causes significant increase in the temperature of the air when exposed to infrared radiation, I will remain a proud denier of CO2 driven global warming.

Do you even understand how many errors of scientific logic and fact you have made in this one sentence?!

You may be a proud denier of AGW, but you are also a recalcitrantly ignorant one.

Posted by: Bernard J. | August 25, 2009 12:02 AM

Girma, welcome back

The 0.7 degrees rise is the rise above the pre industrial longer term mean.

Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 25, 2009 12:17 AM

Michael, Bernard,

Girma certialy has the ability to stay on message. He'd make a real politician.

Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 25, 2009 12:32 AM

Girma:

Unless you show me the addition of 0.2ml of CO2 into 2,000 ml of air causes significant increase in the temperature of the air when exposed to infrared radiation

At the 575th post you have still not told us what you mean by "significant". As I pointed out before, even 0.000025 deg C warming per 1 litre cube of air will produce significant warming of the surface.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | August 25, 2009 12:50 AM

Girma,

You've just completely ignored the relevant information that Chris provided for you.

Are you rude or just obstinantly ignorant?

Posted by: Michael | August 25, 2009 1:23 AM

Show the effect of the addition of 0.2ml of CO2 on the temperature of 2,000 ml of air when exposed into infrared radiation.

I will stay where I am, or move to the other side if there is more than 0.1 deg C increase in the air temperature.

Clarity would be enhanced if you would show us the maths you did to work out that .1C is the correct scaled temperature change to look for in your scaled atmospheric model.

Or more generally give us some guidance if there are any questions you will answer on all this? Pointing you at the questions already asked and not answered does not appear to be working.

Posted by: MarkG | August 25, 2009 1:39 AM

Girma, I might be a fool for asking but:

Is a temperature rise of 0.1 deg C magnified 14 times?

And is a temperature rise of 1 degree Celsius magnified 14 times?

Is any global mean temperature anomlay measured in degrees Celsius magnified 14 times?

And why arn't you addressing these questions?

Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 25, 2009 1:55 AM

Mark Byrne (#596)

Why are you putting me on the spot? I have tried to explain but have failed.

Now let me ask you for a change. Why do the anomaly plots look scary while the true mean global temperature look comforting?

Please answer me?

Posted by: Girma | August 25, 2009 2:09 AM

Girma, I can see you are good at avoiding questions.

I'll make you a deal. You address the questions here and here and I'll address yours. Is that a deal?

Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 25, 2009 2:20 AM

Girma,

I have tried to explain but have failed.

No, you've explained - again and again and again - your position really isn't hard to grasp. Its just so wrong it beggars belief.

I'm tired of repeating answers to you in this thread if you're just going to repeat the same question.

Why do the anomaly plots look scary while the true mean global temperature look comforting?

Answer here

Posted by: Dave | August 25, 2009 2:33 AM

To all of you:

I concede that that there is no distortion in the anomaly plots in the scientific sense. Congratulation!

However, there is visual magnification.

Let me try to explain.

For an anomaly plot with a range from -1 deg C to 1 deg C and a global long term mean temperature of 14 deg C, the anomaly plot is obtained first by translating the true mean global temperature profile from 13 deg C to 15 deg C to the axis (y = 0) and then stretching the profile to fill the screen. Along the y axis, though the labels for the temperature tick marks have not changed, the spacing between successive marks has increased because of the vertical stretching, and this result in the visual magnification we observe when we look at the anomaly plots. This visual magnification makes me dislike anomaly plots.

Cheers

Posted by: Girma | August 25, 2009 3:06 AM

Janet Akerman (#603)

Ayn Rand

Posted by: Girma | August 25, 2009 3:17 AM

Girma,

This visual magnification makes me dislike anomaly plots.

Don't you realise a graph of temperatures in degrees Celcius is also an anomaly plot? It shows the anomaly compared with +273.15 K.

You're just squirming around trying to find a way to deny the global surface temperature has increased by an amount that will make a real difference to our world.

Sorry we can't help you.

Posted by: Gaz | August 25, 2009 4:05 AM

Instead of spending billions on unverifiable computer model of the whole climate, why not spend millions to experimentally study on a scaled lab model the effect of increase in CO2 on the temperature on the air and publish this result so that we deniers have anything to stand on. [Emphasis mine]

And there you have hoisted yourself by your own petard.

In a scaled experiment, what is your thought on what temperature increase will be observed in a bottle? What issues of time, of radiation type, and of independence from outside of the system, did your 'thought experiment' take into account?

Hmmm...?

However, there is visual magnification... This visual magnification makes me dislike anomaly plots.

Do you not understand that it does not matter that the "spacing between successive marks has increased"? The whole point of graphing data is for the observer to comprehend the relationships between the independent and the dependent variables. Changing the 'space' between units has no mathematical effect on the interpretation, and anyone who has passed one lesson in graphing should know this.

Seriously, if you have not reached this basic (= beginner) level of understanding of data representation, you should not be involved in science, and especially in scientific commentary.

Posted by: Bernard J. | August 25, 2009 5:15 AM

(#596): Why do the anomaly plots look scary while the true mean global temperature look comforting?

That's why 'look' is not so relevant.. need to look deeper. When we understand the concept of a system, understand how the system itself behaves.. the dynamics.. then we see the reason, the mechanism. And then we have mathematics, statistics.. an invaluable tool that we use to quantify, analyse, and formulate things - a tool that needs to be used thoughtfully.

Posted by: AJW | August 25, 2009 5:17 AM

Girma:

After several years of searching, I found what I was looking for in the writing of Ayn Rand:

You were looking for a reason to ignore scientific facts because they're inconsistent with your desire to do whatever the fuck you want, so why the big search - why not just join the National Party?

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Yes, Ayn Rand the classic denialist - able to hold four mutually exclusive positions at one time.

I am immensely indebted to her.

For giving you an excuse to ignore reality? I'll bet you are.

Posted by: Gaz | August 25, 2009 5:42 AM

The Beginers Guide to Ayn Rand:

The only proper, moral purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence—to protect his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to his own property and to the pursuit of his own happiness. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. (Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness)

That would sounds consistent with acting to prevent dangerous global warming.

When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism…(Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness)

Mmm, The GFC was caused by too much regulation. So address the problems such as“Too-Big –To-Fail” with more deregulation?

Capitalism is the only system where such men are free to function and where progress is accompanied, not by forced privations, but by a constant rise in the general level of prosperity, of consumption and of enjoyment of life(Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness)

Mmm, perhaps she means the richest 20% are free to function by getting in with the Oligarchs.

Since only an individual man can possess rights, the expression “individual rights” is a redundancy (which one has to use for purposes of clarification in today’s intellectual chaos). But the expression “collective rights” is a contradiction in terms.

She obviously is downplaying of is unaware that in US law Corporations have gained the rights of an individual (cept they can live forever). And when you can atomise the workers more and more, guess what happens in the gap between productivity and wages?

Girma, what do you think of the recent banker’s self-imposed bonus?

Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 25, 2009 6:01 AM

Girma:

Unless you show me the addition of 0.2ml of CO2 into 2,000 ml of air causes significant increase in the temperature of the air when exposed to infrared radiation, I will remain a proud denier of CO2 driven global warming.

That's because you're a fucking moron.

I've explained in careful detail why your assertion is irrelevant to the problem. You either haven't read it or haven't understood it. You believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it.

Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is not. And militant ignorance, of the sort you display, is stupidity. Period.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 25, 2009 6:39 AM

Girma:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute

I am immensely indebted to her.

Then maybe you could explain the use of "reason" behind her

1) Justifying her extramarital affairs, but calling it "betrayal" when her boyfriend played around on her,

2) Her rejection of relativity and quantum mechanics,

3) Her claim that pollution was a good thing because it showed "progress," and

4) Her contention that the architect of a building has a right to destroy the building if his employers alter his blueprint.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | August 25, 2009 6:50 AM

Girma, it might come as a surprise to you, but during a discussion, you are supposed to react to what others say, to acknowledge their points and to reply to their questions.

you seem to be incapable of doing any of that. the most friendly word for your behaviour is troll.

Posted by: sod | August 25, 2009 7:13 AM

Sod (#622),

It is only bashing that I get. Is it not sometime better to absorb it and keep quite?

I have acknowledged that there is no distortion in the scientific sense with the anomaly plots. However, no one from the AGW side has acknowledged that there is visual magnification with the anomaly plots. Why blame only me?

Posted by: Sod | August 25, 2009 7:29 AM

621 Girma,

What on Earth does this have to do with this thread? Original Sin is a religious concept, nothing more.

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 25, 2009 7:57 AM

Mark Byrne

Instead of learning about Ayn Rand second hand, why not just read each word of the Original Sin paragraph I posted earlier (#621) and judge for yourself the power and precision of writing.

Still better, why don't you get and read her book, "Philosophy: Who Needs It"

She might perform her magic on you too!

Posted by: Girma | August 25, 2009 8:08 AM

To all Blog Members:

Do blog members agree or disagree with Girma's assertion?

However, Girma still maintains that the anomaly plots have "visual magnification" Posted by: Girma

Try sitting further away from the monitor.

Posted by: Mark | August 25, 2009 8:21 AM

Girma, I read your quote, it was bazaar in that it was so out of context. I've started reading Rand and have conclude she is an over-simplistic utopian. I suspect she is well known because of the concentrated (disproportionate) power of those who's interests are served by her fiction and ideology.

Your commendation of "magic on [me] too" does not energise me to return to Rand's stories.

Re your magnification question, Are you asking if the 0.7 degree mean global temp anomaly is visually magnified?

I don't understand this question. The anomaly is a number used to measure temperature change. How can this number be magnified?

Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 25, 2009 8:35 AM

Guys,

Maybe Girma's got me fooled but I think he is sincere. My guess is Girma is being frank and honest about what he thinks.

If is in a troll then he's exceptionally skilful at chewing up blog time.

Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 25, 2009 8:44 AM

Jeff, what struck me when reading Rand on ecology, is that her arguments are at the forefront of denilalism now. She's been dead for 30 years and her distorted arguments are still at the front.

Similar story with Julian Simon arguments, though he's only been dead for a decade.

Posted by: Mark Byrne | August 25, 2009 8:58 AM

Please Read Rand yourself. Don’t insert an intermediary between yourself and an original. Read this morsel on philosophy:

As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation — or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown.

Who else writes with such power, with such precision?

You will not like everything she writes, but some are timeless.

Posted by: Girma | August 25, 2009 9:17 AM

An 80 word sentance is precision????

More like a load of self-improvement psycho-babble.

Posted by: Michael | August 25, 2009 9:57 AM

617 BPL,

That's what I thought when I first started looking at this a few years ago but you need to explain the following:-

Global Mean Monthly Surface Temperature Estimates for the Base Period 1901 to 2000

J F M A M J J A S O N D Annual

12.0 12.1 12.7 13.7 14.8 15.5 15.8 15.6 15.0 14.0 12.9 12.2 13.9

Jul - Jan = 15.8 - 12.0 = 3.8

(from here, where it says,

The global monthly surface temperature averages in the table below can be added to a given month's anomaly (departure from the 1901 to 2000 base period average) to obtain an absolute estimate of surface temperature for that month.

It is clear that you must add the anomaly for each month to the base temperature for each month.

2 examples of monthly anomalies from here

1988 1 0.4590 1988 2 0.2942 1988 3 0.4029 1988 4 0.3672 1988 5 0.3046 1988 6 0.3239 1988 7 0.2847 1988 8 0.2479 1988 9 0.2499 1988 10 0.2321 1988 11 0.1616 1988 12 0.2789

Jul - Jan = 0.2847 - 0.4590 = -0.1743 (negative!)

1998 1 0.5657 1998 2 0.8288 1998 3 0.6059 1998 4 0.7107 1998 5 0.6309 1998 6 0.6404 1998 7 0.6980 1998 8 0.6697 1998 9 0.5007 1998 10 0.4393 1998 11 0.3604 1998 12 0.5124

Jul - Jan = 0.6980 - 0.5657 = 0.1323

If the monthly anomalies use the same base temperature for all months, how can the differences between, say, Jan and Jul anomalies be so small, when the absolute temperatures differ by several degrees?

Lastly, why does GISS say

Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14C = 57.2F, so add that to the temperature change if you want to use an absolute scale (this note applies to global annual means only, J-D and D-N !)

That is, you cannot use this single figure for monthly anomalies as each month has its own base temperature.

In short, Courtney was right: absolute monthly average temperatures vary by several degrees and monthly anomalies in themselves do not, and cannot, show this.

I'd like to hear from Eli too, please. :D

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 25, 2009 10:03 AM

Let us not underestimate the value of the indicator.

When was the last time you met a Rand-toter who was educated in the natural sciences? Right - nev-er.

So quoting Rand is a very useful data point. That is: I usually need very little additional data (other than Rand-toting/quoting) to know that discussing natural science with someone quoting Rand is futile.

And their numbers are not many - they just have lots of energy and appear numerous.

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | August 25, 2009 10:10 AM

645 Bernard,

Note what Girma did at 623 and 624. Do you think someone else might've played the same trick?

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 25, 2009 10:29 AM

647 Girma,

So who posted 623 and 624?

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 25, 2009 10:36 AM

Please Read Rand yourself. Don’t insert an intermediary between yourself and an original.

Like saying, please read Goebbels yourself. Don’t insert an intermediary between yourself and an original.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | August 25, 2009 10:41 AM

The hostility towards Rand is unbelievable.

1. Happiness
2. Productivity
3. Reason

These are what she advices in hear writings for individuals to achieve in their life. What is wrong with them?

The hostility towards her is irrational.

May be some people don’t want others to be happy, productive and rational!

The irrationality of the hostility towards her is beyond believe.

Posted by: Girma | August 25, 2009 10:52 AM

TrueSceptic at #648.

And not to forget that the same name-typing clumsiness occurred at #516.

I cannot believe that someone other than an impostor would post so much garbage, and make so many repeated mistakes, unless the person had taken leave of their faculties (assuming of course that they had any faculties to speak of in the first place).

In Girma Orssengo's case it isn't so much leave as a sabbatical, and more probably early retirement.

Posted by: Bernard J. | August 25, 2009 10:58 AM

Girma:

We don't thrust the computer climate models as they are unverifiable and they can not predict El Nino and L Nina.

Perhaps because they're not supposed to predict individual weather events like El Niños and La Ninas. Hint: they're called CLIMATE models, not WEATHER models. Girma is so ignorant.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | August 25, 2009 11:03 AM

655 Girma,

Answer the question: do you know who wrote 516, 623, and 624?

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 25, 2009 11:07 AM

TrueSceptic

Posted by: Girma | August 25, 2009 11:10 AM

Chris (#656)

you wrote, Perhaps because they're not supposed to predict individual weather events like El Niños and La Ninas. Hint: they're called CLIMATE models, not WEATHER models. Girma is so ignorant.

I can not accept the distinction between weather and climate. If you can not predict the short term, how on earth can you predict the long term?

Can I say if I launch a rocket to the moon, my accuracy increases as it moves away from the point of launch?

Climate is a chaotic system. And like all chaotic systems, say the stock market, it is unpredictable.

Posted by: Girma | August 25, 2009 11:19 AM

659 Bernard,

A parody is poor if it's too obvious, but it's only fair to leave some clues. :D

BTW do you know Denial Depot?

Posted by: TrueSceptic | August 25, 2009 11:24 AM