A Few Things Ill Considered

As you can imagine, the How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide attracts a lot of comment from people who are less than inclined to agree with the general thrust of the material. Most can be easily answered with a pointer to another article or a rephrasing or expansion on one of the points in the post above it. (I’m not trying to claim that usually satisfies my skeptical visitors, but I don’t often go to more trouble than that. I try not to bang my head too hard against any brick walls that come my way!).

But I had one recent commenter who asked a very straightforward question that seemed to deserve a substantive answer, so I decided to make a new post rather than just add another comment. The question and answer are a bit off topic for that particular thread anyway.

It is a simple question, which I will prune of its snooty tone and quote here:

“What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?”


The simplest thing to say to that, is “go read the IPCC report”. It is very thorough and very meticulous. (See the latest one here, but I encourage beginners to use the more convenient HTML format of the 2001 report here (even though it is out of date on many details). But because my visitor did specify “in my own words” (pop quiz!) and it is a good question when sincerely posed, I will try to lay it out below.

The very first thing to note about a response to a CO2 rise, is that an increase in the temperature of the global climate is completely expected.

We are all familiar with that basic scientific process where we examine the known properties of a system, observe or surmise a change of some sort, and then formulate an expectation based on an hypothesis, right? In the case at hand (and using a very broad brush), the system is the earth/ocean/atmosphere; the known properties are those of radiative gases, thermodynamics and electromagnetic radiation; and the change to the system is a slow and inexolerable increase in the amount of CO2 in the air. The next step is usually to perform an experiment and thus confirm or deny your hypothesis when your expecations are or are not met. Unfortunately, there is only one planet and one timeline to move it along, so that is out.

Fortunately, we have gone ahead and run that experiment on this one and only home planet of ours during our one and only chance to make our one and only human history! (Did I just say “fortunately”??).



(image courtesy of Global Warming Art)

So, because we know that CO2 is a radiatively active gas that allows the shortwave (visible) radiation from the sun into the climate system and slows that same energy down on its way out as longwave (infrared) radiation, we quite clearly expect that adding more CO2 will raise the average temperature of the earth’s surface. This has been expected for over 100 years! So, just like the internet, Al Gore did not invent Global Warming. (Also like the internet, Al Gore didn’t really claim to, but that’s a different story…)

In 1896, Svante Arrhenius wrote a paper on this very idea. You can follow the long, slow evolution of Anthropogenic Global Warming theory that followed at Spencer Weart’s most excellent “History of Global Warming”. Scientists have been improving our knowledge and watching closely for generations now.

So, it makes sense that it should happen. Is it?



(image source)

Yes, it is. And there are other indicators besides direct measurements of surface temperature.

But let’s not stop there, because expected things can happen for unexpected reasons, and correlation is not causation and all that. We need to eliminate other potential causes. Maybe it’s the sun? Maybe it’s natural causes [hand wave]? Maybe it’s volcanoes? Maybe it’s geothermal? Maybe it’s galactic cosmic rays? Well, the sun has not changed its output significantly since the fifities, or enough overall to explain the degree of warming. Saying “natural causes” is really just a cop out: what natural cause?? Blaming volcanoes or geothermal is silly and sillier. Cosmic rays is a pretty far fetched grasp at straws. The connection is only plausible, far from demonstrable, it has been looked for and not found, and it requires that some major foundations of current climate theory be completely wrong. That’s never impossible, but that possiblilty becomes more vanishingly unlikely all the time, having all but vanished decades ago. (I’m talking basics here, like CO2’s radiative properties, the basic dynamics of heat transfer in and between the atmosphere and ocean, accurate observation of basic climate properties).

The fact of the matter is, the IPCC reports spend alot of time on attribution studies[PDF]. It was never just taken it for granted that because we expect it and it has happened we therefore understand it. But in all of this hard researching, no other primary candidate cause has emerged that can explain the observations.


(image courtesy of Global Warming Art)

Just to pile on, here are some rather key specific observations beyond the rise in seasonally averaged global temperature that fit in well with an enhanced greenhouse effect (the relevant effect of increasing CO2 concentrations). These observations do not fit with other potential forcings.

  • Temperatures have risen more at night than during the day. This really defeats the notion of a solar powered climate change on its face.
  • The stratosphere is cooling. Models that predict the warming we are seeing also predict this particular feature of the current climate change.
  • An increasingly enhanced greenhouse effect should cause an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation. This has been detected.

So to summarize: we know anthropogenic climate change is real because there is no other likely candidate cause, the CO2 rise is unquestionably the result of our activities, the particulars of the warming signature are consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect and the whole phenomenon is entirely consistent with very long standing theories and expectations.

If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, why on earth would you think it is a galactic cosmic ray?

Comments

  1. #1 Brian D
    October 21, 2008

    Coby, thank you for this (and indeed the rest of the skeptic guide).

    There’s only one thing preventing this from being a great layman crash introduction to the GW arguments, though — most lay readers I’ve met don’t know that increasing longwave radiation is effectively increasing radiative heat. (Simplistic, yes, but it gets the basic point across — I’d phrase it as saying that “heat radiates out as longwave radiation” to clarify.) Without that clarification, the link between CO2’s radiative properties and temperature isn’t established.

    Maybe this page isn’t the place for that (and the point holds without it), but given how general it is, it may be worth considering.

  2. #2 coby
    October 21, 2008

    Hey, Brian,

    Thanks for the feedback and the suggestion. It got a bit more general than I was planning, I didn’t want it to be a GHE 101 course, but you’re right it came close anyway!

    Maybe I’ll try a longer more general a-z essay that includes more about the “why we expect it” part and could also anticipate more of the standard objections.

    Thanks again for the comment!

  3. #3 Alex M
    October 21, 2008

    Neat! I was looking for something like this for my skeptical friend, the graphs are especially telling.

    Thanks for this!

  4. #4 CityzenJane
    October 21, 2008

    Another way to look at it is to ask What if it is true? What if it is not true? and what are our options in either case…or more comfortably in the cases or scenarios we can spectulate on.

    I like this approach.

  5. #5 Brian D
    October 21, 2008

    Coby:

    No problem. The reason why I think this page is spectacular, almost as much as the Skeptic guide itself, is because it’s a one-page overview that directly answers the most basic question a neophyte would ask. The one-page part is critical: the average Internet reader who isn’t too motivated to delve into this issue (i.e. someone without ideological or scientific biases toward one “side” of the argument — if you can call science a ‘bias’) isn’t going to slog through Spencer Weart, even though that is the definitive introduction. It’s simply not a time investment they’re going to make (although it’s one well worth making).

    I’ve been trying to condense the basics to something I can deliver in three to five minutes at the high-school-science level (fast enough for the internet or at-the-bar/on-the-bus discussions, and at a low enough level that more or less everyone can understand it). It’s become rather difficult without going case-by-case, which essentially defaults to the Skeptic guide anyway. Hence why I thank you for this one.

    CityzenJane:

    I’m actually working with Greg via Manpollo.org on the book version of that approach, and have been since around the same time he started uploading the How It All Ends series. (I’m the author of the sample flyer he mentions in Operation: Saturation, amongst other things.) Hop on over there and see if you can help out. There are other projects on the go at the moment, including a slideshow version of this argument (compressed version here) and critiquing CCE’s excellent and definitive introduction to the ‘debate’ (I liken this to a more general version of Oreskes’s The American Denial of Global Warming, except it covers pretty much every aspect a layperson would be interested in, including “why does this matter?” and “where to now?”). Help is always appreciated.

  6. #6 Milan
    October 22, 2008

    I have found “How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic” extremely helpful for dealing with all sorts of people who have reasonable-sounding objections to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

    Thanks for producing such a useful resource.

  7. #7 Rolf
    October 22, 2008

    I’m trying to understand how this apparently is proof? For one thing we’re dealing with less than a degree here for the past century according to the graphs. Could factors like methane not also produce the same kind of graph. Is there more conclusive evidence available?

  8. #8 coby
    October 22, 2008

    There is no “proof” to be had in a science like this. WRT methane, there has not been enough of an increase to account for the warming, which, btw, at ~.15oC/decade now, or .5 over the last fifty whichever you prefer, is very extreme by all goelogical standards.

    Yes, there is more evidence. There is a mountain more in the IPCC reports. If you could be more specific, maybe I could be as well. What evidence are you looking for?

  9. #9 Tilo
    October 22, 2008

    “We need to eliminate other potential causes. Maybe it’s the sun? Maybe it’s natural causes [hand wave]? Maybe it’s volcanoes? Maybe it’s geothermal? Maybe it’s galactic cosmic rays? Well, the sun has not changed its output significantly since the fifities, or enough overall to explain the degree of warming. Saying “natural causes” is really just a cop out: what natural cause?? Blaming volcanoes or geothermal is silly and sillier. Cosmic rays is a pretty far fetched grasp at straws.”

    Well then, your theory would seem to suggest that there was no signigicant climate change before mankind began to generate greenhouse gases. But we know that this is not true. In fact, we have all kinds of evidence that the earth has been warmer than today in the recent past. Here is just the newest piece of evidence.

    http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/

    I also note that you have said nothing about the elements of variability like ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc. Looking at the ENSO cycles for the last 58 years:

    “http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ts.gif”

    We can see that La Nina has dominated since about 1978, and El Nino dominated for 28 years before that. Roy Spencer has a new paper out in which he shows that 70% of recent warming is due to ENSO.

    Furthermore, if the natural causes are as weak as you claim, and since CO2 has steadily risen, then why has there been no warming for the past 11 years?

    http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/11-year-temperature-anomoly.html

    Beyond your skipping of ocean effects, where do you deal with clouds and moisture levels and their effect on climate?

    No one is arguing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And no one is arguing that is has warmed. If we spend more time dealing with the real issues, then maybe we can stop spinning our wheels. The issue around CO2 is what does the feedback look like. Is is positive, nuetral, or possibly even negative. Your article does not deal with that at all. And regarding the warming, the only issue is if it’s unusual. And there is no evidence of that either. The fact that most of the temperature proxies fail to support the instrument record makes them both rather suspicious. Here are a bunch of temperature reconstructions, most of them from the hockey team:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

    Notice that none of them support the recent instrument record, even though the data is available. So either the instrument record is overcooked by the numerous adjustements that are done to it, or the proxy records are incabable of showing the full extent of the climate variation.

  10. #10 Tilo
    October 25, 2008

    Hey Coby, it looks like Craig Loehle is also intrigued by the fact that proxy data diverges from instrument data in the the last couple of decades. He seems to come to much the same conclusion about this problem as I do. Only he says it so much better and he published it in a scientific paper.

    A MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DIVERGENCE PROBLEM IN DENDROCLIMATOLOGY
    Climatic Change
    DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9488-8

    Craig Loehle, PhD
    National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI)

    Abstract: Tree rings provide a primary data source for reconstructing past climates, particularly over the past 1000 years. However, divergence has been observed in twentieth century reconstructions. Divergence occurs when trees show a positive response to warming in the calibration period but a lesser or even negative response in recent decades. The mathematical implications of divergence for reconstructing climate are explored in this study. Divergence results either because of some unique environmental factor in recent decades, because trees reach an asymptotic maximum growth rate at some temperature, or because higher temperatures reduce tree growth. If trees show a nonlinear growth response, the result is to potentially truncate any historical temperatures higher than those in the calibration period, as well as to reduce the mean and range of reconstructed values compared to actual. This produces the divergence effect. This creates a cold bias in the reconstructed record and makes it impossible to make any statements about how warm recent decades are compared to historical periods. Some suggestions are made to overcome these problems.

  11. #11 Tilo
    October 25, 2008

    Hey Coby,

    What are your thoughts about the returning sea ice in the Arctic. When the big crash happened in 2007, all of the warmers were very excited, and they claimed that the effects of AGW were progressing even faster than expected. Here is a side by side of Oct. 25, 2006 and Oct. 25 2007. This is close to the maximum divergence between the two.

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=10&fd=25&fy=2006&sm=10&sd=25&sy=2007

    That is quite a drop off. I believe that at the minimum, 2007 was suppose to have about 22% less than 2006.

    Now, a year later, and the sea ice extent seems to have recovered as dramatically as it melted a year ago. Here is the same day in 2007, Oct 25, compared with Oct 25, 2008.

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=10&fd=25&fy=2007&sm=10&sd=25&sy=2008

    And comparing Oct, 25 2006 and Oct 25 2008, there is not much to choose between them.

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=10&fd=25&fy=2006&sm=10&sd=25&sy=2008

    So is AGW progressing even faster than expected as many of it’s proponents have testified to congress, or is it actually progressing slower than expected? 11 years of no global surface warming, 5 years of no ocean warming, and 3 years of no sea level rise would seem to indicate that AGW is progressing much slower than we are given to believe it should by the IPCC.

    Oh, by the way, on the other side of the planet, it looks like Antarctic sea ice is once again greater than the long term trend.

  12. #12 Arie Brand
    October 25, 2008

    A sort of counterpoint to your “How to talk to a Climate Sceptic” is Joanne Nova’s “The Skeptics’ Handbook” . When you go to http://climatedebatedaily.com you find under the heading”Rising above the mudslinging” Joanne’s arguments, for what they are worth, against the CO2 thesis. Can you please comment on these?

  13. #13 Makron
    October 26, 2008

    “The Skeptics’ Handbook” says there are 4 points that are the “only points that matter”.
    http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skepticshandbook1-4.pdf

    “1) The greenhouse signature is missing”
    The supplied AGW reply is wrong. It’s not actually a greenhouse signature and it isn’t exactly missing.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends

    “2) The strongest evidence was the ice cores,
    but newer more detailed data turned the
    theory inside out”
    The supplied AGW reply is correct. The “Skeptics say” response is “If CO2 was a major driver, temperatures would rise indefinitely in a runaway greenhouse effect.” which is wrong.

    “3) Temperatures are not rising”
    There’s more wrong in this section than I probably have space for in just this comment.

    It claims “Look at the Southern Hemisphere, temperatures recorded by satellites since 1979 show things are flat.” which isn’t true, UAH shows 0.06C/decade in the SH.

    See that should be the AGW reply, not the strawman
    “Weve had record high temperatures (measured by thermometers on the ground).” they provided.

    They attack the surface temperature record saying it’s warmer because of urban heat island bias, etc and we should trust the satellites, etc. But look they even have a graph comparing the satellite and surface record and see they are almost identical. Just what difference are they trying to claim there is? The surface record does not have a massive warming trend compared to the satellite record like they are trying to imply. It’s bizzare.

    “4) dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can”

    Yikes this one is even worse. Incorrect graph noted. Well the AGW reply takes care of this anyway: “The climate models are well aware of the logarithmic absorption curve and use it in their calculations. This is not news, its been known for decades.”

    And then they just give up and move on to falling back on the other 3 points. So much for point 4.

    This part is more of a question “How many
    more years of NO global warming will it take?”. The short answer is more. The longer answer about 10-20 more years to be certain.
    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.php

    “4) Carbon dioxide is already doing almost all
    the warming it can do”
    This one is plain wrong. It says “Adding twice the CO2 doesnt make twice the difference. The first CO2 molecules matter a lot. But extra ones have less and less effect.” which is true, but it doesn’t mean it is already doing almost all the warming it can do.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

    Is false. It even says
    and that fits with about 3C warming per doubling of co2.

  14. #14 coby
    October 26, 2008

    Hi Tilo,

    My thoughts on 2008 minimum sea ice extent are here.

    The take away lesson is not to get distracted by natural variations, but look at trends. The trend is accelerating and downward and for arctic warming and arctic sea ice it is happening much faster than expected.

    The Antarctic sea ice trend is negligible. See it here and see my discussion of that talking point here.

    Tilo, why no comment from you about the big downward jump in the Antarctic sea ice extent? To be consistent you should notice and address that as well as! (I’m just baiting you, sorry! The fact is that neither 2007-2008 in the arctic or 2007-2008 in the antarctic is informative of anything but seasonal weather patterns)

  15. #15 Tilo
    October 26, 2008

    “The fact is that neither 2007-2008 in the arctic or 2007-2008 in the antarctic is informative of anything but seasonal weather patterns”

    I accept that. The problem is, why did the warmers make such a huge issue out of the 2007 low. When it is to their benefit, they are very willing to use short term or single year events. Now I’m not concerned that at the low 2008 was only about 9% larger than 2007. But looking at the difference now, it looks like 2008 has more like a 20 to 25% edge on the same time in 2007. In fact, right now, the Oct. 25 sea ice extent looks very much like 2004, 2005, and 2006. As you can see from this graph, the lines for the four years are now on top of each other.

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    Obviously different systems have different lag times. Global surface temperature stopped rising 11 years ago. Ocean temperatures stopped rising 5 years ago. Sea levels stopped rising 3 years ago. It looks very much like Arctic ice melt may have turned the corner this year. This doesn’t mean that we get all of the recovery this year. But it may well mean that we have started a recovery process that will play out over the next few years.

    “Tilo, why no comment from you about the big downward jump in the Antarctic sea ice extent?”

    Not sure what you are talking about here Coby. The Antarctic sea ice extent is currently above it’s 30 year average. In fact, it has spent most of the last year being well above that average.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg

  16. #16 Tilo
    October 26, 2008

    Makron:
    “It’s not actually a greenhouse signature and it isn’t exactly missing.”

    The only way that it’s not missing is if you use windshear to measure temperature instead of using ballon and satellite measurements. This seems to be an absurd way of getting to a forgone conclusion.

    “There’s more wrong in this section than I probably have space for in just this comment.”

    Yes, there has been no rise in temperature for the last 11 years. Only Hansen’s heavily “adjusted” record shows half the rise that the IPCC predicts. The rest show a small amount of cooling.

    http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/06/11-year-temperature-anomoly.html

    “The short answer is more.”

    I don’t think that it takes any more. If the warmers cannot explain why there has been no warming for the last 11 years, during which we have had significant rise in CO2 – if they cannot explain where that .2C rise has gone in terms of elements of natural variation overriding the CO2 forcing, then the CO2 forcing numbers are wrong. We are now dealing with hindsight. All of the forcing elements can be measured and they can be used to explaing why there has been no warming. But there are no explanations for the failure to warm. Noise is not an answer. Noise is natural variation, and we are suppose to understand the effects of natural variation. I have put this question to Gavin Schmidt, and he ran away from it. He has no idea why we haven’t warmed over the last 11 years. So if we don’t know enough about natural variation to explain what has happened, how can we know enough to extract a climate sensitivity number?

    “and that fits with about 3C warming per doubling of co2.”

    I’m not sure what you are claiming fits with the 3C per CO2 doubling, but I think that the point of the article is this.

    If 3C were true (which I think it isn’t) then to get the first 3C you would need to go from 280 PPM to 560 PPM. To get the second doubling you would need to go from 560 PPM to 1120 PPM. To get the third doubling you would need to go from 1120 PPM to 2240 PPM. So going to 2240 PPM would get you about 9C. This is serious. But of course we will probably run out of fossil fuels long before we even get that second doubling to 1120 PPM. So even if the 3C climate sensitivity were true, you would be hard pressed to ever get a total of 6C. But what if the climate sensitivity is closer to 1C, as some climate scientists predict. Then the move from 280 PPM to 1120 PPM would only get you 2C. No big deal. We have been there before. So far we have had .8C of temp rise for the industrial era. We have almost 40% of a doubling. On the logrithmic scale, this means that we should have half of the temperature effect of one CO2 doubling. This means that a doubling would get us about 1.6C. But the .8C that we already have was effected by coming out of an little ice age, a strengthening in solar activity, as well as PDO effects in the most recent years. So we can probably only attribute a portion of that .8C to CO2 increase. Emperically, this would indicate that the effect of a CO2 doubling is much less than 1.6C.

  17. #17 Tilo
    October 26, 2008

    “This is not actually a big surprise. In fact, it is completely in line with model expectations that CO2 dominated forcing will have a disproportionately large effect in the north.”

    This doesn’t make sense to me Coby. CO2 being a well mixed gas, we would expect CO2 in the southern hemisphere to increase just as it does in the northern hemisphere. While there may be a time lag in getting it to reach the same levels as the northern hemisphere, the CO2 trend that has been going on for the last 100 years should be reflected by a similar – if slightly lagged – trend in the southern hemisphere. But even with that lag, the CO2 in the southern hemisphere is steadily increasing. So I don’t see how you can say that an increase in the sea ice there is consistent with models or with CO2 warming theory.

  18. #18 Tilo
    October 26, 2008

    By the way Coby, in light of this article, would you like to reconsider what was said by some scientists about the expected 2008 Arctic ice melt.

    (CNN) — The North Pole may be briefly ice-free by September as global warming melts away Arctic sea ice, according to scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

    “We kind of have an informal betting pool going around in our center and that betting pool is ‘does the North Pole melt out this summer?’ and it may well,” said the center’s senior research scientist, Mark Serreze.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/06/27/north.pole.melting/index.html

  19. #19 Arie Brand
    October 27, 2008

    Thanks Makron.

    Tilo I am puzzled by your statement; “If the warmers cannot explain why there has been no warming for the last 11 years, during which we have had significant rise in CO2 -” etc.

    This is what the World Meteorological organisation info note of the 4th of April of this year said:

    “The long-term upward trend of global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is continuing. Global temperatures in 2008 are expected to be above the long-term average. The decade from 1998 to 2007 has been the warmest on record, and the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C since the beginning of the 20th Century. […] For detecting climate change you should not look at any particular year, but instead examine the trends over a sufficiently long period of time. The current trend of temperature globally is very much indicative of warming, World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General, Mr Michel Jarraud said in response to media inquiries on current temperature anomalies.

    “La Nia modulates climate variability. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change in the present context is that the trend is still upwards; the global climate on an average is warming despite the temporary cooling brought about by La Nia.”

    And here is a quote from the summary of a NASA-report:

    The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2C above the prior record with the help of the El Nio of the century. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Nio-La Nia cycle.

    They are wrong – are they. Anyway if you mean what you say James of “James’Empty Blog” will no doubt be willing to enter into a bet with you.

  20. #20 paul
    October 27, 2008

    Arie – I think it would help the debate if you were clear about what issue you are aiming to argue for here ie. is it that in the title of this post?

    The first paragraph you quote does not really have a point or make an argument of any kind, it is just an unordered list of assertions.

    The second is a little less obviously sloppy, except where it says “The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy…” which is in direct conflict with, erm, the first paragraph which says “For detecting climate change you should not look at any particular year, but instead examine the trends over a sufficiently long period of time.”

    This is not semantics, this lack of precision and desire to have it both ways is one of the fundamental problems here. Tilo in fact said before your post – “When it is to their benefit, they are very willing to use short term or single year events.”.

    Anyway, aside from that, even if one were to concede to you all the points made in those two paragraphs (which I most certainly do not), explain to me how they mean that human generated CO2 is the CAUSE of this upward warming trend?

    And, while i’m here, this CO2 induced upward trend I keep hearing so much about is – well, what exactly? It does not include the pre-war period, as we all agree that only 20% or so of the human CO2 had been released then. It doesn’t include the, er, drop from WW2 up to the mid 1970s. It doesn’t include the levelling off of the last 10 years. So, it is the period from mid-to-late 1970s to 1998. Not even 30 years – the magic climate change number I keep having quoted to me.

    Sorry, I just don’t understand where this certainly comes from. Tilo is right – how can anyone be so utterly certain about a future rise if the recent slight fall in temperatures cannot be explained at all, even with the benefit of hindsight?

  21. #21 coby
    October 27, 2008

    Tilo said: “By the way Coby, in light of this article, would you like to reconsider what was said by some scientists about the expected 2008 Arctic ice melt.”

    I don’t see what is the problem. If the weatherman says “50% chance of rain tomorrow” and it doesn’t rain, was he wrong? Does that require chastisment or a retraction? (The answer is “no”). A sensationalized opinion written up in a newspaper is not a refutation of the unassailable fact that individual data points can redefine a trend.

    Also for Tilo:

    “This is not actually a big surprise. In fact, it is completely in line with model expectations that CO2 dominated forcing will have a disproportionately large effect in the north.”

    This doesn’t make sense to me Coby. CO2 being a well mixed gas, we would expect CO2 in the southern hemisphere to increase just as it does in the northern hemisphere.

    You are conflating the presence of CO2 with the response. Yes CO2 is well mixed and the S.H. concentrations only lag by a few years, but it is the climate’s response to this forcing that is disproportionate (due to all of the reason stated in that article)

    (and BTW, in pointing out a drop over the last year, I was referring to the Ant. seaice trend depicted here, I don’t know why there would be a difference from your source, but yours seems to only be a seasonal dataset anyway..?)

  22. #22 Arie Brand
    October 27, 2008

    For Paul:

    Arie – I think it would help the debate if you were clear about what issue you are aiming to argue for here ie. is it that in the title of this post?

    I thought I had made it clear that I was querying Tilos assertion that the climate has stopped warming over the last 11 years. As to the wider issue (the question whether human generated CO2 has been the cause of this upward warming trend) I thought that Coby defended that proposition pretty well. Long existing theory in physics would make you expect this effect of CO2 anyway, there are no other credible candidates for the warming trend and, equally, there are no other credible candidates for the increase in CO2 other than human activities. If you have difficulties with this form of argument (argumentum per eliminationem) you should take this up with Coby not with me.

    The first paragraph you quote does not really have a point or make an argument of any kind, it is just an unordered list of assertions.

    The lack of order might be in the mind of the beholder. To me the statements there seemed to be in direct contradiction to what Tilo was claiming. Incidentally, Tilo claims that when he put the question re the (alleged) non-warming to Gavin Schmidt he ran away from it. I would be grateful to be told where I can find evidence for this.

    The second is a little less obviously sloppy,

    I am glad you gave that red schoolmasters pencil some rest there. . .

    except where it says “The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy…” which is in direct conflict with, erm, the first paragraph which says “For detecting climate change you should not look at any particular year, but instead examine the trends over a sufficiently long period of time.”

    I dont see the contradiction. It is not claimed that the record for 2007 establishes a trend. It could be that the authors found it noteworthy because it is in direct contradiction to what some people have been saying about the global temperature in recent years, including this particular year.

    This is not semantics, this lack of precision and desire to have it both ways is one of the fundamental problems here. Tilo in fact said before your post – “When it is to their benefit, they are very willing to use short term or single year events.”.
    Anyway, aside from that, even if one were to concede to you all the points made in those two paragraphs (which I most certainly do not), explain to me how they mean that human generated CO2 is the CAUSE of this upward warming trend?

    See above.

    And, while i’m here, this CO2 induced upward trend I keep hearing so much about is – well, what exactly? It does not include the pre-war period, as we all agree that only 20% or so of the human CO2 had been released then. It doesn’t include the, er, drop from WW2 up to the mid 1970s. It doesn’t include the levelling off of the last 10 years. So, it is the period from mid-to-late 1970s to 1998. Not even 30 years – the magic climate change number I keep having quoted to me.

    That depends on the graph you are looking at. When I can give credence to the one to be found at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/langswitch_lang/sw#more-564 it looks as if the temperatureline between 1950 and the early sixties was fairly flat and that after that it went unmistakably upward.

    Sorry, I just don’t understand where this certainly comes from. Tilo is right – how can anyone be so utterly certain about a future rise if the recent slight fall in temperatures cannot be explained at all, even with the benefit of hindsight?

    Who speaks about certainty? Once the role of CO2 in warming is acknowledged (even if it is only responsible for 1/3 of the temperature rise as some claim) there is a strong expectation that temperatures will rise because one can be pretty sure that human activities over the next few decades will keep increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. But many other factors can come in between. We are merely talking, it seems to me, about probabilities here but probabilities strong enough to inspire political action. In the country where I originally come from (Holland), for instance, they just cannot afford to wait for certainty, for obvious reasons.

  23. #23 paul
    October 28, 2008

    So there are 3 points fundamental points:
    – is there a warming trend
    – are the temperatures for the last 10 years or so going up or are they level-ish
    – is CO2 causing this upward trend (if it exists).
    I know that the statements there seemed to be in direct contradiction to what Tilo was claiming, but there is some difference between stating an argument and making it. Quoting someone else who thinks what you think is not going to persuade me.
    I thought I had made it clear that I was querying Tilos assertion that the climate has stopped warming over the last 11 years.
    Forgive me, but Im still not clear. If I understand, youre not allowed to establish a trend in one year, but you are allowed to say a year is noteworthy. Ok. Then you are presumably allowed to say that activity from 8-10 years is highly noteworthy, if still not a trend (whatever that is). This is exactly what I think – I suggest that average global temperatures being statistically indistinguishable from each other over the last 8-10 years is highly noteworthy. You appear to think otherwise, that in fact the global temperatures have been rising over the past 8-10 years.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/another-global-temp-index-dives-in-jan08-this-time-hadcrut/
    Is what you think? I cant see how you can maintain this.
    Or when you say that the climate has stopped warming, do you mean that you agree that the temperature has stayed basically constant but that the trend is upwards, even if the actual temperature is not. Ok, then Im just asking you what the trend is, how you know it is going to continue going up AND that this going up (if it exists) is due to human CO2. So lets get onto that.
    I accept you were not really answering the Is human CO2 CAUSING warming question from the title of this post you consider cobys post, plus long existing physics, plus there being no other credible alternatives, to mean that there is no point in even aiming to defend this yourself here, it has been proved. Fair enough, you cant do everything in every post. But later you respond to my charge that you are certain as I think your argument above suggests that you think you are by saying We are merely talking, it seems to me, about probabilities. So, are you saying that you are certain that global warming is caused by human generated CO2, in which case what probabilities are you speaking of? Or are you saying that you are certain that it is probably generated by human CO2 – in which case, there must be other credible (ie. possible) explanations? What are the probabilities of these alternatives? Which of these is it?
    So what is this trend you speak of? You attack my contention that the global temperature dropped mid-century. Youre the first person Ive come across that denied the existence of this drop. It didnt drop massively, but it did drop though. Your proof that Im wrong is to show me a figure which plots the global mean temperature anomaly for 55 individual realizations of the 20th Century and their continuation for the 21st Century following the SRES A1B scenario. This is not the global temperature. We at least agree that it depends on the graph you are looking at it certainly does help if you look at one plotting the data under discussion, and not a totally different graph showing the average of 55 model outputs.
    My claim stands. I dont see this trend I keep hearing about it is nothing more than a rise in temperature from mid 1970s to 1998 (to be charitable). Not even 30 years the magic figure I keep hearing that defines a trend. What evidence is there that this had anything whatsoever to do with human CO2 and that it will continue? Please note that a response of there are no credible alternatives will not be responded to, so we must agree to disagree that this is not sufficient.

  24. #24 Arie Brand
    October 28, 2008

    �Quoting someone else who thinks what you think is not going to persuade me�.

    The World Meteorological Organisation and NASA are not just �someone else�. What do you want me to do? Provide you with the data of that weather station in my own backyard? I am not a climatologist (neither are you I think) but having worked for many years in academe in some other discipline has given me a fairly good nose for the difference between serious stuff and bs.

    �So what is this trend you speak of? You attack my contention that the global temperature dropped mid-century. ..�

    I did no such thing. Look again.I am familiar with the explanation that round about that time the effect of CO2 was offset by that of manmade aerosols.

    As to the trend: Tamino has beautifully plotted it in a post of 31st August last year. See: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/ . To me this is serious stuff.If you want to attack it you have to either take issue with his data (taken from NASA GISS and HadCRU)or the way he has plotted them or both.

    � � in which case what probabilities are you speaking of?�

    Here again I must rely on what serious and obviously knowledgeable people outside my own discipline tell me. James Annan (of �James Empty Blog� ) is for me such a person. He came up with six posts on �probability� in this matter. The last one has the address: http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/02/probability-prediction-and_18.html I hope it works.

    I want to quote one passage from it because it has something to do with the trend:

    �When the models fail to reproduce the data, of course it calls their validity into question – at least, it does if the data are reliable. A striking example of models teaching us about reality is in the recent resolution of the tropospheric data/model incompatibility in favour of the models (OK, I’m over-egging things a little perhaps). Looking back over the longer scale, we have Hansen’s famous forecast from 1988, which has proved to be spot on over the subsequent 17 years (this was written midway 2006. A.B.). In fact, the simplicity of the physics means that one thing we really can forecast quite confidently is a continued global warming in coming decades: the IPCC TAR said it was likely to continue at 0.1-0.2C/decade for several decades to come, and although this perhaps could be nudged marginally higher (we are getting close to the 0.2 limit), it won’t be far wrong.�

    Mind that phrase �the simplicity of the physics�. Too simple for you?

    Whatever is the case this is my last post to you.

    http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/02/probability-prediction-and_18.html

  25. #25 Arie Brand
    October 29, 2008

    Quoting someone else who thinks what you think is not going to persuade me.

    The World Meteorological Organisation and NASA are not just someone else. What do you want me to do? Provide you with the data of that weather station in my own backyard? I am not a climatologist (neither are you I think) but having worked for many years in academe in some other discipline has given me a fairly good nose for the difference between serious stuff and bs.

    So what is this trend you speak of? You attack my contention that the global temperature dropped mid-century. ..

    I did no such thing. Look again. As to the trend: Tamino has beautifully plotted it in a post of 31st August last year. See: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/ . To me this is serious stuff.

    in which case what probabilities are you speaking of?

    Here again I must rely on what serious and obviously knowledgeable people outside my own discipline tell me. James Annan (of James Empty Blog ) is for me such a person. He came up with six posts on probability in this matter. The last one has the address: http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/02/probability-prediction-and_18.html I hope it works.

    I want to quote one passage from it because it has something to do with the trend:

    When the models fail to reproduce the data, of course it calls their validity into question – at least, it does if the data are reliable. A striking example of models teaching us about reality is in the recent resolution of the tropospheric data/model incompatibility in favour of the models (OK, I’m over-egging things a little perhaps). Looking back over the longer scale, we have Hansen’s famous forecast from 1988, which has proved to be spot on over the subsequent 17 years. In fact, the simplicity of the physics means that one thing we really can forecast quite confidently is a continued global warming in coming decades: the IPCC TAR said it was likely to continue at 0.1-0.2C/decade for several decades to come, and although this perhaps could be nudged marginally higher (we are getting close to the 0.2 limit), it won’t be far wrong.

    Mind that phrase the simplicity of the physics. Too simple for you?

    And this is my last post to you.

    Quoting someone else who thinks what you think is not going to persuade me.

    The World Meteorological Organisation and NASA are not just someone else. What do you want me to do? Provide you with the data of that weather station in my own backyard? I am not a climatologist (neither are you I think) but having worked for many years in academe in some other discipline has given me a fairly good nose for the difference between serious stuff and bs.

    So what is this trend you speak of? You attack my contention that the global temperature dropped mid-century. ..

    I did no such thing. Look again. As to the trend: Tamino has beautifully plotted it in a post of 31st August last year. See: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/ . To me this is serious stuff.

    in which case what probabilities are you speaking of?

    Here again I must rely on what serious and obviously knowledgeable people outside my own discipline tell me. James Annan (of James Empty Blog ) is for me such a person. He came up with six posts on probability in this matter. The last one has the address: http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/02/probability-prediction-and_18.html I hope it works.

    I want to quote one passage from it because it has something to do with the trend:

    When the models fail to reproduce the data, of course it calls their validity into question – at least, it does if the data are reliable. A striking example of models teaching us about reality is in the recent resolution of the tropospheric data/model incompatibility in favour of the models (OK, I’m over-egging things a little perhaps). Looking back over the longer scale, we have Hansen’s famous forecast from 1988, which has proved to be spot on over the subsequent 17 years. In fact, the simplicity of the physics means that one thing we really can forecast quite confidently is a continued global warming in coming decades: the IPCC TAR said it was likely to continue at 0.1-0.2C/decade for several decades to come, and although this perhaps could be nudged marginally higher (we are getting close to the 0.2 limit), it won’t be far wrong.

    Mind that phrase the simplicity of the physics.

    And this is my last post to you.

  26. #26 Tilo
    October 29, 2008

    Arie:

    My apologies for taking so long to respond. I’ve been a little pressed for time lately. I will try to answer you questions, but it may take more than one post.

    Okay, first you want to know why I believe that we have had no warming for the last 11 years.

    Here is my plot of the data.

    http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/10/updated-11-year-global-temp-anomoly.html

    I’ve updated it to the most current month. Double click to see a larger image. Now you may believe that I have manipulated this data for my own purposes, but I can reassure you fairly easily. This data is monthly data from Oct 97 to Sept 08 – or 11 years. There is nothing magical about the chart. I simply went to the RSS, UAH, HadCrut, and GISS sites, got their raw data, put it in Excel, told Excel to plot it, and told Excel to run a linear regression line through all of the data sets. If you want to verify this by reporducing your own chart, let me know and I will give you a few more specifics. It’s easy.

    As you can see, three of the data sets trend slightly down, and only James Hansen’s GISS data trends up. According to the IPCC, we should get about .22C of warming over an 11 year period. Only Hansen has any warming, and his is still only half of the IPCC projected warming. The other three differ from the IPCC projection by more than .22C.

    Now, my statement that the 11 year temp trend is flat basically throws out Hansen’s data set. I consider his data as divergent and as an outlier. Also, given Hansen’s heavy adjustment of the data, the inexplicability of some of his adjustments, and his clearly emotional connection to the warming cause, I’m simply not ready to trust his data set. By the way, it’s interesting to note that in the 80s and 90s, while global temp was going up, Hansen’s data did not diverge from the others. All that said, even if you averaged Hansen’s data in with the other three, you would still be close to flat.

    Now as you would expect, the warmers have tried to explain what you are looking at; and the explanation is basically this – a strong El Nino at the front of the period raises the trend line starting point up, and a La Nina at the end of the period pulls the end of the trend line down. Therefore, those two events yield an unrepresentative trend line.

    But unfortunately their explanation will not hold water. The period that we are looking at actually contained 7 ENSO events. There were 4 El Nino’s and 3 La Nina’s. Here is the NOAA chart where you can look that up.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

    I tried to hack out a method for myself to determine what effect these seven ENSO events had. The result of my effort is here.

    http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/05/ten-year-hadcrut3-enso-effects.html

    Using my method I ended up with a conclusion that after the ENSO events had been accounted for, there would still be a tiny negative bias to the trend line. But basically I considered it still to be flat.

    A little later, Gavin Schmidt, employed a paper that had been published by one of his fellow scientists, and that contained a formula for removing ENSO effects, to produce his own ENSO corrected data set. Gavin did not publish a graph of his results, his simply told the people at realclimate that the corrected trend still showed warming. Since Gavin gave a link to the data set, I decided to get that data set, and plot it against the uncorrected data. By the way, the correction that he made was to the HadCrut3 data. Here is the result of Gavin’s data versus the uncorrected data.

    http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/07/gavin-schmidt-enso-adjustment-for.html

    As you can see, there is a positive bias to the adjusted data, but it is so small that I will still call the trend flat. Note, Gavin only produced 10 years of data, so that is what I used.

    The other argument that swirls around this plot concerns the warmers assertion that 30 years of data are required to show a trend. Since they have a sweet spot that consists of 30 years, they particularly like that number. But I would like to note 3 things in regards to that. First, Schmidt and Hansen together have published a paper and drawn conclusions that were based exclusively on 10 years of ocean warming data. Second, the variability of the data that explains the need for 30 years of the stuff is suppose to be noise. Note that all of the data sets that I presented zig and zag together. Even if the data gathering method is completely independent. And lastly, trends are generally defined by a linear regression trend line. This line is, of course, allways a straight line. So let’s take an extreme example to make my point. Let’s say that you have 30 years of data. Let’s say that for the first two years of that data it got warmer. Then let’s say that for the last 28 years, the data was absolutley flat – no warming at all. Then if you draw a trend line through all 30 years, you will get a warming trend line. So by declaring that you have had 30 years of warming, you will have completely missed the point that there wasn’t any for 28 years.

    Okay, that’s a start. Right now my job calls, so I’ll have to continue this later. Hopefully you understand why I am saying that there has been no warming for the last 11 years.

  27. #27 Arie Brand
    October 29, 2008

    Coby, my last answer to Paul was posted almost a day ago. Did it get in your spam file?

    [sorry, yes it did! Don’t hesitate to let me know right away, there is no moderation here at the moment so if it doen’t show, it got caught
    — coby]

  28. #28 Arie Brand
    October 29, 2008

    Quoting someone else who thinks what you think is not going to persuade me.

    The World Meteorological Organisation and NASA are not just someone else. What do you want me to do? Provide you with the data of that weather station in my own backyard? I am not a climatologist (neither are you I think) but having worked for many years in academe in some other discipline has given me a fairly good nose for the difference between serious stuff and bs.

    So what is this trend you speak of? You attack my contention that the global temperature dropped mid-century. ..

    I did no such thing. Look again. As to the trend: Tamino has beautifully plotted it in a post of 31st August last year. See: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/ . To me this is serious stuff.

    in which case what probabilities are you speaking of?

    Here again I must rely on what serious and obviously knowledgeable people outside my own discipline tell me. James Annan (of James Empty Blog ) is for me such a person. He came up with six posts on probability in this matter. The last one has the address: http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/02/probability-prediction-and_18.html I hope it works.

    I want to quote one passage from it because it has something to do with the trend:

    When the models fail to reproduce the data, of course it calls their validity into question – at least, it does if the data are reliable. A striking example of models teaching us about reality is in the recent resolution of the tropospheric data/model incompatibility in favour of the models (OK, I’m over-egging things a little perhaps). Looking back over the longer scale, we have Hansen’s famous forecast from 1988, which has proved to be spot on over the subsequent 17 years. In fact, the simplicity of the physics means that one thing we really can forecast quite confidently is a continued global warming in coming decades: the IPCC TAR said it was likely to continue at 0.1-0.2C/decade for several decades to come, and although this perhaps could be nudged marginally higher (we are getting close to the 0.2 limit), it won’t be far wrong.

    Mind that phrase the simplicity of the physics. Too simple for you?

    And this is my last post to you.

  29. #29 retired ChE
    October 29, 2008

    One problem I have with this global warming issue is that it seems to be splitting hair with an ax when you are
    talking tenths of a degree C. Anthony Watts has shown that at least half the measuring stations in the USA are sited in such a way that they will be affected more than that by such things as placing them next to an air conditioner exhaust, on top of an asphalt roof, etc. Then the readings are rounded off to the nearest degree F, then converted to tenths of a degree C, and further manipulated. A lab worker who was supposed to furnish engineering data on boiling points, enthalpies, etc. for design purposes in such a sloppy way would be fired. There is apparently no government effort to evaluate the sites and correct their problems. That is the first thing that ought to be done before any manipulation of data and development of models!

  30. #30 Tilo
    October 29, 2008

    Arie:
    “I want to quote one passage from it because it has something to do with the trend:”

    James Annan:
    “Looking back over the longer scale, we have Hansen’s famous forecast from 1988, which has proved to be spot on over the subsequent 17 years.”

    Unfortunately, James was wrong and Hansen’s forcast isn’t so wonderful after all. Hansen presented three scenarios for future climate change in 1988. In his most optimistic scenario the level of CO2 would stop rising around the year 2000. As it turns out, CO2 has been pouring into the atmosphere ever since and the level has risen significantly since 2000. And yet the global temperature is currently well below what Hansen predicted we would have if we stopped adding CO2 in 2000. And his business as usual scenario – which is in fact what happened – is hugely out of bed. If you look further through Annan’s blog, you will see that he is no longer arguing in 2008 that Hansen’s prediction is “spot on”, but rather he is trying to show that Hansen’s prediction has not been falsified if you use large enough error bands. So now he wants the three scenarios plus the error bands for each of those scenarios.

    A good discussion on Hansen’s 1988 prediction can be found here:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2602

    Lucia Liljgren over at The Blackboard likes to work with statistics, and she has done several posts showing that many of the model predictions that have been used by the IPCC have been falsified. Here is her site.

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/

    I haven’t bookmaked any of the relevant articles, so you will have to rummage about.

  31. #31 paul
    October 30, 2008

    Ok Arie, if you wont play with me fine Im much more looking forward to your response to Tilo anyway.

    Ill look againoh, youre right, you didnt really say that. Fair enough. Makes no difference to me the facts of my case speak for themselves. When I make an error, Im more than happy to concede, I dont try to wriggle out of everything.

    Discussion of things in this fashion where you pick sentences and answer them individually with sarcy comments is a lot of fun, but it is very limited, and its easy to drift from the point and just start sniping.

    I tried to come back to the point my making 3 clear points but you ignored this and decided only to snipe instead. Youve not stated clearly, still, whether you think the temperatures of the last 11 years are going up or not. Youve not stated clearly whether you think such a levelling off would be significant (or noteworthy) or made the case that this is real but a temporary suspension of an overall trend, say by defining what trend might be and quoting some figures. Youve not provided any of the reasons you personally think that the rise I point out is due to human generated CO2 youve asserted that you have a good nose for finding bs, but not actually stated where this is.

    Youre argument is nothing more than because people from NASA and WMO say it, it must be true. This is like quoting the pope to an atheist I dont agree with the point whether you or they say it, and you know there are respected people in the field who disagree with these conclusions so I could just as easily quote them back. And I dont need to rely on what James Annan says about probability I can do my own analysis of the squirming done to hold on to the models, despite their predictions being simply awful.

  32. #32 Tilo
    October 30, 2008

    Arie:
    I wanted to answer a few of the questions that I left unsanswered in my previous post. You can find the discussion with Gavin Schmidt here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/page/2/index.php?p=577#comment-92337

    My first post is at 128. Follow up posts, including responses are scattered through the rest of the thread.

    Note: my essential question that was never answered was this:

    “So then comes the next question. If the decadal warming trend caused by CO2 is .2C, and if ENSO is now adjusted for, then where is the other .187 C of temperature rise? If we are going to attribute the flat trend to elements of natural variation, and if we have already accounted for ENSO, then to what elements of natural variation can we attribute the flat trend for the last decade?”

    You will see that Gavin addresses my entries on several occasions. But it’s always an attempt to steer the conversation in another direction. He never actually tackles my question. Finally, Tamino does one of his pieces of statistical sophistry, claiming, basically, that you can’t trust your lying eyes and that even if the trend is flat it is still “consisten with” AGW predictions. I answered Tamino, giving my objections to his reasoning, but as Realclimate always does when they are in a fix, they didn’t put up my post, thereby giving their view the last word.

    Concerning a bet with James Annan, I actually offered James a bet a few month ago. I offered to bet him 10,000 dollars on the IPCC temperature projections. So if the temperature rose .2C or more per decade between 2000 and 2030 I would pay him 10,000. If not, he would pay me 10,000. If the IPCC is right, this would be a 50/50 bet for both of us. My main objective was to see if a climate scientist would actually have the integrity to stand behind their believes. It was not to make money, and with a 50/50 bet, Annan might not make it either. Of course Annan wouldn’t take the bet. In fact, he wouldn’t even make a counter offer, claiming that it was not his number. I would probably have accepted an ajustment that gave him a minor edge, but there was no offer. Instead, Annan said that he was working on his own climate sensitivity number. I told him that I would wait to see it, and that I would probably make him a bet at that time. So far James hasn’t produced a new number. Or at least he hasn’t produced one that he would be willing to publish, given funding concerns.

    Rummage about James’ site about 2 or 3 month ago and you should find the offer for a bet from me.

    Concerning your other quotes that I haven’t responed to yet:

    “the global climate on an average is warming despite the temporary cooling brought about by La Nia.”

    I think that I have already shown that the leveling of temperatures for the past 11 years is not at all related to a singe La Nina.

    The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis.”

    This is a perfect example of the warmers being willing to exploit single year events when it suits their purpose – as is the meltoff of 2007. Beyond that, the “second warmest” is only applicable to the GISS record. The HadCrut3 record, the UAH record, and the RSS record don’t have it anywhere near that position. It was real more around 7th or 8th. Hansen feels that he needs to fuel the AGW fire by constantly feeding it alarmist reports. In any case, it is irrelevant. Once you reach the top of the mountain and start down, for your first few steps you will still be able to say that you are still near the top of the mountain. But that doesn’t mean that you are still climbing.

  33. #33 Arie Brand
    November 1, 2008

    Tilo, I can’t find your post about that bet offer on James Annan’s blog. Can’t you provide a more precise indication? I would like to see his side of the story.

    Also why did you attempt to put your objections to Tamino’s ‘statistical sophistry’ on Realclimate (where, you claim, that your post was suppressed). Why didn’t you attempt to get it posted on Tamino’s blog?

    I still would like to have a more precise indication of the places where Gavin Schmidt allegedly evaded your question.

  34. #34 Arie Brand
    November 1, 2008

    Tilo, I can’t find your bet offer on James Annan’s blog.Can’t you give a more precise indication? I would like to see his side of the story.

    Also, why did you try to put your objections against Tamino’s piece of ‘statistical sophistry’ on Realclimate (where you claim that your post was suppressed). Why didn’t you put it on Tamino’s blog?

    Also, I still would like a more precise indication of the places on Realclimate where you claim that Gavin Schmidt evaded your question.

    Just checking.

  35. #35 Tilo
    November 1, 2008

    Arie:
    “Tilo, I can’t find your post about that bet offer on James Annan’s blog. Can’t you provide a more precise indication? I would like to see his side of the story.”

    Try the thread called “Are you avin a laff” in May.

    “Also, why did you try to put your objections against Tamino’s piece of ‘statistical sophistry’ on Realclimate (where you claim that your post was suppressed). Why didn’t you put it on Tamino’s blog?”

    Because Tamino’s response to the issue was on Realclimate.

    “Also, I still would like a more precise indication of the places on Realclimate where you claim that Gavin Schmidt evaded your question.”

    I think I gave you a pretty good pointer. All you have to do is go down the thread. I’m not going to cut it all out and past it over here. But don’t you think that these are secondary sparing issues compared to more important things like no warming for the last 11 years.

  36. #36 Nathan
    November 3, 2008

    Just because the amount of C02 in the atmosphere has risen doesn’t mean it is caused by humans. Humans only emmit 3% of C02 emissions, the Earth the other 97%. As the Earth warms, oceans emmit more Carbon Dioxide, and therefore the amount increases.

    It should be said that, “Temperature is the cause of high C02″.

  37. #37 coby
    November 3, 2008

    Hi Nathan,

    Please refer to this article about the source of the CO2 rise. There is no serious or credible person who denies that the CO2 rise is from anthropogenic sources.

  38. #38 paul
    November 7, 2008

    So Arie – it seems you’re less interested in discussion than in simply telling people what is and isn’t true. Or are you going to answer Tilo? It took me no noticable time to track the links he provided. The question Tilo puts seems perfectly reasonable to me – I’ve looked for months now and cannot find an answer to that question anywhere. If you have one, or an answer as to why it is not reasonable, I’m all ears.

    This site would be a lot more useful – and it is useful, not least because Coby does at least allow the comments up regardless ie. not moderate those that disagree, like one well-known website I could mention – if you were interested in answering questions put to you and not evading them.

  39. #39 Arie Brand
    November 8, 2008
  40. #40 paul
    November 12, 2008

    Tilo never “came up with” anything. He asked you what effect accounts for the 0.18 degree discrepancy. It appears you don’t know.

    He asked Gavin Schmidt too. The response was:

    Response: This is nonsense. The idea that ENSO is the only kind of intrinsic variability is silly. Look out of your window – and see planetary waves (of various wavenumber), the Madden-Julien oscillations, the NAO, the PDO, the PNA, the SAM, COWL, baroclinic instability, African waves, Antarctic dipoles etc etc. There is no shortage of variability in short term records. What would meteorologists have to talk about otherwise? – gavin

    So he states that there is piles of variability in the short term records he has named 11 possible sources of some or all of this 0.187 degrees. He has no idea exactly which ones were responsible though (or he would have said).

    This statement is just jump-out-of-the-page ludicrous to me it would make more sense as a response from a climate change skeptic. Who is to say some other unnamed combination of this laundry list of effects was not responsible for the 1975-1995 rise? What would be the answer to this? What COULD be the answer to this? Maybe, if you pick a 30 year trend, all these short-term effects cancel out to 0 and what is left is CO2 forcings? Does anyone have an answer to this?

    The point is, you cant say that you are sure that effect XYZ of these 11 was not responsible for the 1975-1995 rise while at the same time say you dont know where the missing 0.18 degrees is, or certainly not without some exceptional reason. Ok, one period is 10 years and one is 20 but these are conservative. Maybe one is only 18 and the latter more like 13 now. Either way, does anyone think the difference between the 10 and 20 years is the answer here?

    To repeat – Who is to say some other unnamed combination of this laundry list of effects was not responsible for the 1975-1995 rise?

  41. #41 coby
    November 12, 2008

    “Who is to say some other unnamed combination of this laundry list of effects was not responsible for the 1975-1995 rise?”

    There is a great deal more significance in a 20 year climbing trend than there is in a 6 or so year stasis. People are constantly investigating these things you know, it is not enough to throw your own hands in the air and complain about how complicated it is.

    Not even the `skeptic` climate scientists that do exist in extremely limited numbers claim natural variability for the late 20th century rise.

  42. #42 paul
    November 12, 2008

    Whoa. Who exactly was saying how complicated it is? I was going on what Gavin Schmidt said – I quoted exactly what he said. He basically said that there are lots of things the 6-8-10-12 whatever year stasis could be due to, it is just too short a time to be able to say.

    But things suddenly get much simpler when you get to 20 years it appears. None of these effects are worth considering, the only thing it could possibly be is CO2. This is your view, is it not?

    I’m not denying that the stats are more favourable for the 20 year rise, because they clearly are. But “more favourable than some alternative scenario” is not “true”.

    And on the basis of your argument ie. it’s in the stats, if there was 20 years of stasis, you’d chuck out AGW theory. And so then you should be getting gradually less sure of your theory each year of stasis? Can you confirm this, that you are less sure about it than you were a year ago?

    Also, you have consistently said that 30 years is the magic number for climate changes. Yet you just referred to the 20 year rise as a trend. Is a trend something that indicates a fundamental shift in climate that rises beyond short term variation? How long does it have to be? if you insist on using this word, can you please state in clear english what exactly a trend is?

  43. #43 bryanwolbley
    June 25, 2009

    The talk about twenty year period with overall increase and writeoff of six year period of stasis as being noise sounds like selection bias. We need to explain all major patterns in the hypothesis otherwise we don’t understand it. Let’s be intellectually honest about this. There is sufficient ill explained data at this time that says we have not demonstrated the model hypothesis. This is just observation not skeptcis. If my car stops working when the gas dial said zero there is a cause to think it is out of gas or there may be other causes. Some people question why others will use instances to say that they have confirmed prior beliefs.

  44. #44 brianwolbley
    June 25, 2009

    The historical data in IPCC quoted by everyone else are not explained. The issue is using engineering stochastic models to make 100 year projections IIASA, Merge Markal, Targets IMage Energy Regional simulation model: TIMER – MNP integrated assessment model; AIM; ASF; Message; Minicam; Maria; with versions having different functionality to address different characteristics of different scenarios. Arrhenius was wrong… he used the wrong spectral data in his analysis of atmospheric CO2; although the basic conclusions may hold the extent estimated is wrong. This talking is good, if there were not debate there would not be progress in understanding.

  45. #45 dhogaza
    June 26, 2009

    Let’s be intellectually honest about this.

    OK. Wake us up when you’re ready to be intellectually honest.

  46. #46 Adam
    June 26, 2009

    brianwobley –

    The talk about twenty year period with overall increase and writeoff of six year period of stasis as being noise sounds like selection bias.

    There’s no selection bias going on. Short periods of “stasis” are nothing unexpected or even new, as long as you cherry-pick the right dates.
    See: 1977 – 1985 or 1981 – 1989
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-climate-warming-or-cooling.html

    That’s why you need a long period to make an coherent statement about climate. Over the short term, you are discussing weather effects over a multi-year period, NOT climate.
    Read this for a more comprehensive, quantitative look this than my meager posting: http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/01/results-on-deciding-trends.html

    So, since we’re being intellectually honest and having a good open debate, I’m glad I could help point you in a direction for deeper understanding of the science.

  47. #47 pough
    June 26, 2009

    Another great post that shows the difference between 5, 10 and 15 years being used for spotting trends:

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/05/the_significance_of_5_year_tre.php

  48. #48 Richard
    June 26, 2009

    My comments at http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2009/06/from_a_failed_growth_economy_t.php went unanswered so I will repeat my questions here.

    I pointed out that the Global Temperature trend, (taken from NOAA), from 1880 to 2007 revealed an increasing temperature trend of 0.05C per decade. If Global temperatures were to rise by 3C as predicted by IPCC when CO2 levels reach 560 ppm, estimated in 83 years from now, the temperature rise should be of the order of 0.362 per decade, a 724% increase.

    To this Coby said “Why in the world would you start with 1880?” and “The rise is predicted to accelerate, and observed to be accelerating.”

  49. #49 Richard
    June 26, 2009

    Answer: “Because that is the start of actual measurement of global temperatures and also when we started loading CO2 into the atmosphere, and you, quite rightly, do object to short time periods like the last 10 years been taken. So I thought you might be happy if the trend of the longest recorded global temperatures be taken into account.

    The IPCC says “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is VERY LIKELY due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.”

    So I took the HADCRUT Annual Global temperatures data and I plotted the trend from 1950 to 2008. It came to 0.115 C per decade.

    ..looking at the (HADcrut) graph the temperature really seems to take off in 1976. There are two big sustained rises from 1911 to 1944 (for 33 years) and 1976 to 2008 (for32 years), in between (1880 to 1911 and 1944 to 1976) the temperature falls but not very uniformly.

    (UAH) Satellite temperature records are only available since 1979 and the trend from 1979 to 2008 shows a warming of only 0.128 per decade.

    (These I consider much more reliable because a) they cover the whole globe uniformly including the ocean b) they are are further confirmed independently by balloon atmospheric records and c) they further confirmed even by the HAdley records as they show the same yearly profile. Hadley and other land based records show greater trends probably due to heat island effect contamination, which has not been adequately filtered out, despite claims to the contrary).

    However even going by the HADcrut records – The rising trend from 1976 to 2008 comes to 0.169 C per decade and that between 1911 to 1944 comes to 0.161 C per decade.

    There doesn’t seem to be much of a trend difference between the time the IPCC says temperature changes were mostly natural and the time when they say they were mostly Anthropogenic. If about the same temperature rising trend can be caused naturally earlier why must we assume this same rise is not caused naturally later?

  50. #50 Richard
    June 26, 2009

    The article you referred me to says the oceans dampens the temperature change on land and lowers the global average trend. This maybe so but it doesn’t explain how an exactly similar warming trend to one that IPCC says is natural, can be distinguished from it and claimed to be Anthropogenic? How can the IPCC, on the face of this evidence, say that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is VERY LIKELY due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations?

    Also the article you refer me to says that CO2 is not the only factor effecting the global temperature Global Dimming is counteracting greenhouse gas warming. This again begs the same question as above.

    Also if Global Dimming or WHATEVER is counteracting CO2 then doesn’t it look like that there is a negative feedback for the CO2, cancelling out its effect, and not a positive one enhancing it as modelled by the IPCC?

    And how does this reconcile with your statement “The rise is predicted to accelerate, and observed to be accelerating.”?

  51. #51 Richard
    June 26, 2009

    In that post I had written : Leaving minor details aside – the basic prediction of the AGW hypothesis is that the rate of temperature rise should increase. In fact since 1998 there is no rising trend in the temperatures. For the UAH MSU temperatures plotted by me from Nov 1997 to May 2009, the trendline of the graph slopes slightly downwards indicating a slight cooling. How does that reconcile with accelerated warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis?

    [coby: you are analyzing weather, not climate. You are cherry picking start date (why not use all available data?).

    Just looking at the Greenland ice-core temperature / time graph over the last 10,000 years, the natural rate of rise of temperatures have equaled and surpassed the current rate of rise many, many times. If temperatures have risen (and fallen) naturally, at just the same rate or even more than those observed since 1880, how can it be stated that the temperature rise is due to Anthropogenic CO2 and is not natural?

    [coby again: the GIS ice core shows only the GIS temperatures, so alone does not reveal global temperature trends. The very large and rapid temperature changes you are referring to do not show up in the antarctic ice cores. They were not global changes.]

  52. #52 Richard
    June 26, 2009

    Answer: If that be so how do you classify the last centuries’ “Global Warming” as global warming? The “Global Temperatures” are again not reflected in the Antartic temperatures which show a very slight downward trend with not the variation of HADcrut or NOAA temperatures.

    Adam wrote “..that’s the point I was making ..In our relatively recent history, we’ve had a global climate that is very amenable to human civilization. Anything out of this narrow band would be bad news for us”

    I replied “IF that AGW hypothesis you believe in is true, we are unlikely to move out of that “narrow band” of temperatures that is very amenable to civilisation. Because thus sayeth IPCC: if CO2 levels are doubled from pre-industrial levels ie increase from 280 ppm to 560 ppm our temperatures will rise by (most likely) 3 C which is well within the “narrow band” of temperatures we have had in our “relatively recent history” (the last 10,000 years). During the Holocene Optimum it stayed about that or more for centuries and even thousands of years.”

    Coby said – This is false (do you have any reference to support it?). Please see this article.

    Answer – I have the GISP2 ice-core data before me, which clearly shows it. You can obtain the data and plot it yourself.

    The article you refer me to is based on another article whose authors are Dr. Keith R. Briffa, Dr. Phil D. Jones, Dr. Michael E. Mann, and Dr. Henry N. Pollack. They all contributed heavily to the IPCC report which produced the “Hockey Stick” as the Smoking Gun of Anthropogenic Warming and obliterated the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in one stroke. Forgive me if I am a little sceptical about it.

    This article also says “As an aside, it is worth noting that even if this time period had been as warm or warmer, it would do nothing to undermine the theories and data that indicate today’s warming is rapid and anthropogenic.”

    I am sorry but that is not true. That is why you deniers (deniers because you deny science and data and evidence) fight tooth and nail to dispute and deny any evidence to the contrary. Because if this were so then there is no reason to assume that the slight warming of the last century is anything other than natural.

  53. #53 dhogaza
    June 26, 2009

    If that be so how do you classify the last centuries’ “Global Warming” as global warming? The “Global Temperatures” are again not reflected in the Antartic temperatures which show a very slight downward trend with not the variation of HADcrut or NOAA temperatures.

    Someone who doesn’t understand that climate science doesn’t claim that every point on the globe will warm, but rather than there will be regions that cool as well as other that warm, and that global warming refers to the global *average*, is not likely to overturn the work of thousands of scientists in the field.

    I wish I owned a hay farm. There are so many denialists trolling this site, “disproving” climate science by demolishing strawmen, that I could make a fortune selling them the raw material used to build them.

  54. #54 Richard
    June 26, 2009

    Coby at #14 “The Antarctic sea ice trend is negligible.”

    I dont know what you mean by negligible. Here is the data from 1979 the year that satellite records started from the National Snow and Ice Data Centre:
    1. Jan 79 to Jan 2009 – increase of 2.6% per decade
    2. Feb 79 to Feb 2009 – increase of 2.8% per decade
    3. March 79 to March 2009 – increase of 4.7% per decade
    4. April 79 to April 2009 – increase of 3% per decade
    5. May 79 to May 2009 – increase of 2.1% per decade

    The Northern sea ice is trending down between 3.1 to 2.1% per decade but for all the months its been going up (not trending I know) but going up, for all the months since 2006

  55. #55 Richard
    June 26, 2009

    dhogaza you have completely missed my point (deliberately?). I am not claiming that all points on the Globe will warm at the same time – merely pointing out the very same argument Coby used to say that the Greenland ice core temperatures of the past didnt reflect a global phenomenon because it didnt show up in the Antarctic ice cores. It still doesnt today yet we accept that the Globe is warming. I do too (at least till 1998. Beyond that will be seen in the next 10-20 years). The point I have made, using temperature data, is that there is no evidence of this being due to anything but natural. No anthropogenic signature can be seen in the evidence.

  56. #56 dhogaza
    June 26, 2009

    No anthropogenic signature can be seen in the evidence.

    Stratospheric cooling.

    OK, enough of poor richard. Denialists exist to waste time, nothing more.

  57. #57 Richard
    June 26, 2009

    dhogaza I have used HADcrut land based data. The very same one quoted by Coby. Stratospheric cooling is not any part of my argument. You obviously haven’t read my posts above or fathomed the very simple reasoning used there. You have not addressed one single one of them. Only one strawman attack (accusing me of using one) and one other strawman attack. Please desist if that’s all you can say.

  58. #58 coby
    June 27, 2009

    Richard,

    You provide a lot of material, but not much reason for me to even read it, here’s why. In comment #48 you repeat your calculation about trends and you quote a question about it from me. But you left out the context of what you are trying to calculate (the expected effect of doubled CO2) and removed 3/4 of what I said, the part that specifically explained why your usage of the data was inappropriate (using temperature trends during a time of almost 0 CO2 forcing in 1880 to estimate the effect of doubled CO2).

    Unless and until you bring that context back and address my concerns I am not going to waste time jumping through your hops and running in circles. Perhaps then we can go one point at a time.

  59. #59 coby
    June 27, 2009

    Also this would be better done here: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2009/06/open_thread.php

    We can even start from the top if you want, but I will insist that we focus one issue at a time and I will not waste my time if you simply ignore my points.

    (another example of this is your continued citation of GIS ice core data to make global claims after I clearly pointed out the obvious fact that this is a regional temperature proxy, not a global one)

  60. #60 Richard
    June 27, 2009

    Ok Coby I will address your complete concern – the one about CO2 forcing and the inappropriateness or otherwise of taking certain trends, end points etc sometime later today as I have all the arguments and data. Just need to put it in a clear organised manner.

    I will address the issue of past temperatures, The Holocene Optimum and the Medieval Warm period and their significance later. In the meantime I apologise for making one incorrect statement. The GISP2 records dont show temperatures above 3C from today for the Holocene. But they do show temperatures 1C warmer for much of the time. 1.5C warmer for a significant amount of the time and even 2C warmer for centuries. The mistake arose because I plotted the Vostok and GISP2 curves together and estimated the height of the GISP2 curve from there. I now have a accurate picture with the separate GISP2 curves magnified over shorter time periods.

  61. #61 crakar14
    June 28, 2009

    I posted something last Thursday and have been away since then and cannot find my post (maybe it did not get published, not sure) so if you have replied i appologies but here it is again.

    I would like to borrow a quote from Micheal Hauber Post #11 “open forum” minus the sarcasm

    “The reduction in sea ice in the Arctic does not by itself prove AGW. Therefore it is not evidence for AGW.

    Repeat for every other piece of evidence for AGW (does anyone one know of one single piece of evidence that in isolation can prove AGW??). Therefore every other piece of evidence for AGW is not evidence for AGW.

    Therfore there is no evidence of AGW.”

    I think i can help, now lets break down the case for human caused global warming logically:

    1, There is plenty of evidence that global warming has been occuring recently.

    2, There is ample evidence that carbon emissions (as a no feedback warming)causes warming and that the level of atmospheric CO2 is increasing.

    3, But there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the main cause of the recent global warming.

    Point 3 is what the debate is all about.

    The alarmists focus entirely on the first two points in an effort to distract from the third. Yes every molecule of CO2 causes some warming but the crucial question is how much. If atmospheric CO2 doubles would temps rise o.1C, 1C or by 10C.

    We go through the usual evidence offered by the alarmists and show that in each case it either

    a, Is not evidence about what causes GW Proof that GW occurred is not proof the CO2 did it.
    b, Is not emphirical evidence, that is is not independant of theory. for example models are theory not evidence.
    c, Says nothing about how much the temps would rise for a given rise in CO2.

    Dispite spending $50 billion over the last 20 years looking for evidence of point 3 above the alarmists have found none.

    In two instances they expected to find evidence but in both cases the only evidence they found showed the opposite.

  62. #62 crakar14
    June 28, 2009

    Now what are these two instances?

    First lets discuss “What is evidence” Evidence is an observation that proves or suggests that human emissions of CO2 are the main cause of the recent GW. Evidence includes the following:
    a, Who made the observations?
    b, When were they made?
    c, What did they observe (in general terms, i dont hace to see the raw data)
    d, How do the observations support the idea that rising CO2 levels are the main cause of the recent GW?

    Therefore the following do not constitute as evidence:
    Polar bears
    glaciers
    arctic melt
    storms
    droughts
    fires
    malaria
    rising sea levels
    Ocean cooling
    Ocean warming

    Although each of these issues may say something about whether or not GW is or was occuring none of them say anything about the causes of GW.

    The two instances i spoke of are (1)that CO2 does not drive/control the temperature as per the IPCC theory and (2) all the models predict a hot spot to appear 10 K above the tropics due to increases in WV. This hot spot does not exist.

    Therefore the two tests that we can construct to test the theory both show the AGW theory to be false.

    In an effort to cut down on posts containing only name calling and insults here are the reasons why the theory fails the two above mentioned tests.

    The geological record dating back over 150 thousand years shows that CO2 LAGS temp by about 800 years, so how is it that the AGW theory says that an increase in CO2 levels will cause temps to increase? Secondly the geological record dating back even further (millions of years) shows no correlation at all. If the theory is correct shouldn’t we see a correlation on all time scales? Clearly larger forces are at play.

    The second is the missing heat signiture (hot spo, the IPCC models predict a heat signiture to appear 10K above the tropics (due to increased WV)however 20 years of searching 79-99 by radio sonde equipment with an accuracy 0.1C have not been able to find it.

    Now before you lot go running off at the mouth, below is a link to the IPCC AR4

    ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

    I would like to direct your attention to page 675, graphs a through e show the heat signitures for solar, volcano etc and graph F shows the heat signiture of all these combined that should be present in the atmosphere, this heat signiture was predicted by a computer model of course.

    This missing hot spot has two implications:
    a, Proves the IPCC climate theory to be false
    b, Undermines the theory that CO2 causes AGW

    The usual practice when observations and theory disagree is that the theory yields to the observations. However in his case the IPCC (in true IPCC form) choose to attack the observations in an effort to keep the theory alive.

    Santers (IPCC employee) objection was based on the simple theory that despite launching many, many RS balloons over a 20 year period we have simply missed the hot spot, which means it could be there its just that we cant find it and measure it, so we simply ignore (read change) the data.

    publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2008/NR-08-10-05-article.pdf

    Next we have Sherwood (IPCC employee) who states we should simply ignore the temp data like Santer and instead use the wind shear data to measure the hot spot.

    lubos.motl.googlepages.com/sherwood-allen-ngeo-2008.pdf

    In summary, It is important to note that the IPCC scientists never claimed to have found the hotspot,
    only that we might have missed it. This is an important distinction. They wrote several
    densely worded papers that suggested, to a casual reader, that the hotspot had indeed
    been found. But on careful scrutiny those papers always stop just short of claiming to
    have found the hotspot.

  63. #63 dhogaza
    June 29, 2009

    3, But there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the main cause of the recent global warming.

    Point 3 is what the debate is all about.

    Actually, point 3 is a lie. In fact, almost everything you post is a lie.

  64. #64 pough
    June 29, 2009

    crakar, I think the post you lost is here:
    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2009/06/revisiting_co2_lags_not_leads.php#comment-1733949

    I had replied to it there.

  65. #65 Adam
    June 29, 2009

    Crakar –

    re post #61.

    “1, There is plenty of evidence that global warming has been occuring recently.

    2, There is ample evidence that carbon emissions (as a no feedback warming)causes warming and that the level of atmospheric CO2 is increasing.

    3, But there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the main cause of the recent global warming.

    Point 3 is what the debate is all about.

    The alarmists focus entirely on the first two points in an effort to distract from the third. Yes every molecule of CO2 causes some warming but the crucial question is how much.”

    So the earth has been warming, and humans are the cause of CO2 increase, and CO2 causes warming. The only reasonable conclusion to draw from this is that humans are causing global warming. So what, exactly, are we debating? Across all these threads, you spend an awful lot of time ‘debating’ against the concept of anthropogenic global warming; here, you just casually agree with the three major ideas! You spend very little time debating the degree of global warming, but a lot of time saying things like “Oh, this such and such piece of data totally disproves global warming!!!!”

    I have no idea what causes you to be unable to make that final step into accepting anthropogenic global warming while you so readily admit that CO2 causes warming, that humans are the cause of CO2 increases AND that the planet has been warming.

  66. #66 Richard
    June 30, 2009

    The Earth has been warming (slightly) over the last 100 years – Correct
    CO2 has been increasing – Correct
    Human activity contributes to some of this CO2 increase – Correct
    CO2 is a greenhouse gas – Correct
    This increased CO2 is causing the Earth to warm – Wrong – or at least absolutely no evidence of it. The warming is well within the bounds of natural warming even within the last 100 years. See my post # 49.

    IPCC – “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is VERY LIKELY due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.” Before that according to IPCC the temperature changes were natural.

    From the UK Hadley data – the Global Average Temperature graph from 1880 to 2008 show two major rises rises one from 1911 to 1944 and the other from 1976 to 2008. (From 1880 to 1911 and 1944 to 1976 the temperature goes up and down with an overall fall).

    The warming trend from 1911 to 1944 comes to 0.161 per decade and that from 1976 to 2008 comes to 0.168 per decade, almost the same. The previous trend the IPCC acknowledges is natural how then can it be said that an exactly similar trend is Anthropogenic?

    AGW alarmists will fall back on “thousands of scientists agree this is so”. Maybe they do maybe some dont. But consensus by a thousand scientists or dozens of “peer reviewed” papers by a AGW clich who peer review each others papers CANNOT TRUMP ACTUAL OBSERVATION.

    If the predictions or the underlying basic assumption/s are shown to be wrong then the hypothesis has to be rejected.

    All 23 models of the IPCC have one common assumption – there is a positive feedback mechanism to the CO2. If there is a negative feedback then the CO2 influence will be much reduced or even negigible such that it cannot be seen in the background of natural warming and cooling. The evidence from actual observations point to exactly this.

  67. #67 dhogaza
    June 30, 2009

    All 23 models of the IPCC have one common assumption – there is a positive feedback mechanism to the CO2

    Highlighted for a reason. Those living in the reality-based world who also know how GCMs work, in a general way, know why I’ve highlighted it.

  68. #68 Richard
    June 30, 2009

    Science does not work by “knowing” something shared by a few who “live in a reality-based world”. They discuss and work on the evidence, which I have presented above and which is not addressed.

    Coby you have said you would address one thing at a time address this. And also acknowledge my post # 54, which I reproduce below: Look up the facts and acknowledge it.

    Coby at #14 “The Antarctic sea ice trend is negligible.”

    I dont know what you mean by negligible. Here is the data from 1979 the year that satellite records started from the National Snow and Ice Data Centre:
    1. Jan 79 to Jan 2009 – increase of 2.6% per decade
    2. Feb 79 to Feb 2009 – increase of 2.8% per decade
    3. March 79 to March 2009 – increase of 4.7% per decade
    4. April 79 to April 2009 – increase of 3% per decade
    5. May 79 to May 2009 – increase of 2.1% per decade

    The Northern sea ice is trending down between 3.1 to 2.1% per decade but for all the months its been going up (not trending I know) but going up, for all the months since 2006

  69. #69 crakar14
    June 30, 2009

    Adam re post #65,

    You seem a bit confused on my views, that can only be my fault, sorry about that. let me try to clear things up.

    At the moment there are two competing theories about AGW, the first being the widely politically accepted theory espoused by the IPCC and the second being the not so widely accepted theories of a group of independant climate experts.

    Commonalities of both theories are;

    Yes the temps have gone up slightly over the past 100 years.
    Yes an increase in CO2 will cause a “no feedback warming”. The standard for a “no feedback warming” is a doubling of CO2 will increase the temp by 1C.

    The major difference between the two theories is what feedbacks will be triggered by this increase in CO2.

    The IPCC believe the “no feedbacks warming” to initiate a very strong +ve feedback via water vapour (WV), and as WV is the most powerful GHG it will cause the temps to rise appreciably over the coming years. Turning the 1C “no feedbacks warming” into a 3C (midrange) temp increase by 2100.

    The alternative theory is that the CO2 induced “no feedbacks warming” will initiate a -ve feedback via water vapour causing the temps to rise by 0.5C.

    So the question is who is right and who is wrong, or is it possible they are both wrong. To answer this question we need to look at the observed data to test the theory.

    So far i have raised the issue of the hotspot and CO2 lags not leads, the reason is because these two issues can be measured using observed data and therefore can be used to test the theories.

  70. #70 coby
    July 1, 2009

    Richard,

    I don`t think it is useful looking at month by month comparisons, it makes more sense to look at minimums. In the arctic we have seen a drop of ~9%/decade, in the antarctic ~2%/decade. I am having trouble finding the minimum over the last 30 yrs graphs, would be September in the arctic and March in the Antarctic but I don`t expect you will contest my figures.

    We need to extract the climatic trends and focusing on particular month-to month differences will not help with that.

  71. #71 Richard
    July 1, 2009

    Coby,

    The month to month trends are the only sensible ways to look at it. If you see the ice in May for example you want to compare it with the ice in May last year and the trend in the ice cover in May for the last 30 years.

    In the Antarctic the least ice extent would be in Feb and the trend is + 2.8%/decade. The minimum Antarctic Ice Extent was in 1997. For March the trend has been + 4.7%/decade.

    In the Artic the lowest ice cover is in August and the trend from 1979 to 2008 is – 8.7 %/decade. In absolute terms in 1979 the August ice extent was 8.1 million sq km in August 2008 was 6 million sq km, about 25% less. However this year in May the ice extent was 13.4 million sq km compared to 14.1 million sq km in May 1979. This is average ice cover with good concentration, so well on its way for a normal or above normal extent this August, adding to a growing body of evidence that the Earth has started cooling contrary to the predictions of the IPCC.

  72. #72 coby
    July 2, 2009

    Richard,

    Are you actually calculating trends, or are you drawing lines from 1979 to 2009? Also, why do you think it is informative to look at the month of May?

    Arctic minimum occurs mid-September, I am sure of this. I assume that antarctic is 6 months after.

    Yes, mid to late September, see here:
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

  73. #73 Richard
    July 2, 2009

    I am doing neither. I am taking the data straight from the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, using their interactive tool. They do not show minimum ice extents but they do monthly averages. The month of May 2009 is the latest month for which they have the data. The Data for June has not yet been published.

  74. #74 Snowman
    July 3, 2009

    Congratulations, Richard, on your posts here and on other threads in this forum. They are deeply impressive. It is a real pleasure to read contributions that demonstrate such analytical powers and lucidity.

  75. #75 Richard
    July 3, 2009

    Thank you Snowman

  76. #76 Adam
    July 4, 2009

    Richard –

    However this year in May the ice extent was 13.4 million sq km compared to 14.1 million sq km in May 1979. This is average ice cover with good concentration, so well on its way for a normal or above normal extent this August, adding to a growing body of evidence that the Earth has started cooling contrary to the predictions of the IPCC.

    When you finally understand what is wrong with this reasoning, you will understand why no one (other than denialist trolls) takes your argument seriously.

    Once more, for the slow:
    A single month means very little, we are interested in the long-term trend.
    Comparing May 1979 to May 2009 is not particularly relevant.
    The extent was higher than 1979 in 1985, and very near 1979 in 1998 and 1999. In neither instance did the sea ice “recover”, as the long-term trend remains downward.
    ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/May/N_05_plot.png

    So far, every piece of ‘evidence of cooling’ you’ve mentioned has been complete bollocks, and this one is no different. You can cherry-pick individual data-points all you want to ‘prove’ your preconceptions, but all that does is make you look like a ninny.

  77. #77 PaulinMI
    July 4, 2009

    Adam,

    Richard is comparing each month of the year, one by one, as it’s relevant to the time of the year, not simply “a single month”.

    He also acknowledges the trend line, while discussing the actual data at the endpoints of a current accurate measuring system.

    He did not claim it proves a particular theory, but offered it up for discussion.

    If you believe it is irrelavent, say so, and why, (but name calling is hardly acceptable).

  78. #78 Ian Forrester
    July 4, 2009

    Richard what is behind the logic in your comment “this year in May the ice extent was 13.4 million sq km compared to 14.1 million sq km in May 1979. This is average ice cover with good concentration, so well on its way for a normal or above normal extent this August”?

    Surely if there is less ice in May than average it would suggest that there is every likelihood of there being less ice in August, not more?

    Please explain your reasoning behind this comment.

  79. #79 coby
    July 4, 2009

    Richard, I asked why you think it is informative to look at the month of May and you replied “The month of May 2009 is the latest month for which they have the data.” which is about as explanatory as “because it’s there”. What does the comparison of ice extent in May 2009 to ice extent in May 1979 tell us? about the decadal tends in artic sea ice? I appreciate that you are using NSIDC data and tools, but you still haven’t explained exactly what those tools are doing. How about a link and a description of what setting you use?

    Just to keep us focused, the current issue is my claim that the sea ice loss in the arctic is much more significant as a percentage than the growth in the antarctic.

  80. #80 Snowman
    July 4, 2009

    Adam

    Some of us are having difficulty in understanding why you accuse Richard of looking at only a single month. He makes the comparison on a month by month basis, up to the most recent available data (May).

    You may have other, counter arguments, but in In what sense is Richard’s case irrelevant?

  81. #81 dhogaza
    July 4, 2009

    Well, it’s not May 2009 any more, and no, it is not well on its way for a normal or above normal extent this August.

    JAXA shows us right inline with 2008, the second-lowest arctic ice extent minimum in the satellite era, so that data doesn’t appear to support the well on its way for a normal or above normal extent this August baloney, either.

    May’s never been a good predictor of minimum extent anyway, as Richard should know if he’s going to overturn the work of thousands of scientists and earn his Nobel …

  82. #82 Richard
    July 4, 2009

    Coby,

    The trend of Arctic Sea Ice for the month of May from 1979 to 2009 is -2.5%/decade. Sept is the lowest ice extent month and the trend for September up to 2008 is -11.1%/ decade. For Sept this year we will just have to wait and see. It makes sense to look at all the months not just the lowest ice extent.

    You did say the trends for the Antarctic were negligible. Thats from the IPCC, but they are not. They are positive for all the months. I have given you the figures for all the months this year.
    Jan 79 to Jan 2009 +2.6%/ decade
    Feb 79 to Feb 2009 +2.8%/ decade
    March 79 to March 2009 +4.7% per decade
    April 79 to April 2009 +3% per decade
    May 79 to May 2009 +2.1% per decade

    If March is the lowest Ice extent in the Antartic thats trending up at 4.7%/decade

  83. #83 dhogaza
    July 5, 2009

    It makes sense to look at all the months not just the lowest ice extent.

    It makes no sense at all because the maximum area that can freeze is bounded by land in large portions of the Arctic, and many of those areas are going to refreeze every winter for a long time to come, regardless of warming.

  84. #84 dhogaza
    July 5, 2009

    Actually the month-by-month comparisons are likely useful for computing another trend seen in the Arctic, the decreasing percentage of multi-year ice. This implies a decrease in *volume* much greater than the decrease in *extent* seen since 1979.

  85. #85 Adam
    July 5, 2009

    PaulinMI, Snowman –

    Unless I misunderstand Richard, he is comparing the ice extent in May of 1979 to the ice extent in May 2009, and claiming that it is a very small difference, and ergo, ‘recovering’ in this comment:

    However this year in May the ice extent was 13.4 million sq km compared to 14.1 million sq km in May 1979. This is average ice cover with good concentration, so well on its way for a normal or above normal extent this August, adding to a growing body of evidence that the Earth has started cooling contrary to the predictions of the IPCC.

    Me saying “a single month” meant, comparing one month in 1979 to one month in 2009; sorry if I was unclear. This is why his claim is irrelevant.

  86. #86 Richard
    July 5, 2009

    Ian Forrester, Adam,
    “Compared to previous Mays, ice extent in May 2009 is about average.” Source The National Snow and Ice Data Center
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

  87. #87 Ian Forrester
    July 5, 2009

    Richard, why are you trying to confuse everyone. The Arctic ice extent has been slightly below average for the past several months. You conclude “so well on its way for a normal or above normal extent this August”. Why do you conclude that since the levels have been below average for most of the Spring that that this leads you to believe that there will be more ice than normal in August?

    That is just denier garbage. Do you honestly believe the garbage you post on this site or do you think that we are all as gullible as you?

  88. #88 Richard
    July 5, 2009

    Ian Forrester firstly know the difference between a denier and a sceptic. A denier is someone who refuses to accept reality when confronted with unassailable fact, which is what you are, a sceptic is one who questions a dubious assertion or assertions, which is what I am.

    The assertions made by the warmers are: there is DANGEROUS global warming happening due to anthropogenic emmissions of greenhouse gasses chiefly CO2. The ice caps will melt, sea levels will rise catastrophically, hurricanes and cyclones will increase in intensity, there will be widespread droughts, and deaths due to heat waves. There is scant evidence for all this – therefore I’m a sceptic.

    Regarding Arctic sea ice its a non-issue. If it disappears in summer it will make not an iota of difference to the sea levels. There is evidence that ice is actually accumulating on Greenland and certainly on Antartica. While you focus your razor sharp attention to the sea ice in the Arctic, which has lost 1.9 million sq Kms in June compared to May, you ignore the fact that that the Antarctic has gained 3 million sq Kms over the same period.

    What I pointed out originally was, and let me bring back your attention to this,: Coby said #14 “The Antarctic sea ice trend is negligible.” Well I have pointed out it is not.

  89. #89 Ian Forrester
    July 5, 2009

    Denier troll Richard once again shows that he does not know what he is talking about.

    Firstly, the ice on Greenland and the Antarctic is decreasing not increasing as you deniers claim. I suggest you read up on the results from the GRACE satellites to find out what is actually happening with the ice.

    Secondly, only denier trolls ever claim that melting Arctic ice will affect seal levels. Melting Arctic ice is a problem but it is with the Earth’s albedo, which will cause increased warming; a positive feed back to CO2 induced warming.

    Why don’t you actually read some real science rather than the drivel you cut and paste from denier sites?

    And you still have not answered my question as to why you think that lower ice extent for the past 6 or so months will lead to increased extent in August.

    Your comments about Antarctic sea ice extent are meaningless since sea ice is always increasing during that period. The extent is almost at the average extent for the time of year.

  90. #90 coby
    July 5, 2009

    Richard, here is a good look at the overall trends of sea ice, first in the antarctic, second in the arctic. The data only goes to Dec 2007, but 6 months will not change much in a thirty year trend. In the antarctic we see an increase of about .35 million, in the arctic it is a decrease of 1.4 million sq km. This makes about 3% increase in the antarctic and 11% decrease in the arctic.

    The only thing you can do is quibble about my choice of “negligible” to describe 3%, which is hardly an interesting point.

    In the meantime, “Compared to previous Mays, ice extent in May 2009 is about average”: why do you think that is relevant?

  91. #91 Snowman
    July 5, 2009

    Ian –

    You weaken your case by accusing Richard and anyone else who disagrees with you of being denialist trolls.

    It is a sure sign that someone knows his argument is weak (who realizes he is, if you will permit the term, on thin ice) when instead of providing sensible rebuttals, he resorts to name calling.

  92. #92 Adam
    July 6, 2009

    Snowman –

    There’s nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.

  93. #93 dhogaza
    July 6, 2009

    It is a sure sign that someone knows his argument is weak

    Looks like your understanding of human psychology is as weak as your understanding of climate scientist, denialist troll …

  94. #94 pough
    July 6, 2009

    …instead of providing sensible rebuttals, he resorts to name calling.

    What I find much more psychologically interesting is the people who read a comment with both name calling and sensible rebuttals, yet manage only to recall the name calling. Are you under the impression that other people haven’t got the ability to scroll up a little and read the comments for themselves, or did you simply stop reading after the first sentence and really believe there was nothing more than name calling?

  95. #95 Snowman
    July 6, 2009

    You are right, Pough, that some points were made, and perhaps I should have acknowledged them.

    Nevertheless, I continue to be perplexed by the vehemence of the abuse from Ian and others, which was my main complaint. What is about this issue that causes people to abandon all restraint?

    If we were discussing any other topic, no matter how important or potentially emotional, it is difficult to imagine such rudeness. Moreover, bad manners on this scale are ultimately self defeating, as they would persuade any neutral party not to take the side of the person responsible.

    I find it strange. Don’t you, even a little?

  96. #96 Ian Forrester
    July 6, 2009

    Snowman, I am not being rude. I cannot believe that supposedly intelligent and educated people can be so dishonest when it comes to discussing the science of climate change.

    Anyone who has been exposed to an even rudimentary science education will see at once that AGW deniers are not being honest in their discussions. They completely disregard simple science facts and methodology in their zeal to refuse to accpet that what we are doing to the atmosphere will have harmful effects to future generations. They are so arrogant and selfish in their attitude that it makes most caring people very angry.

    What gives you the right, Snowman, to leave our children and their children with an environment which will result in untold suffering?

    Anyone who has truly studied science will see that it is you deniers who are distorting scientific facts. There is an excuse for ignorance but no excuse for deliberately being dishonest about what is happening to our climate.

    Unfortunately, there are a number of dishonest people who are infesting the science blogs with the intent of distorting the accepted science of climate change. I really don’t understand the motives behind such behaviour unless they are directly influenced and funded by the very companies who are destroying our environment. Such behaviour is not just restricted to climate change but is found in many other areas where unscrupulous companies are destroying the environment in order to bolster their bottom line.

  97. #97 Adam
    July 6, 2009

    Snowman –

    Ian is correct. It’s not being rude nor particularly abusive by referring to Richard as a denialist troll. It’s simple accuracy in calling someone what they actually are.

    Denialist:
    “Denialism is the term used to describe the position of governments, political parties, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists. Such groups and individuals are said to be engaging in denialism when they seek to influence policy processes and outcomes by using rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

    Troll:
    “In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

  98. #98 crakar14
    July 6, 2009

    For a second there Adam i thought you were describing yourself, just kidding dont get too upset.

    Richard is simply trying to mount a case against your beliefs but as always the goal posts keep on moving.

    For example you say the temp increase is caused by increased CO2, this statement can only be based on opinion. Richard replies with observational data which shows the temps per decade have not changed.

    There is then a call to arms and because of what he says he is labled a heretic, as always his views are not debated in any scientific way he is just simply lambasted. This process is repeated over and over again.

    For example not one of you lot have actually produced any feasable reason for why the temp trend per decade (as described by Richard post #66) has not changed even though CO2 emissions have increased steadily or at a greater rate.

    Your lack of response (sarcasm and ridicule aside) can only suggest one thing, and that is you cannot explain it. Rather than state this simple fact you ignore his post and launch into a denier bashing tirade.

    So i suggest you try this, reply to post #66 in a polite, honest and courteous manner. If you cannot explain why CO2 levels have had nil effect on the temp trend then just say so.

  99. #99 Adam
    July 6, 2009

    Crakar –

    Richard is simply trying to mount a case against your beliefs but as always the goal posts keep on moving.

    Please describe where the goalposts have moved.

    There is then a call to arms and because of what he says he is labled a heretic, as always his views are not debated in any scientific way he is just simply lambasted. This process is repeated over and over again.

    Richard posted his ‘views’, and it was explained to him why he was wrong. This process is indeed repeated over and over, because denialist trolls like yourself and Richard continue to spout the same incorrect talking points over and over again, despite however many times your error is pointed out.

    For example not one of you lot have actually produced any feasable reason for why the temp trend per decade (as described by Richard post #66) has not changed even though CO2 emissions have increased steadily or at a greater rate.

    From Richard’s post #66
    The warming trend from 1911 to 1944 comes to 0.161 per decade and that from 1976 to 2008 comes to 0.168 per decade, almost the same. The previous trend the IPCC acknowledges is natural how then can it be said that an exactly similar trend is Anthropogenic?

    Anthropogenic causes were present in the early 20th century, but natural causes were larger during this period. In the latter period, anthropogenic forcing was dominant, while natural forcing was reduced. There’s no reason why the numbers HAVE to be different. Why do you think they need to be?
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png

  100. #100 Richard
    July 7, 2009

    Coby, Re #90
    Just briefly, Why do you think that average Annual ice sea levels that you have referred to are relevant or meaningful?
    From post #14 “The take away lesson is not to get distracted by natural variations, but look at trends.” and just after that- “Tilo, why no comment from you about the big downward jump in the Antarctic sea ice extent?”
    Trends Artic – Sept 79 – Sept 2008 -11.1%/ decade
    Antartic March 79 – March 2009 +4.7%/ decade
    “”Compared to previous Mays, ice extent in May 2009 is about average”: why do you think that is relevant?” Because Jan, Feb, March, April 09 were well below average and May average shows decided less warming in May.
    Here is the important issue The assertions made by the warmers are: there is DANGEROUS global warming happening due to anthropogenic emmissions of greenhouse gasses chiefly CO2. The ice caps will melt, sea levels will rise catastrophically, hurricanes and cyclones will increase in intensity, there will be widespread droughts, and deaths due to heat waves. There is scant evidence for all this. This is whats important. The scientific method, what we are taught here in secondary school – if the evidence doesnt support the hypothesis discard it.

  101. #101 Richard
    July 7, 2009

    Ian Forrester you are very lucky that you can call me dishonest from the safety of the internet. I dont think you are dishonest though – just a blithering idiot. “I suggest you read up on the results from the GRACE satellites” to find out what is really happening.

    You do not have the intellectual capacity to digest anything beyond the headline, which has been carefully crafted for imbeciles to digest for the hysteria to be whipped up before the Copenhagen conference.

    Firstly the results are not from the GRACE satellites.
    “losses..were primarily concentrated in West Antarctica’s Pine Island Bay sector and the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula”. (Stale news Al Gore concentrated on this). On the plus side (the addition of snowfall) they were derived from a “regional atmospheric climate model”. Big deal. Shum C.K. et al – “..the choice of glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) model significantly affects GRACE-estimated Antarctic mass loss.”

    The loss estimated in this way? 196 (plus or minus 92) gigatons a year in 2006. The annual snowfall in antartica 2,200 gigatons plus or minus a few hundred gigatons. I’ll go by the latest IPCC finding that the Antarctic ice mass is likely to increase.

    “What gives you the right, Snowman, to leave our children and their children with an environment which will result in untold suffering?” What a blithering idiot. Snowman you are personally responsible for leaving Ian Forrestor’s children with an environment in which they will suffer untold suffering. This man is truely unbelievable.

  102. #102 Richard
    July 7, 2009

    Adam,
    “There’s no reason why the numbers HAVE to be different. Why do you think they need to be?”
    1. If they are not different then how can you say the second trend is due to CO2 and Anthropogenic? Where is the anthropogenic signature?
    2. IPCC claims and the AGW hypothesis states the warming should increase but it doesnt.
    3. This warming besides being no different from that earlier in the 20th century is nothing abnormal if we take the previous proxy temperature records when no CO2 effect was there.

  103. #103 Ian Forrester
    July 7, 2009

    WOW, Richard threatens me with physical harm because I expose his dishonesty.

    Not only has he crossed the “stupid threshold” he is threatening to harm me if he gets the chance.

    I can’t believe that such idiots still exixt. He accepts the lies and misinformation from denier sites without question but threatens anyone who shows what real scientists are saying with violence.

    Anyway, nice to see that you are revealing your true nature, an ignorant bully.

  104. #104 pough
    July 7, 2009

    Snowman wrote:

    I find it strange. Don’t you, even a little?

    Not in the least. There are a few reasons.

    1. Scientists (and many interested in science) tend to be more interested in the truth than in PR.

    2. Anyone who sticks with the truth is at a disadvantage in a debate, and it’s frustrating.

    3. This is a serious subject. The people getting upset are quite certain that the effects of global warming will be very harmful. Who wouldn’t get upset at someone recommending not wearing a helmet and claiming Squished Head Syndrome isn’t as bad as the so-called experts would have us believe?

    4. You are one of many gadflies. Every few weeks, as certain as rain in Vancouver, people like you wander in to a science forum and proclaim superior knowledge to the thousands of very intelligent people who actually study the subject, likely because you read the blog of a hack and it’s more pleasant for your ideology to accept. It’s not new, it’s not smart and it’s not interesting any more.

    5. This is the internet. Welcome to it. You should be aware that it’s no more polite than any other crowded place, possibly less so because of the dehumanizing effect of the lack of real human faces.

    So either you’re ignorant of those very obvious facts or else you’re lying about finding it strange as a way to score rhetorical points.

  105. #105 Adam
    July 7, 2009

    Richard –

    1. If they are not different then how can you say the second trend is due to CO2 and Anthropogenic? Where is the anthropogenic signature?

    This requires a longer answer than is appropriate for a comment, but fortunately, Coby wrote a post on this very topic. And hey, what do you know, it’s the post for this very comment thread. So scroll up, big fella.
    I would also add this graphic to the mix;
    http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/fall03/pcm.jpg
    Also, I repost this link for your benefit you to ignore:
    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf
    (Title: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change)

    2. IPCC claims and the AGW hypothesis states the warming should increase but it doesnt.

    You’ll have to be more clear about this, I don’t know what you mean.

    3. This warming besides being no different from that earlier in the 20th century is nothing abnormal if we take the previous proxy temperature records when no CO2 effect was there.

    There has always been a CO2 effect present as long as there has been carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Without carbon dioxide and/or other greenhouse gases, the planet would be much colder.

    And you’ll have to explain what you mean by “no different.” The temperature is (for the time being) still in the ‘normal’ range [please forgive the imprecise language], but the cause is from human emissions, deforestation, etc. Why you think a similar effect cannot have more than one cause is beyond me.

  106. #106 snowman
    July 7, 2009

    Vancouver you say pough. I hadn’t realized you were based in the great white north. That explains a good deal. You could do with a bit of global warming, mate. It might liven the place up.

    How interesting, though, that so many of the warmists seem to be based in Canada, the ground zero – the fons et origo – of political correctness.

  107. #107 Richard
    July 8, 2009

    Adam,

    If they are not different then how can you say the second trend is due to CO2 and Anthropogenic? Where is the anthropogenic signature?

    “..Coby wrote a post on this very topic.” Yes thank you for that, I missed it. Please refer to the beautiful graph at the top of this page (image courtesy of Global Warming Art), a picture is truly worth a thousand words.

    You will notice a rising temperature trend (the black line) from about 1911 to 1944 along with this the Greenhouse Gases (Blue line) is more or less flat. This the IPCC says, quite understandably, is due to “natural causes”. Then you will notice that the Greenhouse gas line goes upwards sharply from 1950 and the the IPCC says that most of the temperature rise after 1950 is due to those gases, which have been contributed by humans. The temperature really takes off after about 1976. However just looking at the slopes of the two lines on the left and the right, which seem pretty similar, I am at a loss to understand how the second one screams out “Anthropogenic!”. Maybe you could enlighten me.

  108. #108 Richard
    July 8, 2009

    Coby, Some comments on your post above.

    “The very first thing to note about a response to a CO2 rise, is that an increase in the temperature of the global climate is completely expected.” – Agreed
    “So, it makes sense that it should happen. Is it?” (I would have said isn’t it, but thats being trivial) – It may make sense, and thats the basis of a hypothesis, but then you have to see how the hypothesis pans out, in this case it doesnt.

    “We need to eliminate other potential causes. Maybe it’s the sun? Maybe it’s natural causes [hand wave]?”

    (No no Coby a hand wave is not natural causes, its definitely anthropogenic. But the sun and cosmic rays are. Maybe its the same “natural causes” that the IPCC refers to?)

    “Maybe it’s volcanoes? Maybe it’s geothermal? Maybe it’s galactic cosmic rays? Well, the sun has not changed its output significantly since the fifities, or enough overall to explain the degree of warming.”

    Not so Coby. From the SORCE people who study the sun at NASA – “Despite all that scientists have learned about solar irradiance over the past few decades, they are still a long way from forecasting changes in the solar cycles or incorporating these changes into climate models. One of their biggest obstacles has been technology. Because even the smallest shifts in solar energy can affect climate drastically, measurements of solar radiation have to be extremely precise. Instruments in use today still are subject to a great deal of uncertainty.”

    Then again TSI is not the only measure of the suns effect on our atmosphere. There is the variation of TSI over the solar spectrum, the solar wind, which is more active during an active sun. The sun since the 1990’s has been the most active in a 1,000 years.

    “Cosmic rays is a pretty far fetched grasp at straws.” Thats your opinion.
    “The connection is only plausible, far from demonstrable, it has been looked for and not found”

    There was a recent “study” by Pierce and Adams in Geophysical Research Letters, who claimed their “model” showed that changes in cosmic rays are two orders of magnitude too feeble to cause the changes in clouds.

    As it happens it is demonstrable and awaits an experiment in CERN called CLOUD. The experiment comprises of cylindrical cloud chambers which are exposed to an adjustable particle beam which simulates GCRs at any altitude or latitude. The chambers are filled with air, water vapor, trace gases and aerosols and can be operated at any temperature or pressure found in the terrestrial atmosphere. Till the results of that experiment are known the demise of the Cosmic Ray theory has been greatly exagggerated.

    “An increasingly enhanced greenhouse effect should cause an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation.”

    Wrong! If the Earth was warming due to any causes, which is not disputed, there would be an energy imbalance.

    “So to summarize: we know anthropogenic climate change is real because there is no other likely candidate cause”

    The logic is wrong again. This is like arguing since we have not found the missing link as yet or there are gaps in the fossil record (evidence we have not found as yet) that intelligent design is the only explanation of evolution.

    “The next step is usually to perform an experiment and thus confirm or deny your hypothesis when your expecations are or are not met. Unfortunately, there is only one planet and one timeline to move it along, so that is out.”

    There is another way to confirm or deny your hypothesis – see if the predictions made by your hypothesis are correct. In this case the predictions have not proved to be correct.

  109. #109 dhogaza
    July 9, 2009

    However just looking at the slopes of the two lines on the left and the right, which seem pretty similar, I am at a loss to understand how the second one screams out “Anthropogenic!”. Maybe you could enlighten me.

    See that big hot thing up in the sky there? We measure it’s output. It was strengthening the first half of the 20th century. It hasn’t been the past 50 years, and in fact output has dropped a bit as we await the next solar cycle, yet temps are still warm (with 2005 being the warmest on record in the GISS dataset). We also have reasonably good estimates of sulfate aerosal emissions which dropped in the 1970s as Europe and the US cleaned up our act, or at least our industrial emissions. People measure these things, too.

    Do you really think the scientific evidence for global warming rests on people looking at a graph that “screams out Anthropogenic warming” ???

    Silly.

  110. #110 pough
    July 9, 2009

    Snowman, what you should do now is in no way respond to what I said, except to change the subject and note something completely different as “interesting”, as though there were still some reason for people to doubt based purely on psychology.

    Oh wait. That’s exactly what you did. Sorry. You’re keeping on top of things. Nevermind.

  111. #111 Adam
    July 9, 2009

    Richard –

    Then you will notice that the Greenhouse gas line goes upwards sharply from 1950 and the the IPCC says that most of the temperature rise after 1950 is due to those gases, which have been contributed by humans. The temperature really takes off after about 1976. However just looking at the slopes of the two lines on the left and the right, which seem pretty similar, I am at a loss to understand how the second one screams out “Anthropogenic!”. Maybe you could enlighten me.

    Okay, basing this purely off the graph provided in the original post of this thread you are talking about. And I’m speaking here in very broad strokes for brevity’s sake.

    Ignoring Ozone, we have two anthropogenic signals (Greenhouse Gases and Sulfates) and two natural signals (Solar and Volcanic). In the early part of the century, Greenhouse Gas positive forcing is approximately offset by Sulfate negative forcing, whereas we see Solar forcing increasing and Volcanic forcing providing a small by approximately steady positive contribution. Hence, we can attribute the observed and modeled rise in temperature primarily to natural causes (since the two anthropogenic signals ‘cancel’ each other out).

    In the latter half of the century, we see the solar signal staying approximately steady, whereas the volcanic signal is decreasing. In the meanwhile, the greenhouse gas signal increases sharply, and whilst the sulfate signal is decreasing, it doesn’t compensate for the Greenhouse Gas contribution. So, since the Anthropogenic signal is increasing, and the Natural signal is decreasing, to explain the observed and modeled temperature increase we can reasonably attribute it to anthropogenic sources.

    Now, as dhogaza says, this isn’t the extent of the of evidence, and certainly not how scientists make these conclusions. For that, you have to read the IPCC report, it gives a more thorough overview and explanation of the evidence. But this explanation, to me, is a valid breakdown of the various signals, and one of the many sources of evidence for anthropogenic warming.

    And yes, I realize you’re going to move the goalposts and say something like “BUT BUT BUT MODELING IS VALID” but you asked specifically for enlightenment regarding the interpretation of this graph.

  112. #112 Adam
    July 9, 2009

    Regarding my post at 9:31 am, July 9.

    “BUT BUT BUT MODELING IS VALID” should read
    “BUT BUT BUT MODELING ISN’T VALID”

    Bad place to make a silly mistake.

  113. #113 coby
    July 9, 2009

    Richard:

    From the SORCE people who study the sun at NASA – “Despite all that scientists have learned about solar irradiance over the past few decades, they are still a long way from forecasting changes in the solar cycles or incorporating these changes into climate models. One of their biggest obstacles has been technology. Because even the smallest shifts in solar energy can affect climate drastically, measurements of solar radiation have to be extremely precise. Instruments in use today still are subject to a great deal of uncertainty.”

    How about a source for that quote so we can verify it and understand its context? Regardless, an inability to forecast says nothing about what has already happened and uncertainty is hardly a support for the case for solar and definitely does not support your “Not so” response to my assertion that TSI has not changed enough, a response with a high degree of certainty on your part.

    If the Earth was warming due to any causes, which is not disputed, there would be an energy imbalance.

    I will grant you that other kinds of warming will have the same energy balance signature that is observed, but it is not true that any cause will show this. Warming driven by increased insolation will not, nor would warming cased by decreasing aerosols from volcanic activity or pollution.

    “So to summarize: we know anthropogenic climate change is real because there is no other likely candidate cause”

    The logic is wrong again. This is like arguing since we have not found the missing link as yet or there are gaps in the fossil record (evidence we have not found as yet) that intelligent design is the only explanation of evolution.

    This is an extremely dishonest edit on your part. The entire sentece reads: “So to summarize: we know anthropogenic climate change is real because there is no other likely candidate cause, the CO2 rise is unquestionably the result of our activities, the particulars of the warming signature are consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect and the whole phenomenon is entirely consistent with very long standing theories and expectations.”

  114. #114 Snowman
    July 9, 2009

    Coby – You reprove Richard too readily. His edit is not extremely dishonest. On the contrary, it captures, as good editing should, the essential point of your remark, stripped of elaboration.

    This allows him to direct his comments to the key issue, ignoring matters which – whatever other merit they may have – are hardly the sine qua non of your argument.

    Such directness and lucidity are the only way we can make progress, and, one regrets to say, these are qualities that are too often lacking in this forum.

  115. #115 Ian Forrester
    July 9, 2009

    Snowman said: “Such directness and lucidity are the only way we can make progress, and, one regrets to say, these are qualities that are too often lacking in this forum”.

    Good grief, the only qualities (if you can call them that) that you deniers show is dishonesty, misinformation, cherry picking and obfuscation. Why not deal with honest facts for once? It may improve the discussions.

  116. #116 snowman
    July 9, 2009

    We are all keenly aware of the irony, Ian, in that the qualities your contributions conspicuously lack are facts. Rants, on the other hand – well, you are good at those.

  117. #117 coby
    July 9, 2009

    Regarding no. 114 – LOL! You`re funny, Snowman.

  118. #118 Ian Forrester
    July 9, 2009

    Snowman, I can assure you that I am better educated about climate science than you. I am also a very honest person and hate it when I see the dishonesty portrayed by deniers like you.

    Have you even read a paper from the peer reviewed scientific literature. It would appear that the only sources for your misinformation are denier web sites. You must be extremely gullible to accept the nonsense portrayed there when it has been explained over and over again how wrong it is.

  119. #119 snowman
    July 9, 2009

    Glad to have given you a laugh, Coby. I am sure you won’t take this the wrong way when I say that I sometimes get the impression that you could do with one.

  120. #120 crakar14
    July 9, 2009

    Post 119 made me laugh, surely it got at least a chuckle out of Coby.

    Looking at the quote in question it is a shame that Richard did not supply the full quote as it gave Coby an “out” in that he could then avoid responding to it and simply lambasted him on a trivial matter. This is a classic move by someone who has no answers.

    However Coby may have erred in supplying the entire quote lets beak it down a bit.

    “So to summarize: we know anthropogenic climate change is real because there is no other likely candidate cause,

    (Really? no other likely candidate “THAT WE KNOW OF” should have been added)

    the CO2 rise is unquestionably the result of our activities,

    (Much debate about this as in how much is natural etc)

    the particulars of the warming signature are consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect

    (This statement is incorrect; the hotspot above the tropics is the signature the author is referring to and after many years of looking this signature cannot be found.)

    and the whole phenomenon is entirely consistent with very long standing theories and expectations.”

    (The key word here is “expectations” which I take to mean computer model predictions. All the IPCC models predicted the temps would continue to rise beyond 2000. Of course we all now know this not to be true.)

  121. #121 Adam
    July 9, 2009

    Snowman –

    Coby – You reprove Richard too readily. His edit is not extremely dishonest. On the contrary, it captures, as good editing should, the essential point of your remark, stripped of elaboration.

    If by that, you mean Richard ignored all the bits that were inconvenient for him, and thus distorted what Coby wrote.

    In some circles, this is called a strawman fallacy, but I know you denialists are sensitive about being called out on that sort of thing.
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

  122. #122 Richard
    July 9, 2009

    Coby

    “So to summarize: we know anthropogenic climate change is real because there is no other likely candidate cause, the CO2 rise is unquestionably the result of our activities, the particulars of the warming signature are consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect and the whole phenomenon is entirely consistent with very long standing theories and expectations.”

    The edit was not dishonest but maybe misleading (to you). So here is an elaboration:
    There ARE other likely candidate causes – in short the Sun. There are hypothesis and some data to support how precisely this happens but just because we do not today have the proof, (for example the CLOUD experiment is scheduled for 2011), doesnt mean that its not true. Am I clear now? (Because this explanation threatens the AGW hypothesis it has been attacked most vehemently by the warmers).

    One thing we know – something caused the temperatures to go up, at the end of the ice ages, (the initial cause). This the warmers acknowledge is the Sun and they repeat the mantra Milankovitch cycles. But the Milankovitch cycles of 100,000 years that repeatedly pulled the Earth out of the ice ages is far too weak to explain this. Obviously the “sensitivity” of this (essentially solar) forcing is very high and it must be helped on with something else (probably clouds). And no not CO2 – that rose much later.

    Again something plunged the Earth repeatedly back into the ice ages after about 10,000 years. When this happened the CO2 was rising and continued to do so as the temperatures plunged. CO2 appeared powerless then, why should it be all powerful now.

    We simply do not know enough about the Sun and the way it acts on our atmosphere to have dismissed its influence in the temperature rise of the last 3 decades, or indeed the rises AND falls previously.

    Then the most important bit “The next step is usually to perform an experiment and thus confirm or deny your hypothesis when your expecations are or are not met. Unfortunately, there is only one planet and one timeline to move it along, so that is out.”

    There is another way to confirm or deny your hypothesis – to see if the predictions made by your hypothesis are correct. In fact this is the most important way. Newtons theory of Gravity was confirmed by the calculated reappearance of Haley’s comet. If even one prediction is found to be incorrect then the whole hypothesis is rejected. I will show you how several predictions of the IPCC dont match up. Thats for another post.

    Finally my post #107 and Adams reply. Yes it is true I do not trust models very much, but then they do not seem to agree with each other either. The explanation of the first rise given by Adam doesnt seem to match up looking at the Graph. But thats not the point. This is it:

    To distinguish the extremely short period, climatically and geologically speaking, of 3 decades from a previous 3 decades, were it not for the elaborate models and complicated explanations of the IPCC it would have fitted in right there with the natural rise of temperatures since the little ice age. The total rise around 0.6C is also well within the range of temperature variations of the past.

    The Parsimony Principle or Occam’s razor in science demands that additional reasons should not be given without necessity. There is no reason for that elaborate additional reason for the temperature rise.

    “How about a source for that quote so we can verify it and understand its context? Regardless, an inability to forecast says nothing about what has already happened and uncertainty is hardly a support for the case for solar and definitely does not support your “Not so” response to my assertion that TSI has not changed enough, a response with a high degree of certainty on your part.”

    The source – http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_05.php

    And we do not “know” what has aleady happened.

    “the most accurate estimates of the long-term average TSI are uncertain by several times the amplitude of the 11 year cycle. This large uncertainty in absolute calibration of the instruments means that any possible trend from one 11 year cycle to the next, the most important change for global warming, is not known accurately enough to even decide whether the trend is positive, negative, or zero.”

    “Even larger uncertainties exist for measurements of the amount of solar radiation that is absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere, ocean, and land.”

    “With solar radiation, a 5 percent difference is huge. A difference of even 1 percent would completely throw off climate models of global warming ”

    “The other big problem scientists face is too little data. Even in instances when solar energy measurements are accurate, researchers often don’t have enough information with which to draw conclusions. Building models to forecast long term trends, in particular, requires a tremendous amount of past data on those trends. At this time, scientists only have roughly twenty years of satellite data on the Sun —an equivalent of just two 11-year cycles. Most of the data researchers do have on the Sun are for TSI. Relatively very little data have been gathered on the spectral changes in the Sun.”

    “The dearth of spectral data presents another serious obstacle for climate modelers since distinct wavelengths are absorbed by different components of the Earth’s climate system, which react differently with one another as their energy levels change.”

  123. #123 Adam
    July 10, 2009

    Richard –

    Again something plunged the Earth repeatedly back into the ice ages after about 10,000 years. When this happened the CO2 was rising and continued to do so as the temperatures plunged. CO2 appeared powerless then, why should it be all powerful now.

    Over the past 400,000 years (at least) carbon dioxide concentrations never got much above 300ppm. Today, we are rapidly approaching 400ppm. There’s a matter of scale you are completely neglecting; the atmospheric carbon dioxide isn’t a binary system (yes or no). The concentration actually matters. So, carbon dioxide isn’t “all powerful” now, it’s the fact that there is a significantly higher concentration, and that concentration is increasing. I can’t believe this actually needs to be explained to you.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

  124. #124 snowman
    July 10, 2009

    Interesting to see you invoking Occam’s razor, Richard. For some reason, the concept seems to be beyond the warmists. When I mentioned it some time ago I was called, variously, a scumball, a liar and a pedlar of junk philosophy.

    I hope you have more luck.

  125. #125 Ian Forrester
    July 10, 2009

    It is not Occam’s Razor which Richard is showing off it’s the Dunning Kruger syndrome.

    The CLOUD experiment will tell us nothing new (except for the fact that some deniers are willing to spend millions of dollars on their ridiculous ideas). Cloud chamber experiments were conducted a long time ago and everyone agrees that cosmic rays can cause cloud formation in supersaturated air.

    However, what real scientists have discovered is that there has been no significant change in cosmic ray input into the atmosphere which corresponds to either changing cloud cover or to changes in temperature.

    Richard, you are blowing smoke out off your rear end. No-one with any understanding of climate science,and science in general, accepts the nonsense you are spouting.

    If you have any real data, then either provide it or write it up and publish it in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Since you can’t and wont you have nothing useful to say but are merely wasting everyone’s time by having to wade through your screeds of nonsense and point out your errors of thought and logic.

  126. #126 Adam
    July 10, 2009

    Snowman –

    Interesting to see you invoking Occam’s razor, Richard. For some reason, the concept seems to be beyond the warmists. When I mentioned it some time ago I was called, variously, a scumball, a liar and a pedlar of junk philosophy.

    Denialists are usually attacked for invoking Occam’s Razor incorrectly. Just because an explanation is ‘simpler’ doesn’t mean it is correct. In a scientific usage, you can say that the simpler of two explanations for which there is equal evidence is likely correct. This is a stronger form of Occam’s Razor.
    http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/General/occam.html

    Analogous example: It is far simpler to say that all species on Earth always existed as they are, rather than evolved from common descent. However, the evidence does not support this explanation, so it has to be discarded, regardless of its simplicity.

    For some reason (but not particularly surprisingly), denialists don’t understand the basic philosophy of science.

  127. #127 snowman
    July 10, 2009

    Adam – You are being disingenuous. Of course all competing explanations to have some validity before the razor can be invoked. No one is suggesting otherwise. Without that basic requirement, it would be possible to justify any number of fanciful notions by appealing to an abstract concept of simplicity.

    The relevance to the global warming debate is that not only is it far simpler to assume that we are merely seeing a continuation of normal patterns of warming and cooling, the evidence for that is also more convincing.

  128. #128 Adam
    July 10, 2009

    Without that basic requirement, it would be possible to justify any number of fanciful notions by appealing to an abstract concept of simplicity.

    Such as: the warming is completely in line with natural phenomena since the little ice age. (Which is what Richard was originally using it to discuss in post #122).

    This ignores all the evidence that has been presented regarding global warming, but (in my estimation) three in particular:
    1) The Little Ice Age was a localized effect, and the extent not fully understood
    2) The rapid increase in temperature over ‘normal’ historical temperature change
    3) The known effect of increasing temperature from increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and the observation that the CO2 concentration has been increasing rapidly since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (combined with knowledge of anthropogenic CO2 emissions).

    The counter-evidence supplied is “HEY, JUST LOOK AT THE GRAPH!”

    This is a misapplication of Occam’s Razor, and is being using to justify fanciful notions by appealing to an abstract concept of simplicity.

  129. #129 snowman
    July 10, 2009

    Well Adam, I am afraid we will never agree. I am arguing that the current pattern is not, in any essential, fundamental way, different from the rise and fall of temperatures (and CO2) that we have seen throughout history.

    You, on the other hand, prefer to advance your case by statistical abstractions and arcane models. Of course, you are perfectly entitled to argue your side of the story through any means you think fit.

    But I cannot see how you can, hand on heart, argue that the application of Occam’s razor supports your conclusion rather than mine. Indeed, it was to demonstrate the error of overly elaborate theorizing that the razor was devised.

    Remember what William of Occam actually said: ‘Entities must not be allowed to multiply unnecessarily.’

  130. #130 Richard
    July 10, 2009

    Snowman,

    from Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica, translated from the latin:
    RULE 1 – “We are to admit no more causes of natural things, than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” If therefore whatever caused a warming earlier naturally, do not invoke another cause for a similar warming later. “for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.”

    RULE II – “Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. As to respiration in a man, and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of`our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets” or Global warming or cooling. Do not therefore invoke another cause for a similar effect.

    “We are certainly not to .. recede from the analogy of Nature, which is wont to be simple, and always consonant to itself.”

    Thomas Aquinas “If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments where one suffices”

  131. #131 Snowman
    July 10, 2009

    Excellent, Richard, really excellent. I do enjoy reading your posts. Unfortunately, I suspect that many of your critics lack the wit to appreciate them.

  132. #132 Richard
    July 10, 2009

    Adam,

    “Over the past 400,000 years (at least) carbon dioxide concentrations never got much above 300ppm. Today, we are rapidly approaching 400ppm. There’s a matter of scale you are completely neglecting; .. So, carbon dioxide isn’t “all powerful” now, it’s the fact that there is a significantly higher concentration, and that concentration is increasing.”

    I am afraid the matter of scale is what is deceiving you, as illustrated in that graph you refer me to. I dont blame you, you havent had the advantage of my maths and science teacher in school to explain the basics. Plot that same graph using the 0 coordinate and suddenly the “dramatic” rise doesnt seem so dramatic after all.

    Then remember what we are talking about is parts per million. Plot the same graph as a percentage of the Earth’s atmosphere and then you get a dead straight horizontal line. The “dramatic” rise cannot be discerned at all.

    Granted CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but theoretically it will raise the global temperature by 1C, if it increases from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, provided all else in our climatic system remains constant. According to IPCC this effect will be enhanced and the Global temperatures should increase by 3C. Again most of this increase should take place in the first half of the increase, ie upto 420 ppm (say about 2C) and a lesser amount during the second half.

    Well what do you know, CO2 has already reached 390 ppm (fast approaching 400 as you say) and the temperature during this time has climbed a scant 0.6C and dropping by all indications instead of climbing.

    It appears as though CO2 is more or less an impotent follower of the climate and not a driver at all, as in the past.

  133. #133 dhogaza
    July 10, 2009

    Unfortunately, I suspect that many of your critics lack the wit to appreciate them.

    No, we’re smart enough to see through them.

    For instance, a simple rewrite of Richard’s point #1 should suffice to make the fallacy clear even to you:

    “We are to admit no more causes of natural things, than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” If therefore whatever caused lung cancer earlier naturally, do not invoke another cause for a similar lung cancer later.

    In other words, since lung cancers existed before people started smoking tobacco, smoking tobacco can’t cause lung cancer.

    The same can you used to “prove” that an asteroid or comet didn’t cause dinosaurs to go extinct, because all previous extinctions of dinosaur species were caused by something else.

    Ad nauseum.

    But I’m not surprised you’re convinced by such silliness.

  134. #134 Richard
    July 10, 2009

    “The same can you used to “prove” that an asteroid or comet didn’t cause dinosaurs to go extinct, because all previous extinctions of dinosaur species were caused by something else.”

    I thought that the dinosaurs went extinct only once? I could be wrong though and its not important.

    The thing is I am not trying to “prove” anything. It is the AGW hypothesis that has to prove itself.

    I have pointed out in #132 just one important instance where it miserably fails to do so.

    No the Parsimony Principle is invoked to debar the AGW hypothesis in the first place. There is no need for it when the temperature increases are well within the range of natural variability.

    We have not figured out the exact causes and mechanisms of natural variability, which depend primarily on the Sun, but in ways that we do not as yet know for certain.

    We should do that first before invoking an entirely new hypothesis to explain the last 3 decades, which we are to believe are entirely different from anything else that has preceded it, despite looking very similar.

  135. #135 dhogaza
    July 10, 2009

    I thought that the dinosaurs went extinct only once?

    I said “dinosaur species”, i.e. one or more, not all.

    No the Parsimony Principle is invoked to debar the AGW hypothesis in the first place. There is no need for it when the temperature increases are well within the range of natural variability.

    Then you need to prove that the basic physics underlying CO2-forced warming is wrong.

    And when you prove that it’s wrong, you have to provide a mechanism which keeps the planet from turning into an iceball.

    And then you have to explain how various events happened in the past which currently are only explainable assuming that observed CO2 physics are correct.

    Etc.

    You don’t *quite* have to prove that the earth is flat, but you’ll have to overturn a very wide body of knowledge in a swath of science so wide that you’d be well on your way to proving it is.

  136. #136 dhogaza
    July 10, 2009

    We have not figured out the exact causes and mechanisms of natural variability, which depend primarily on the Sun, but in ways that we do not as yet know for certain.

    We should do that first before invoking an entirely new hypothesis to explain the last 3 decades, which we are to believe are entirely different from anything else that has preceded it, despite looking very similar.

    I love this crap.

    It depends on the Sun but in ways we do not yet know.

    So we shouldn’t invoke an entirely new hypothesis (by which you mean CO2 forced warming, even though it’s over 150 years old, so not “new”) but instead should invoke an entirely new solar-based hypothesis that some brand-new process we can’t observe, can’t theorize, and haven’t imaged is the cause.

    You’re being ridiculous.

    If you think scientists are going to go down the path of rejecting known physics and embrace some “sky fairies are doing it using the sun” hypothesis, you know nothing of science.

  137. #137 Richard
    July 10, 2009

    “Then you need to prove that the basic physics underlying CO2-forced warming is wrong..You don’t *quite* have to prove that the earth is flat, but you’ll have to overturn a very wide body of knowledge in a swath of science..”

    You build a strawman case each time and attack it, while accusing everyone else of doing so.

    What on Earth do you mean by “the basic physics underlying CO2-forced warming”? There is no basic physics underlying CO2-FORCED WARMING. There is a basic physics underlying the greenhouse effect of CO2, which will remain and which will, along with the Sun’s warmth and other greenhouse gasses, provide the mechanism which will keep the planet from turning into an iceball, as it always has.

    CO2-FORCED WARMING as propounded by the AGW hypothesis is based on an ASSUMPTION, not physics, that there is a positive feedback to this greenhouse effect of CO2 which actually enhances this greenhouse effect to make the Earth even warmer.

    If this be so then the Earth, because of the CO2 we are pouring into the atmosphere, will dangerously warm out of control. However the Earth did not behave like this in the past and there is no evidence it is behaving like this at the present. See my post #132 which remains unanswered.

    “So we shouldn’t invoke an entirely new hypothesis (by which you mean CO2 forced warming, even though it’s over 150 years old, so not “new”) but instead should invoke an entirely new solar-based hypothesis that some brand-new process we can’t observe, can’t theorize, and haven’t imaged is the cause.”

    No time to go into the details just now but again a whole lot of false statements. The 150 year old hypothesis of Svante Arrhenius is not the AGW hypothesis of the IPCC propounded very recently. Solar-based hypotheses are not “entirely new”, and they have been vigourously attacked by the warmers because they far more plausibly explain past temperatures, thus upsetting the “World is in danger – let us save it” hysteria of the warmists. They have been theorised and imagined and propounded.

  138. #138 Jason
    July 12, 2009

    Ask yourself this: What is the difference between the believer and the skeptic in this case? Both can present an array of science, anecdotal evidence, and graphs that lead to seemingly logical conclusions. Just because one does not believe the other, it does not make either true.

    Throw out the “science”. The belief in anthropogenic climate change has more to do with politics than anything. Only humans (who are a relatively new feature on a 4.5 Billion year old planet) have the ability and, to some degree, arrogance to make climate conclusions based on 10, 25, 50, 100, 1000, or even 100,000 years of data.

    The simple truth is that we do not fully understand our climate. The notion that we can make conclusions based on the data we have is truly ridiculous. So, present all the data you want whether you are a believer or a skeptic — it is still a best guess, and nothing more.

    The best science out there should tell us that our time as a species on this planet is relatively limited. Our species will be but a pebble in the sea of time that this planet has seen. Hopefully the next intelligent inhabitants of the earth don’t waste their time creating fear and restricting liberty in the name of “science”.

  139. #139 Adam
    July 12, 2009

    Richard –

    CO2-FORCED WARMING as propounded by the AGW hypothesis is based on an ASSUMPTION, not physics, that there is a positive feedback to this greenhouse effect of CO2 which actually enhances this greenhouse effect to make the Earth even warmer.

    I have a question for you. Do you reject the claim that a warming earth will result in natural release of carbon dioxide (along with other greenhouse gases) from the oceans, permafrost, etc. regardless of the original source of warming (e.g. orbital variations, increased solar output, etc.)?

  140. #140 Adam
    July 12, 2009

    Jason –

    Throw out the “science”. The belief in anthropogenic climate change has more to do with politics than anything. Only humans (who are a relatively new feature on a 4.5 Billion year old planet) have the ability and, to some degree, arrogance to make climate conclusions based on 10, 25, 50, 100, 1000, or even 100,000 years of data.

    What’s ‘arrogant’ about making conclusions from 100, 1000 or 100,000 of data if we reasonably need between 20 and 30 years to make statistically valid statements about climate (in this particular case, temperature). Do you have a reason for making such a radical statement, or are you just unthinkingly calling all climate science into question so you don’t have to deal with the conclusions?
    This post might be useful for you (I reference it a lot, so it might even be the second time it appears on this comment thread)
    http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/01/results-on-deciding-trends.html

    Hopefully the next intelligent inhabitants of the earth don’t waste their time creating fear and restricting liberty in the name of “science”.

    “Restricting liberty” is an interesting term you used here. Just out of curiosity, what liberties have you lost in the name of scare-quote science end-scare-quote?

  141. #141 dhogaza
    July 12, 2009

    CO2-FORCED WARMING as propounded by the AGW hypothesis is based on an ASSUMPTION, not physics, that there is a positive feedback to this greenhouse effect of CO2

    This is a lie, Richard.

    You can say it’s an *assumption* until you’re blue in the face and it will still be a lie.

    The feedbacks which result in an estimated sensitivity to the doubling of CO2 of between 2C and 4C are computed from the applicable physics. Some of this isn’t nailed down was well as we’d like – cloud feedbacks, in particular – but to claim that the computed sensitivity is an “ASSUMPTION, not physics” is a lie, pure and simple.

  142. #142 Snowman
    July 12, 2009

    Dhogaza

    I really wish you would stop all this ranting and posturing. You are clearly no match for Richard and it is embarrassing watching you trying to argue with him. Save yourself further humiliation, please.

  143. #143 dhogaza
    July 12, 2009

    You are clearly no match for Richard…

    Thank God. The only bit of my fundamentalist upbringing that has stuck through adulthood is the simple commandment:

    Thou Shalt Not Lie.

    You are clearly no match for Richard and it is embarrassing watching you trying to argue with him.

    When I say that Richard’s lying when he says that positive feedbacks are “an ASSUMPTION, not physics” I am not arguing.

    I am stating a fact.

    If you choose not to believe that fact, tough. If you wonder why climate scientists don’t pay attention to denialist bullshit you might ask yourself what effect it has when one who works on physics-based GCMs read statements like “positive feedbacks are an assumption”. The climate modeler knows the statement is a lie because the climate modeler has WRITTEN THE BLEEPING MODEL.

    So those who spew such lies are simply ignored *except* when scientists are forced to address such lies in the political and policy arena.

    Coby – the “tag-team” approach Richard and Snowman take makes me wonder if one’s a sockpuppet of the other …

  144. #144 snowman
    July 12, 2009

    Dhogaza

    I have no idea who Richard is, and he certainly doesn’t know me. It is true that I am a fan, though. I admire his intellectual strength, analytical ability and clarity of presentation.

    When I say that it is embarrassing watching you trying to match him, I mean that quite sincerely. I cringe every time you try, and I am quite sure that others in this forum feel the same. Quite simply, Richard is in a different league and it is time you acknowledged that fact. It is certainly painfully apparent to everyone else.

    So, Dhogaza, enough already. Confine yourself to areas where you won’t humiliate yourself further.

  145. #145 dhogaza
    July 12, 2009

    When I say that it is embarrassing watching you trying to match him, I mean that quite sincerely.

    You should feel embarrassed. He doesn’t know WTF he’s talking about. Positive feedback a model ASSUMPTION?

    Feh.

    You might think he “humiliates” me with such lies. That says a lot about you, not about science.

  146. #146 Ian Forrester
    July 12, 2009

    Interesting comment about Richard and snowman possibly being one and the same. Since they both appear to be from the UK I’m sure there are lots of people involved in education over there who are hoping that they are one and the same since they would not like to think that their education system is capable of “graduating” two such uninformned and dishonest students.

    I put the word graduating in quotes since it is now applied to very low levels of the education system such as kindergarten and elementary school. I am sure that I can find students in elementary school who know a lot more about climate change and environmental science than these two apologies for the educated class do.

  147. #147 Adam
    July 12, 2009

    It is true that I am a fan, though. I admire his intellectual strength, analytical ability and clarity of presentation.

    Haha, this actually made me laugh out loud. Thanks for make my day a little more surreal, snowman.

  148. #148 Richard
    July 15, 2009

    Ok I’m trying it here my reply to Dhogaza in plimers page

    dhogaza

    My example of a positive or negative feedback mechanism is correct. Can you give a clearer example?

    From the exchanges I have had with you, your understanding of maths and science doesnt compare with mine. I had to give you a maths lesson (in simple addition) I remember. I wonder if you know what the scientific method is for testing a hypothesis.

    There is absolutely no evidence of anthropogenic warming in the temperature records – I have already pointed this out here in posts #66 and #107.

    To recap there are 2 trends roughly between 1911 to 1944 (give or take a year or two either way depending on which data you are looking at NOAA or Hadley) and 1976 to 2008 which have similar slopes. To distinguish between the two you have to accept the elaborate explanation of the IPCC. The alternative explanation – the second trend is natural like the first. There is no need to assume anything else.

    Well if its not IPCC’s elaborate explanation, what then could be the possible cause of the warming? I think it is the sun (and I have given my reasons). But even if we do not know what it is at this time we do not compulsarily have to assume something/anything, right/wrong in the meantime.

    I have pointed out in #68 in Plimers page, and I think here too, the evidence so far does not support the AGW hypothesis.

  149. #149 Adam
    July 16, 2009

    Richard –

    Well if its not IPCC’s elaborate explanation, what then could be the possible cause of the warming? I think it is the sun (and I have given my reasons).

    You have given your reasons, and it has also been pointed out to you why it cannot be the sun, and why there are different causes of the two time periods you point out.

    http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/chris/cycleT.png
    The red line is the solar cycle, the green line is the global temperature anomaly. They very clearly diverge in the 1970s. The solar cycle has been roughly steady since then, while temperatures have continued to increase.

    You CANNOT be right that the two time periods have the same cause, because of these observed difference. Even in the absence of any other information, it’s clear from this graph alone, that you cannot have the same explanation. You don’t need to make assumptions, but you HAVE to reconcile the data with the theory, which is where we get the IPCC’s “elaborate explanation”.

    I don’t expect this will convince you. Why do you bother posting here if you’re completely unwilling to listen to anything anyone says? What do you gain out of it? It’s clearly not a search for greater understanding of climate science. All your points are very easily debunked, so unless you’re completely daft you aren’t here to try to convince anyone. So why bother? This is an earnest request for information.

  150. #150 Jim Rennison
    July 16, 2009

    It’s a bit hypocritical to nit-pick the poor correlation between temperature and solar activity during the ~40 years that they seem poorly correlated, then turn right around and completely ignore the poor correlation between CO2 levels/rise rate and temperature across several similar time periods. The “it must be particulates” excuse is no more than an obfuscation that does not hold up under detailed scrutiny! The wrong hemisphere had all the particulates increases as the hemisphere that actually warmed during the period of ‘non-correlation’. You can’t then sum the temperature results of both hemispheres and claim that the cooling hemisphere caused the other to arm. That’s just a dishonest obfuscation, pure and simple! And in the end, there are more particulate emissions NOW than during the periods of poor correlation.

  151. #151 dhogaza
    July 16, 2009

    then turn right around and completely ignore the poor correlation between CO2 levels/rise rate and temperature across several similar time periods.

    When denialists make claims, it’s always a good idea to check to see if the claim is accurate.

  152. #152 Adam
    July 16, 2009

    Jim Rennison –

    It’s a bit hypocritical to nit-pick the poor correlation between temperature and solar activity during the ~40 years that they seem poorly correlated, then turn right around and completely ignore the poor correlation between CO2 levels/rise rate and temperature across several similar time periods.

    See dhogaza’s post for the supposed ‘poor correlation between CO2 and Temp’.
    And better yet, see here for a more comprehensive analysis:
    http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/03/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature.html

    Also, you might call it ‘nit-picking’ but I call it ‘a fundamental flaw in Richard’s analysis.’ Richard claims that the trends between the two periods he calls out are approximately the same, so they cause of both should be the same.

    Unfortunately, when we examine the various influences on global temperature, we see vast differences in the latter period than in the earlier one(steady solar influence – per my post#149, more rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations – per dhogaza’s post #150, etc.) so we know that his explanation cannot be right. It remains to be seen whether Richard will actually address this, or if he will simply repeat his claim again (as he has done in the past).

    The “it must be particulates” excuse is no more than an obfuscation that does not hold up under detailed scrutiny!

    What “it must be particulates” are you referring to? For what time period, or what specifically are you trying to say?

  153. #153 coby
    July 16, 2009

    Jim in comment 150,

    You said that the wrong hemisphere warmed mid century considering where the cooling influence of particulates should have been strongest. Perhaps you can cite a source for this claim, it contradicts the ones I have available.

    Check the SH and NH trends in either GISS or in CRU, they show a more pervasive and steady cooling mid 40’s to mid 70’s in the NH. It is especially apparent in the GISS graphs because they seperate mid and high lattitudes. In that image the SH does not experience any cooling at all, in CRU it cools sharply for a 10 year period only in the forties-early fifities and then rises steadily again.

    Particulates were reduced dramatically in the 70’s with clean air regulations. Particulates are growing rapidly now in Asia, and the regional cooling caused by the Asian Brown Cloud is readily apparent.

    Adam and dhogza have addressed you “poor correlation” assertion I would just add that there are many factors affecting climate, including both solar and CO2, so precise correlation with any single forcing is not expected!

  154. #154 Richard
    July 16, 2009

    Adam – I have no idea about the new graph you have pulled out; whether that is correct or how and why that disproves the sun being a cause, or proves that it isnt.

    Solar cycle length is NOT = the influence of the sun on our climate, though it may be connected indirectly as an indicator of solar activity.

    Solar influence is directly related to irradiance or TSI, which IPCC seems to think is the sole or major influence of the sun, and which does not vary much, but far more directly to solar wind, and geomagnetic activity. The variation of TSI over the solar spectrum is also not well known.

    Let us be consistent and stick with the IPCC graph courtesy of Global Warming Art at the top of this page.

    That shows that the sun’s forcing (red line) hasnt changed much since about 1920 or so and if we are to believe that graph then we have to accept CO2 is the cause of the temperature rise of the last 32 years. QED

    However I pointed out in #108 that we simply do not know enough about the sun and the ways in which it influences our atmosphere, to make such a definitive analysis, or dismiss its influence too readily.

    Me #108 – “From the SORCE people who study the sun at NASA – “Despite all that scientists have learned about solar irradiance over the past few decades, they are still a long way from forecasting changes in the solar cycles or incorporating these changes into climate models.”

    Coby – “How about a source for that quote so we can verify it and understand its context? Regardless, an inability to forecast says nothing about what has already happened and uncertainty is hardly a support for the case for solar and definitely does not support your “Not so” response to my assertion that TSI has not changed enough, a response with a high degree of certainty on your part.”

    Me – #122 The source – http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_05.php

    And we do not “know” what has already happened. (With such uncertainties we cant be sure as to what is happening now leave alone have absolute certainty about what has happened in the past)

    Coby – Silence

  155. #155 dhogaza
    July 16, 2009

    Solar influence is directly related to irradiance or TSI, which IPCC seems to think is the sole or major influence of the sun, and which does not vary much, but far more directly to solar wind, and geomagnetic activity.

    Far more directly to solar wind and geomagnetic activity, than to irradiance?

    There is ZERO – repeat, ZERO – evidence of this.

  156. #156 Adam
    July 16, 2009

    Richard

    I have no idea about the new graph you have pulled out; whether that is correct or how and why that disproves the sun being a cause, or proves that it isnt.

    It doesn’t disprove the sun as a cause. It does disprove your assertion that since the two periods you called out (early 20th century and late 20th century) have similar temperature increases, we should assume that they result from the same cause. This graph shows simply that this assertion is incorrect. Variations in solar activity obviously affect global temperatures, but it is insufficient to explain the full 20th century temperature increase. This is where the “Climate Change Attribution” graph comes in, as it provides an explains the observed temperature rise.

    However I pointed out in #108 that we simply do not know enough about the sun and the ways in which it influences our atmosphere, to make such a definitive analysis, or dismiss its influence too readily.

    For someone so cautious about dismissing causes too prematurely, you certainly do not hesitate to discount the effects of greenhouse gases.

  157. #157 Richard
    July 16, 2009

    Adam

    “It does disprove your assertion that since the two periods you called out (early 20th century and late 20th century) have similar temperature increases, we should assume that they result from the same cause. This graph shows simply that this assertion is incorrect.”

    1. I did not say that we should assume that they result from the same causes, (though one should not necessarily assume a different cause for the same effect). I said that we cannot tell from those trends that there is a different cause from the same effect.

    There is no evidence from the temperature records of global warming. I repeatedly hear the assertion that the Earth is warming faster and this shows that the cause must be anthropogenic. This is wrong. You can see that the Earth has warmed just as fast in the past. And this is only since the direct temperature records of 1880. Even if we go further back into the proxy records, the present warming of the past 29 years, as given by the satellite records of 0.126C/decade is nothing unusual, there have been greater rates of warming, and this warming is far less than that predicted by the IPCC.

    I dont see why you cant understand this simple fact.

    2. How exactly does a graph showing the sunspot cycle length/year against global temperature anomaly show that the two periods do not have similar causes. I did not “assert” that sunspot cycle length/year had any mystical effect on or mysteriously cause the first temperature rise, leave alone the second. What exactly are you trying to prove with that senseless graph?

  158. #158 Ian Forrester
    July 16, 2009

    Richard said: “I said that we cannot tell from those trends that there is a different cause from the same effect”.

    Just goes to show that he doesn’t know the difference between cause and effect. Why am I not surprised?

    Richard, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing temperatures to rise. That is the effect.

  159. #159 Richard
    July 16, 2009

    Correction “There is no evidence from the temperature records of global warming.” – that should be “There is no evidence from the temperature records of ANTHROPOGENIC global warming.”

  160. #160 Ian Forrester
    July 16, 2009

    Richard said: “There is no evidence from the temperature records of ANTHROPOGENIC global warming.” That is correct but is incomplete. Of course temperature measurements by them selves cannot tell you what is causing the rise, anthropogenic or otherwise.

    The evidence for the anthropogenic CO2 rise as a cause of the temperature rise comes from other evidence such as isotope analysis and from basic physics (CO2 absorbs IR and causes the molecules to become more energized thus increasing their temperature. Through collisions this energy is transferred to other molecules).

  161. #161 Adam
    July 16, 2009

    Richard

    I did not say that we should assume that they result from the same causes, (though one should not necessarily assume a different cause for the same effect). I said that we cannot tell from those trends that there is a different cause from the same effect.

    This is correct, we cannot tell what is causing the increasing temperature by examining the temperature alone. Which is why we need to examine that various influences on temperature. So we will do so.

    I did not “assert” that sunspot cycle length/year had any mystical effect on or mysteriously cause the first temperature rise, leave alone the second. What exactly are you trying to prove with that senseless graph?

    Solar cycle length is a good proxy for long-term solar change. Shorter cycle implies a hotter sun and vice versa. Thus, we would expect, if as you state global warming is due to changes in the sun, that there would be a close correlation between temperature and solar cycle length. There is up until about the mid 70s, when the two diverge. So clearly there is something else going on.

    My only point is to demonstrate that you cannot so easily attribute the observed temperature rise without digging deeper, and then when you do, you see that natural causes only explain part of the data.

  162. #162 clem_at_is
    November 11, 2009

    The evidence I have seen on greenhouse gases does not say that CO2 is absorbing all the radiation it can. It says that CO2 is absorbing all the radiation AVAILABLE in the limited, small wavebands which it is capable of absorbing.
    Imagine a sports stadium with an audience of 50,000. In this audience, which represents atmospheric molecules, are 2 people (CO2), each carrying a small source of heat, such as a lighted candle. Does it make any sense to say that they are warming, not just the whole audience but the stadium as well?
    The effect of CO2 on atmospheric warming is of the order of 1% of the effect of water vapour: has the variation of this been measured?
    As stated above, global warming is greater at night than during the day. We all know that a cloudy night produces obvious warming while cloud during the day is cooling: is the day/night distribution of cloud being studied?
    There is much evidence of CO2/warming correlation. The large majority of the Earth’s surface is water – up to kilometres deep; this water is saturated with CO2 and, as the temperature rises, some of the CO2 evaporates, increasing the atmospheric concentration: Al Gore’s tail is wagging his dog!

  163. #163 Marco
    November 11, 2009

    clem_at_is: I’m sure there are quite a few people out here who can set you even better straight than I do, so I will just ask you a few questions which you should try to answer using reference to the literature:
    1. Where do you get the idea that CO2 has an effect that amounts to a mere 1% of water vapor?
    2. What do you think is the physical effect of a greenhouse gas (note: this is relevant to your faulty analogy) ?
    3. What would explain your hypothesised increase in clouds over the last 100 years?
    4. What is the evidence that the CO2 increase in the air is a result of ocean outgassing?

  164. #164 Joseph
    December 15, 2009

    I’ve addressed the “correlation is not causation” objection with this analysis.

  165. #165 ridwanzero
    December 28, 2009

    There is no evidence from the temperature records of ANTHROPOGENIC global warming.” That is correct but is incomplete. Of course temperature measurements by them selves cannot tell you what is causing the rise, anthropogenic or otherwise.

    The evidence for the anthropogenic CO2 rise as a cause of the temperature rise comes from other evidence such as isotope analysis and from basic physics (CO2 absorbs IR and causes the molecules to become more energized thus increasing their temperature. Through collisions this energy is transferred to other molecules).,,,,,,,,,,

    Part time work

  166. #166 Dr.A.K.Tewari
    November 19, 2010

    Let me introduce my self as a born anti sketic view holder.wants to be a part of the interesting debate on the issue .What we hold in our ancient un interrupted cultural values , inhibits us to support the views of the other side .
    Sorry Skeptics ….No science can measure the depth of the Sanatan dharma . Be sure !

  167. #167 Dr.A.K.Tewari
    November 20, 2010

    The above mental mastubation on the factors responsible GW or GC through scientific analysis clearly indicate that people believe that they can explain all natural phenomina through the use of scientific findings measured by means having its own limitations .Such an approach can only lead to a false conclusion just as the blind person will describe the morphology of an elephant as per the part of the animal he will touch .It would be a better approach to explain the intricate environmental issues through impact analysis .The skeptic must understand that human population has to be within the manageble limit and so should be the emission of CO2.but the same can not be realized if we continued to explore the issue as we are exploring outer space through our futile efforts for an alternative to our earth .

  168. #168 Ron Hooper
    July 5, 2011

    CO2 The Cause Of Global Warming?

    According to some experts CO2 in our atmosphere is causing global warming by trapping heat in our atmosphere. The total amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is around 385 parts per million (PPM) and the rise in CO2 during the past 200 years, the part that caused all this warming, is 100 parts per million.

    So just how much CO2 is this? Imagine a room 10 foot by 10 foot, i.e. a small bedroom. 385 PPM of this room’s ceiling area would be a little over half the size of a playing card. And the 100 PPM that caused all this warming would be the size of one and a half postage stamps.

    Come on folks you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that this small area isn’t going to trap any amount of heat from escaping the bedroom ceiling. If it could we’d be able to insulate our entire home with a deck of cards.

    Unfortunately we have a lot of people in this country who are either poorly educated, devoid of critical thinking, gullible, or perhaps all of these cognitive limitations.

  169. #169 coby
    July 5, 2011

    Hi Ron,

    Beware of valuing “truthiness” over critical thinking and education.

    I suppose you are also of the opinion that a mere 800ppm alcohol content in your blood can’t make you act like an idiot, as evidienced by your post above.

  170. #170 mandas
    July 5, 2011

    Ron Hooper

    “…According to some experts CO2 in our atmosphere is causing global warming by trapping heat in our atmosphere….”

    Actually, what you should have writtenn is:

    “According to ALL experts, CO2 in our atmosphere is causing global warming etc…”

    “….Come on folks you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that this small area isn’t going to trap any amount of heat from escaping the bedroom ceiling. If it could we’d be able to insulate our entire home with a deck of cards. Unfortunately we have a lot of people in this country who are either poorly educated, devoid of critical thinking, gullible, or perhaps all of these cognitive limitations….”

    You got it part right. The bit about not being a rocket scientists is sort of right – you need to be a physicist to truly understand it, because that’s exactly what it is – physics. And it has been well understood for over a century.

    But you are 100% correct about there being a lot of people in this country (and I assume you mean the USA here) who are poorly educated, devoid of critical thinking or gullible.

    Which of these three are you? Or are you all three?

  171. #171 Aaron Jackson
    August 21, 2012

    I have read through this entire blog and have learned a lot more on both sides perspective. I still see man made C02 causing global warming as a theory that has still not been proved. Evidence has been shown throughout this blog to show evidence towards the theory but its based on hypothetical models. Again not saying the theory is wrong it has to be disproved but when do you make large decisions that can effect nations and people inside those nations on a theory without conclusive evidence?

  172. #172 Richard Simons
    August 23, 2012

    I still see man made C02 causing global warming as a theory that has still not been proved. Evidence has been shown throughout this blog to show evidence towards the theory but its based on hypothetical models.

    It has been known for 150 years that CO2 is a absorbs infrared radiation and that its presence is responsible for Earth being warmer than otherwise expected. It has been known for 50 years that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing and that this is due to human activity. There are no known negative feedbacks that are remotely large enough to counteract the effects of CO2. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that Earth’s temperature will increase.

    Exactly which part of this do you find unconvincing and what would you accept as proof?

    when do you make large decisions that can effect nations and people inside those nations on a theory without conclusive evidence?

    It’s done all the time, for example invading other countries based on rumours, fishing and irrigating with no evidence that it is sustainable in the long-term and pumping out CO2 with no evidence that it is not going to have permanent effects.

  173. #173 Richard Simons
    August 23, 2012

    I want preview back! “CO2 absorbs infrared radiation”.

  174. #174 Wow
    August 23, 2012

    “I still see man made C02 causing global warming as a theory that has still not been proved.”

    That’s because you’re in denial of the evidence.

    Tell me, were you on OJ’s jury panel?

  175. #175 mandas
    August 24, 2012

    Come on guys, give Aaron a break, This statement of his is actually one hundred percent accurate:

    “…. I still see man made C02 causing global warming as a theory that has still not been proved….”

    Of course it is a theory that has not been proven (sic). And of course, gravity is also a theory that has not been proven. As is natural selection, the atomic theory of matter, germ theory, plate tectonics, etc, etc.

    And he asks a reasonable question at the end:

    “…..when do you make large decisions that can effect nations and people inside those nations on a theory without conclusive evidence?…”

    And the answer to that is – never. You should never make major decisions like that without conclusive evidence. But of course, that is why we should have made decisions on climate change decades ago, when it became obvious that there is overwhelmingly conclusive and irrefutable evidence – and not just ‘hypothetical models’.

    But thanks for your input Aaron. Perhaps you could expand your education on the subject by reading some real science papers, rather than just blogs. Get a copy of the IPCC report, and go to the reference list. Then grab a hold of all of the papers listed which provide the conclusive evidence you are after. It may take you a while though, there are several hundred papers which explain the physical science and observations.

    Best to start now then – science is fun!!

  176. #176 Wow
    August 25, 2012

    Well, really, when he asks:

    “…..when do you make large decisions that can effect nations and people inside those nations on a theory without conclusive evidence?…”

    Where is the proof that there ARE any nations? You know, 100% absolute solid proof.

    Where is the proof of all these people?

    “I think they exist, therefore they do” isn’t enough.

    (and additionally, from the tone of the question it seems like Aaron thinks that these will be *deleterious* effects to these people. After all, why would we wonder about affecting people by doing something nice for them? So where is the proof that these changes will be deleterious?)

  177. #177 HAL
    Michigan
    September 8, 2012

    What a shame that no one is educated on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. I have made this issue a soap box question to about 40 congressional staffers reposible for energy issues and a “climate scientist” at NRDC in NY city office. Not one of the above knew the figure or actually got close. The worst was Senator Levin’s energy staffer who answered “40%”. (I’ll bet that some reading this site will not question that.

    At least the NRDC climate scientist admitted, after 30 seconds of silence, that she didn’t know. She was surprised when I corrected her as to which GHG is the largest with the largest affect and that it is not CO2.

    I note that Coby doesn’t discuss the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere but only discusses the increase and implies that it this increase is ALL man made (for the ignorant novice). The graph shown provides a PPM ordinate without an explanation as to what PPM means. (I submit that Coby does not want to explain because it will not support the horribly simple partisan approach presented presented.)

    I wrote a letter to the Editor to respond to a National Geo article written by an MIT professor a few years ago ( which they refused to publish). The MIT Professor presented his lesson plan for graduate students dealing with CO2 affects on the climate. He included a cartoon of a bath tube about to over flow, a spicit

  178. #178 HAL
    September 8, 2012

    I wrote a letter to the Editor to respond to a National Geo article written by an MIT professor a few years ago ( which they refused to publish). The MIT Professor presented his lesson plan for graduate students dealing with CO2 affects on the climate. He included a cartoon of a bath tube about to over flow, a spigot in and a drain out. The professor noted that the bath tub (atmosphere for those not following) would overflow if the input exceeded the output as we see in our real world. ( Is this a credited course at MIT?)
    My response was that a true representation would be 10 drops in the bottom of the tub contributed by man as compared to a million 390 drop capacity tub. Perspective is everything and this article and the MIT article are equally devoid of any.

    I purposely have left out the true concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere hoping that at least a few readers will show the interest to google it and then ask how such a TRACE gas with so few molecules in the atmosphere can have the affect it has. Another question for readers is what GHG contributes about 85% of the green house affect (not CO2)?

    Why did Richard Lovelock (originator of much global warming predictions) retract his predictions for global warming?

    Bottom line is don’t believe everything you read. Look it up and read both sides.

  179. #179 HAL
    September 9, 2012

    correction to the above MIT response:
    >My response was that a true representation would be 10 drops in the bottom of the tub contributed by man as compared to a million 390 drop capacity tub.<

    Should read: My response was that a true representation would be 10 drops (molecules) in the bottom of the tub contributed by man, which includes 390 total drops of CO2 contained in the million drops of various gases in the atmosphere (contents of tub).

  180. #180 Wow
    September 9, 2012

    Eat 2g of cyanide, Hal.

    What a pity you’re uneducated.

  181. #181 Wow
    September 9, 2012

    CO2’s increase: 40%

    Didn’t know that, did you Hal.

    IR active gasses in the atmosphere: less than 1%.

    Didn’t know that, did you Hal.

    Biggest concentration: H2O, second most: CO2.

    Didn’t know that, did you Hal.

    And it seems that you forgot we get rain here made of water, not CO2. Forgot that, did you Hal?

    You didn’t know about the Cassius-Clapyron law, did you, Hal.

    They were probably stunned into silence by your ego and idiocy, Hal.

    There’s a reason why your pathetic letter is ignored, Hal, and it’s not because of your dizzying intellect.

  182. #182 HAL
    Michigan
    September 9, 2012

    To WOW!
    So sorry that I stepped on your GW bible.
    As to your questions:
    1. >CO2′s increase: 40%

    Didn’t know that, did you Hal.IR active gasses in the atmosphere: less than 1%.

    Didn’t know that, did you Hal.Biggest concentration: H2O, second most: CO2.

    Didn’t know that, did you Hal.

    And it seems that you forgot we get rain here made of water, not CO2. Forgot that, did you Hal?You didn’t know about the Cassius-Clapyron law, did you, Hal.They were probably stunned into silence by your ego and idiocy, Hal.

    There’s a reason why your pathetic letter is ignored, Hal, and it’s not because of your dizzying intellect.<

    Thank you for your support Wow!
    To believe that the increase in CO2 of your stated 40% (39% actually) is the result of man's actions is not shared scientifically as only 10 of the 390 parts per million of CO2 concentration is attributed to man. This was the point of the letter to the editor that I cite which was in answer to an amateurish lesson plan for graduate students at MIT. Did you even try to look up the article (it was December of 2010 I believe)?

    A common argument from CO2 control supporters is that the man contributed CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and can not be absorbed by the natural sinks of the oceans, vegetation and atmosphere because the nature is in such exact balance. As a counter to that theory, I refer you to the above quote from Dr. Lovelock about our lack of understanding of natures balances.

    Even if CO2 is the boggy man of GH gases, how would Kyoto, cap and trade, etc. even dent the CO2 concentration? Please provide your plan for stopping the opening of a new coal power plant in China per week, the destruction of the rain forest in Brazil for the production of ethanol exports to the US and the increased energy production and usage in a growing population. 65%+ of the GH gases are currently emitted by emerging populations in China, India and Brazil. How would you balance the actions in order to reduce GH gases and GW and maintain a viable economy in the US/Europe? Do you care?

    I am sorry that I offended you with my "dizzying intellect.

    I will try to tone it down for you in the future to aid your comprehension.

  183. #183 HAL
    September 10, 2012

    My above post is not as I typed it.

    It seems that the WOW post was added completely at the beginning, although I posted each question and then answered. My responses were truncated.

    I do not have enough time to go back and reconstruct my complete answers

    Not happy with the mechanics of this site!

  184. #184 Wow
    September 10, 2012

    No, you got even your own posts wrong, Hal.

    “My response was that a true representation would be 10 drops in the bottom of the tub contributed by man as compared to a million 390 drop capacity tub”

    280ppm it was. 390ppm it is.

    Given your petulance over small drops, I would have expected you not to get the original wrong by nearly 35%.

    But your incapacity doesn’t end there, does it, Hal.

    The current GHG effect is about 33C of warming. NO ONE GAS gives 85%. CO2 is around 25%, H2O is around 60%. But since water (you DO remember that H2O is water, right?) falls out of the sky readily, it doesn’t gain in concentration unless something else pushes the heat up.

    The second one, CO2, does.

    And the feedback for that indicates a 3x amplification effect as evidenced from the fraction of current GHG warming.

    Moreover, if it HAD been 85% H2O, that would indicate an amplification of something like 5x.

    Given that it can be proven that a doubling of CO2 concentrations cause 1.2C of warming (purely thermodynamics needed, ancient and well studied science), that would indicate 6C per doubling after H2O is allowed to increase.

    A HUGE number of problems with your assertions.

    No wonder you haven’t gotten a “satisfactory” answer: they have better things to do with their time than educate the ill-informed.

  185. #185 Wow
    September 10, 2012

    “To believe that the increase in CO2 of your stated 40% (39% actually) is the result of man’s actions is not shared scientifically as only 10 of the 390 parts per million of CO2 concentration is attributed to man.”

    Absolutely incorrect.

    Indeed you would have to ask where the CO2 produced by the burning of the verified trillions of tons of coal, oil and gas have gone if your bare assertion were true.

    Scientifically, you are an ignoramus, and willfully lying.

    “the man contributed CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and can not be absorbed by the natural sinks of the oceans, vegetation and atmosphere because the nature is in such exact balance”

    Bollocks again, stating lies merely to attain some pretend credulosity.

    Oceans are known to take nearly half the CO2 from human production. It’s in the IPCC report.

    Which you haven’t read, have you Hal, because you don’t read anything, you parrot what you’ve been told is in the literature.

    And if plant mass is taking up any more, then where is all this plant matter? 30 trillion tons of CO2 makes a lot of trees each year.

    And what is all this bollocks about “Oh China will create lots”. Tell me, why aren’t you pushing for more renewable power, like China? You seem absolutely fine with aping china on using stone-age “lets burn stuff for heat and light” technology, but shit-scared about 20th century tech.

    And tell me, why bother with deposing Saddam, “Freeing” Iran or North Korea? There will just be more dictators anyway, so why bother?

    Not to mention all those killers being jailed or killed by the state. Why bother? There will just be other killers.

    Or thieves. Why bother? There will only be more if you arrest the ones you have now.

    You are a coward. Hiding behind the skirts of the Chinese. Pathetic whingin little puke.

  186. #186 UFB
    Earth
    February 28, 2013

    Did nobody notice this remark in the main article?:

    “Temperatures have risen more at night than during the day. This really defeats the notion of a solar powered climate change on its face.”

    I haven’t stopped laughing…

  187. #187 coby
    February 28, 2013

    Perhaps when you have stopped laughing, you can elaborate.

  188. #188 UFB
    February 28, 2013

    Well, okay, but I’m not entirely sure where to start…

    Are you saying that CO2 is known to be more effective at trapping heat radiation at night than during the day, and therefore that the trend that you say exists in night-time temperatures is indicative of CO2 being the cause?

    I don’t think anyone is seriously doubting that the heat that exists in the atmosphere at any given time originates from the Sun are they? Even at night I mean?

    Isn’t it still the case that the earth is usually only half in the dark at any given time, i.e. half day and half night, or did I miss something…? I think of it as being a bit like a chicken on a rotisserie.

    It just seems a strange remark to make, because it seems to be implying that global warming couldn’t have been caused by the sun, because it was dark at the time that some of it happened… Which struck me as funny I’m afraid… Um, sorry about that…

  189. #189 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    “Are you saying that CO2 is known to be more effective at trapping heat radiation at night than during the day”

    No.

    Do you want to make any more idiotic suggestions as to what the science is?

  190. #190 Wow
    February 28, 2013

    “I don’t think anyone is seriously doubting that the heat that exists in the atmosphere at any given time originates from the Sun are they?”

    Actually, THAT *is* funny!!!!

    The sun doesn’t heat the atmosphere!!!!

  191. #191 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    Tell me, are you mystified how your thermos flask, when it claims to keep hot things hot and cold things cold, how it knows the difference?

  192. #192 UFB
    March 1, 2013

    Okay….

    In your analogy, you’re not suggesting the heat (or absence thereof) originates from inside the thermos flask? Or from the lining of the thermos flask?

  193. #193 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    “you’re not suggesting the heat (or absence thereof) originates from inside the thermos flask?”

    No.

    (and again, do you want to make any more idiotic suggestions as to what the science is?)

  194. #194 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    Of course the heat (absence of which is a privative, hence doesn’t exist) does exist in your thermos when it has something inside it.

  195. #195 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    But I take it from your queries that you ARE mystified how the thermos flask knows whether it’s meant to keep things hot or cold, right?

  196. #196 UFB
    March 1, 2013

    Well, you certainly have a privative grasp of the issues – I can see why they call you “Wow”! Thanks for your help, and good luck with the weather on your world.

    I came here looking for enlightenment, and enlightening it has been…

  197. #197 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    You’re easily pleased!

    Asked some non-science nonsense, told “no, that’s wrong” and you go away happy.

    Well, fair enough.

  198. #198 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    Oh, I take it that you don’t really care how the thermos flask knows, eh?

  199. #199 Marco
    March 1, 2013

    UFB, Coby clearly used the argument to show that global warming as observed cannot be due to the sun’s supposed increase in luminosity. In the latter case it does not make physical sense that the night temperatures have risen faster than the day temperatures.

    There are other explanations, which include the greenhouse effect, combined with changes in albedo and the effect of aerosols.

  200. #200 UFB
    March 1, 2013

    Hmm.

    I absolutely know that I am going to regret this.

    I told myself when I embarked upon this exercise to steer clear of any site or forum that resorts to bludgeoning in the absence of razor sharp insights, or even just reasonably blunt insights, or indeed insights at all, (hello, er, ‘Wow’).

    Unfortunately there aren’t any such forums that I can find, which may help to explain why the sceptics are winning the debate.

    The question is this, which I thought, maybe mistakenly, was obvious:

    Why is it that you think that the CO2 related greenhouse effect is a better explanation than increased solar activity, of the alleged fact that average temperatures at night have increased faster than average daytime temperatures?

    And just to be clear, and without any apology at alI, I absolutely reserve the right to laugh out loud at anyone who suggests that the reason is because it is dark at night, and therefore the sun cannot be responsible.

    Sensible responses please from anyone who didn’t decide to name themselves after a self-affirmative attempt at onomatopoeia. Also, anyone replying with thermos flask analogies can assume that I will have become a man-made CO2 sceptic within seconds of reading their lazy-arsed reply.

    I have a bag of coal here that I am prepared to burn…

  201. #201 coby
    March 1, 2013

    Hi UFB,

    Thanks for elaborating.
    Are you saying that CO2 is known to be more effective at trapping heat radiation at night than during the day, and therefore that the trend that you say exists in night-time temperatures is indicative of CO2 being the cause?

    I’m saying that if the cause of warming were increased solar output then you would expect to see this trend show up in local station readings more in the daytime highs (there is no global diurnal – day/night – cycle as you rightly point out). The fact that it shows up more at night indicates that there is a change in the rate that heat is lost, ie the surface, warmed during the day, is cooling slower at night. This is consistent with a change in GH gas concentrations, which act as an insulator to heat loss via infra-red emissions.

    I don’t think anyone is seriously doubting that the heat that exists in the atmosphere at any given time originates from the Sun are they? Even at night I mean?

    Absolutely not. To use with the thermos analogy (your pre-emptive dismissal notwithstanding!), say you record the temperature of a thermos over and over once when hot liquid is poured in and once just before you dump it out 2 hours later before starting again. There is an upward trend in your readings. If you separate the first and second readings and find that there is no difference in the “hot” readings but the “cool” ones are all warmer, then you can safely surmise that the liquid goes in at the same temperature but the insulating effect of the thermos is getting stronger.

    Same for day and night on earth (with only about a hundred differences, but the principal is there!). The sun is not providing more energy, but it is escaping back to space slower.

    Isn’t it still the case that the earth is usually only half in the dark at any given time, i.e. half day and half night, or did I miss something…? I think of it as being a bit like a chicken on a rotisserie.

    Yes, but as I said above, I am talking local station times. As far as I am aware there is no global diurnal cycle though it would not surprise me if there were as land/ocean distributions could well cause that.

    I hope this helps you see my point!

  202. #202 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    “Why is it that you think that the CO2 related greenhouse effect is a better explanation than increased solar activity”

    The sun’s output has decreased.

    Therefore it cannot be causing any warming trend.

  203. #203 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    The reason why increasing night temperatures are a signature of GHG warming is because it’s reduced COOLING that causes the warming trend at night.

    And the reason for that is

    E=sT^4

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

  204. #204 freddy
    March 1, 2013

    I am at present in South Africa and all people tell me that the temperatures in the last years were considerably lower than in the past. Automn and winter begin 2 weaks earlier. In Capetown you need pullovers outside in the evening as it is too chilly, and this since approx. 10 years at this time during the year on average.

    Coby, average temperatures are something very complex. Don’t relie too naively on what you are inclined, for whatever reason, to believe.

  205. #205 Wow
    March 1, 2013

    Wow, why waste all that money using measuring devices when you can just ask people what the size of something is!

  206. #206 Marco
    March 1, 2013

    Funny how freddykaitroll asks Coby to not relie on something on what he is inclined to believe. If only he could apply that to himself.

    Take for example this study:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168192310002893
    Done in a region about 40 kms distance from Cape Town.
    All seasons T = up, including the last ten years
    (and yes, there is a funny mistake in all the trend line equations)

    Expect freddykaitroll to complain about fraudulent data handling…

  207. #207 freddy
    March 2, 2013

    Marco, I did not look at temperature records, but talked to many local people here in Cape Town and surroundings who told me that their feeling definitely is, that it is getting colder. I know that you cannot believe what people tell you when it contradicts your alarmistic warming ideology. You are a truly poor partizan AGW guy.

  208. #208 Wow
    March 2, 2013

    Have you calibrated these “sensors” against reliable temperature measuring devices?

  209. #209 UFB
    March 2, 2013

    Coby,

    Thanks for your response.

    The problem though is not that I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. The problem is that it just looks like really bad science – for at least the reasons I have already intimated…

    I need to post my comments here in a couple of chunks I’m afraid, so bear with me…

  210. #210 UFB
    March 2, 2013

    Firstly let’s deal with this thermos flask point. The thermos flask analogy is only going to be useful if we are enquiring about something that is like a thermos flask. The Earth is nothing like a thermos flask. Not even a really big thermos flask.

    Here are two of the many, many ways in which the thermos flask analogy doesn’t work. These are fairly key, and I think fairly obvious, differences:

    1. The thermos flask analogy does not allow for the continued presence of the heat source that heated the contents in the first place, i.e. the Sun. (And just to be abundantly clear, the original heat source, (in so far as there is any plausible analogy to be drawn here – which there isn’t) would be the electricity that boiled the kettle, not the ambient temperature of the room).

    2. The thermos flask does not have things like clouds, and a climate, and ocean currents, and sea breezes, and houses with central heating for that matter (…or if yours does, please can you let me know where you got it? I want one.)

    An analogy is supposed to be a simplifying model of the thing being described. Any attempt to model or describe temperature changes in the Earth’s atmosphere without taking account of the Sun, or of the climate system, is going to incur my considerable disdain…

    To put the point another way, you might have been onto something if we could have turned off the Sun, and the climate, at some point in pre-industrial times and measured the speed at which heat was lost to space. And then repeated the exercise again today, and then compared the results. (We would need something considerably more reliable than surface thermometers of course. Satellites maybe…). However, we obviously can’t do that. So we don’t have any data to support, or even remotely to suggest, your hypothesis. And just in case anyone missed my point earlier, the fact that it is dark at night does not achieve this! I think you are getting confused with the rate at which it gets cold at night – at a given surface location, and with a given state of the weather, cloud cover, sea breezes etc, (and during a period of climate change!) This is not the same thing at all!

    So let’s leave thermos flasks alone for a while.

  211. #211 UFB
    March 2, 2013

    My second, related, point is this:

    The (suggested/proposed) fact that night-time temperatures have increased faster than daytime temperatures is not, to the best of my knowledge, a predicted feature of the CO2 induced greenhouse effect itself. I have asked the point a couple of times whether it is being suggested that the CO2 induced greenhouse effect is more potent at night than it is during the day. And I think you are agreeing with me that this is not generally thought to be the case.

    Now, this is important: heat loss does not only occur at night. It happens during the day too. Heat is continually being lost to space, regardless of whether it is day or night in a particular location. So if there has been a greenhouse-effect-induced slowing of the rate at which heat is lost at night, then there has also been a slowing of the rate at which heat is lost during the day.

    Since I think we’re agreed that the greenhouse effect is the same regardless of whether it is day or night, you would expect daytime temperatures to increase by about the same amount as night-time temperatures – regardless of what you think the forcing agent is – all other things being equal.

    Since you say that night-time temperatures have in fact increased more than daytime temperatures, we have to assume, unsurprisingly, that other things are not all equal; i.e. there is some other aspect of our hugely complex and chaotic climate system that is causing the results that you say exist (– or there is a problem with the measurements). This, again, is regardless of what you think the forcing agent is.

    So the proposed fact that night-time temperatures have increased more than daytime temperatures, whilst an interesting fact (if indeed it is a fact), is no more of a problem for the hypothesis that global warming is caused by changes in solar radiation than it is for the hypothesis that global warming is caused by manmade CO2 emissions. It is, on the face of it, an unexpected outcome even if we are convinced that global warming is caused by manmade CO2 emissions rather than changes in solar radiation.

    And just to be clear, there is nothing about increasing night-time average temperatures that is inconsistent with climate change driven by increased solar activity just because it is dark at night. The heat in the system at night originates from the Sun in just the same way that the heat in the system in the day does.

  212. #212 UFB
    March 2, 2013

    Finanlly, Wow – Please brace yourself because this may upset you. It may make you want to reach for a blunt object and start hitting the keyboard with it. You’re going to want to yell and maybe resort to insults. I want you be ready to resist those urges. So put down your beer and concentrate. Here is the thing:

    Those expensive measuring devices you refer to have recorded flat average global temperatures, or even a slight cooling in global average temperatures, since at least 2001. Whatever we think is causing our climate to change, we’re not going to get home by dodging the facts or being expedient with the science… People see through that.

    Now, please, pick your favourite sentence, take it out of context, render it into a point or an argument that nobody ever intended, and then tell me how stupid you think it is…

  213. #213 Wow
    March 2, 2013

    “The problem is that it just looks like really bad science ”

    Because you don’t understand it.

    And you can hardly talk about “really bad science” in the negative when you claimed that the sun’s output increasing is a better explanation of a warming trend ESPECIALLY WHEN THE OUTPUT IS DECREASING.

  214. #214 Wow
    March 2, 2013

    “The (suggested/proposed) fact that night-time temperatures have increased faster than daytime temperatures is not, to the best of my knowledge, a predicted feature of the CO2 induced greenhouse effect itself”

    And this is a problem of your aquired and cherished ignorance.

    Will you even go to SkepticalScience?

  215. #215 UFB
    March 2, 2013

    There it is… ;-)

  216. #216 Wow
    March 2, 2013

    “Those expensive measuring devices you refer to have recorded flat average global temperature”

    Nope, they haven’t. Lots of up and down, all over the place.

  217. #217 Wow
    March 2, 2013

    “There it is…”

    There it was.

  218. #218 Wow
    March 2, 2013

    I see you really don’t know how a thermos works.

    Your lack of understanding on all other items of science is entirely explained by your wilful ignorance.

  219. #219 Wow
    March 2, 2013

    “the proposed fact that night-time temperatures have increased more than daytime temperatures, whilst an interesting fact is no more of a problem for the hypothesis that global warming is caused by changes in solar radiation than”

    Here’s a hint for you:

    At night time, the sun isn’t shining there any more.

  220. #220 Marco
    March 2, 2013

    Having been involved peripherally in a study of actual measurements versus how people felt, I know how easily humans can fool themselves. Measurements consistently show that the supposed perception of freddykaitroll’s friends is wrong. Besides that, I have little confidence in the ability of freddykaitroll to accuractely convey what people are telling him.

  221. #221 Wow
    March 2, 2013

    Or even his honesty in reporting.

  222. #222 Wow
    March 2, 2013

    Latest ignorant denier, the statement was this:

    Tell me, are you mystified how your thermos flask, when it claims to keep hot things hot and cold things cold, how it knows the difference?

    It wasn’t analogising anything. It was pointing out that you are completely clueless about how heat transfer works.

  223. #223 Marco
    March 2, 2013

    UFB, you just might want to check what has happened in the oceans since 2001. Not quite what I would call “flat” in terms of energy build-up.

  224. #224 Wow
    March 2, 2013

    Oh, you also don’t appear to have understood any maths either.

    E=sT^4

    There’s a reason why I posted that wrt faster warming trend for nights than days.

  225. #225 mandas
    March 4, 2013

    UFB

    You can ignore Wow or trade insults with him, that’s up to you. But if you want to have a rational debate on the issue, you need to start with evidence. You also need to have a coherent and internally logical hypothesis / theory.

    It seems that you want to go with ‘increased solar activity’ as your hypothesis for the observed increases in the global energy balance. The only problem with your hypothesis is that it is not supported by the evidence. But then, 2 seconds search of a valid science source and the reading of a few papers or articles will tell you that. So you can’t be basing your hypothesis on science or evidence – so where did you get the idea from?

    Next, at post #212 you repeat the denier meme about global temperatures being flat or cooling since 2001. Since that is well known (among scientists anyway) to be wrong, why are you repeating it here?

    But since you have made both statements for some reason (why I have to ask?), it brings me back to my first point, and a question for you.

    You have indicated that night time temperatures are increasing faster than daytime temperatures (a known fact), and suggested that increased solar activity may be a better explanation than CO2. You have also suggested that the Earth has experienced a cooling trend over the past 12 years. So here is my question. Why can’t you see the contradictions in your position?

    I will use a quote from you at post #200, which is actually surprisingly accurate. You said:

    ”Unfortunately there aren’t any such forums that I can find, which may help to explain why the sceptics are winning the debate.

    The answer is obvious. The reason why the sceptics are winning the debate is because sceptics question everything. They base their views on evidence and reason, and put aside bias and ideology. They change their minds when they are shown the facts.

    So here’s another question for you. Are you a sceptic, and would you change your mind if you were shown the evidence? I would like to think so, because if not, then we may as well just adopt Wow’s position and tell you to fuck off.

  226. #226 Wow
    March 4, 2013

    Of course, mandas knows what point there is to insults.

    That’s why his opening sentence was as it was.

    Mandas is not very smart.

  227. #227 mandas
    March 5, 2013

    Oh come on wow – you know that ‘smart’ is a relative term. So if you are comparing me to the likes of Darwin, then I would have to agree with you. But if you are comparing us, then you would appear to be mistaken.

  228. #228 Wow
    March 5, 2013

    Aw, mandy, you seem to have a false confidence problem.

    Never mind, eh, all you need to do is keep pretending and you’ll feel just fine.

  229. #229 mandas
    March 6, 2013

    Well thank you wow. Your doctorate in psychoanalysis and your years of experience in treating patients seems to have paid off.

  230. #230 Wow
    March 6, 2013

    You’re welcome, mandy.

    FoC.

  231. #231 freddy
    March 6, 2013

    “Wow is not smart”, “mandy is not smart”, etc.

    Hey guys, to which always deeper level are you willing to fall.

    The question was “what is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?”

    Easy answer: there is no evidence, just speculation from primitive climate models with many flaws.

  232. #232 freddy
    March 6, 2013

    wow, a degree in psychoanalysis is zero qualification to talk competently about weather and climate. You only repeat in what you believe but don’t understand due to a lack of basic meteorological education. So you better shut up.

    Same with evolution: why do you dare as a psycho to express false opinions in a field where you lack all basic knowledge?

    Explanation required!

  233. #233 mandas
    March 6, 2013

    It looks as though freddy / kai, not content with being an idiot with no concept of science, does also not get sarcasm.

  234. #234 Wow
    March 6, 2013

    incorrect answer: there is no evidence, just speculation from primitive climate models with many flaws.”

    FTFY dearie.

  235. #235 Wow
    March 6, 2013

    “wow, a degree in psychoanalysis is zero qualification to talk competently about weather and climate”

    And a belief in a sky fairy is zero qualification to talk competently about weather and climate.

    Yet you still do so.

  236. #236 Wow
    March 6, 2013

    why do you dare as a psychopath to express false opinions in a field where you lack all basic knowledge?

  237. #237 freddy
    March 7, 2013

    wow default for incivility:

    “why do you dare as a psychopath to express false opinions in a field where you lack all basic knowledge?”

    Please apologize for qualifying me a “psychopath”. I am not going to tolerate rude verbal offenses against me.

  238. #238 freddy
    March 7, 2013

    mandas, default due to incivility:

    “It looks as though freddy / kai, not content with being an idiot”

    Please apologize for qualifying me an “idiot”. I am not going to tolerate rude verbal offenses against me any longer.

  239. #239 Wow
    March 7, 2013

    freddy, default due to wanton stupidity.

  240. #240 Marco
    March 7, 2013

    freddykaitroll thinks it is OK to accuse Jim Hansen of fraud, and when shown wrong does not consider it necessary to apologise for making such false claims, and then starts tonetrolling when he gets a bit of his own medicine. Freddykaitroll is a troll.

  241. #241 freddy
    March 7, 2013

    MarcoTroll:

    “freddykaitroll thinks it is OK to accuse Jim Hansen of fraud, and when shown wrong does not consider it necessary to apologise for making such false claims, and then starts tonetrolling when he gets a bit of his own medicine. Freddykaitroll is a troll”

    Every word you said is a lie. You moron are talking always self-compacent BS and don’t apologise when you offend others in an utterly arrogant way. Nobody has asked you and you are not a representative of GISS and in addition have no knowledge of temperature recods and IT. So just shut up as layperson without any knowledge in climate and weather.

    Like wow who is a psychologist you are far away from atmospheric physics and meteorolgy, but your mouth always wide open, but comletely unable to provide scientifically acceptable references which support your claim of a warming world.

    Improve your skills and do better in the future instead just talking nittipieety katakata, you poor small.

    This was my last answer to you, since you are too mean to get my attention

    —- ignore —–

  242. #242 freddy
    March 7, 2013

    wow, incivility again without any substance (like always with you)

    You will get information which you may be able to digest after you show improvement of your manners and communication skills.

    But now:

    — ignore —

  243. #243 Wow
    March 7, 2013

    freddy, idiocy and irrelevant again.

    You would get information if you bothered to read it rather than refuse to acknowledge it, but you cherish your ignorance too much.

  244. #244 Wow
    March 7, 2013

    “Every word you said is a lie.”

    Of course “lie” here means “perceptive truth, damaging to my fake appearance as an eager learner”.

  245. #245 Marco
    March 7, 2013

    Freddykaitroll claims I do not know about temperature records, and yet I was able to show him wrong within a few minutes of googling. Looks like freddykaitroll is projecting his own incompetence.

  246. #246 freddy
    March 7, 2013

    wow, you as just a psycho should be silent when it’s about serious matters. Your world is ghosts, miracles, emotions, schizophrenia and other disgusting stuff. Stay with your immaterial competence and don’t try to deceive the readers here that you have any competence in physical matters, you ghostwriter and whistleoe cook.

  247. #247 freddy
    March 7, 2013

    MarcoTroll, so you are proud of your low googling skills. what a poor brat you are. Arrogant but low performance, an impressive combination, you troll

  248. #248 freddy
    March 7, 2013

    MarcoTroll, who pays your trolling work here, and how much per word is it. Try for once to abstain from being a liar.

  249. #249 Wow
    March 8, 2013

    Your fight to troll has failed. Stop wasting your time.

  250. #250 Marco
    March 8, 2013

    Freddykaitroll thinks I get paid for showing him to be a fool. No need for that, I’ll gladly show idiots like freddykaitroll to be wrong. And with my “low googling skills” I still managed to make you look like an idiot. Own goal, freddykaitroll!

  251. #251 mandas
    March 8, 2013

    freddy/kai @238

    Please apologize for qualifying me an “idiot”. I am not going to tolerate rude verbal offenses against me any longer.

    I apologise for calling you an idiot. What I meant to say was that you are a moron.

  252. #252 Bernard J.
    March 8, 2013

    ‘Freddy’ said at #204:

    freddy
    March 1, 2013

    I am at present in South Africa and all people tell me that the temperatures in the last years were considerably lower than in the past. Automn and winter begin 2 weaks earlier. In Capetown you need pullovers outside in the evening as it is too chilly, and this since approx. 10 years at this time during the year on average.

    It seems that ‘Freddy’ still hasn’t learned the difference between untested anecdote and science. If he did, he’d not have posted yet another embarrassing proof of his profound idiocy.

    From Section 5, Summary of Kruger and Sekele, 2012:

    The study provided an updated analysis of the daily maximum and minimum temperature trends of relevant extreme temperature indices over South Africa, for the period 1962–2009. While the maximum temperature indices show general increases in warm extremes, the minimum temperature indices show general decreases in cold extremes. This indicates that South Africa experienced general warming over the analysis period [also see Kruger et al. (2011) for an update on the trends in annual mean temperatures over South Africa].

    Most of the results indicate relatively stronger increases in warm extremes and decreases in cold extremes in the western, northeastern and extreme eastern parts of the country. The results obtained are in general agreement with those of recent temperature trend studies for the region, which show a general warming trend, but with relatively weaker trends in the central parts of South Africa (Kruger and Shongwe, 2004; New et al., 2006). The parts of South Africa that experienced relatively stronger warming can be summarized as in Figure 14.

    The regions in South Africa with relatively warmer thermal regimes, and which are more prone to hot daily extremes, i.e. the Lowveld in the northeast of the country, the east coast, and the dry western interior as indicated by clusters B, C and D in Figure 2, experienced the strongest increases in warm extremes.

    It is envisaged that a persistence in the strong warming observed, particularly in the Northern Cape and parts of the Western Cape, both in the west where the interior can be described as semi-arid with highly variable precipitation, will have a negative effect on the biodiversity, due to habitat loss, and agriculture, due to likely increases in evaporation and consequent heat stress to livestock. Biodiversity has already been affected by rising temperatures in the drier regions of the northern and Western Cape provinces, as evidenced by Foden et al. (2007).

    This remarkable differential warming over South Africa can most likely be attributed to possible changes in the atmospheric circulation over the subcontinent. Over the western parts it may include possible changes in the strengths of cold fronts moving over the subcontinent from the west, or weaker ridging by the quasi-stationary Atlantic Ocean high pressure system from the south or southeast, especially during the austral summer. In the east, weaker ridging by the Indian Ocean high pressure system might reduce the frequency or strength of the influx of cooler maritime air from the east. It is recommended that the possible changes be investigated with regional model studies and/or the analysis of long-term reanalysis data, both of which falls beyond the scope of the present study.

    The analyses of longer time series than the common study period of 1962–2009, indicate that for most of the longer term stations which show relatively large differences between trends over the longer term and 1962–2009, the frequencies of warm extremes have accelerated since around the mid-1960s. This finding is in agreement with the mean global temperature trend, where increased warming is evident since the latter part of the 20th century, particularly from the mid-1960s (Hansen et al., 2001; Lugina et al., 2005; Smith and Reynolds, 2005; Brohan et al., 2006).

    [Emboldened emphases mine.]

  253. #253 Bernard J.
    March 8, 2013

    UFB said:

    The (suggested/proposed) fact that night-time temperatures have increased faster than daytime temperatures is not, to the best of my knowledge, a predicted feature of the CO2 induced greenhouse effect itself.

    Wrong.

    I have asked the point a couple of times whether it is being suggested that the CO2 induced greenhouse effect is more potent at night than it is during the day.

    Then you’ve asked the wrong question.

    It’s not a matter of whether the greenhouse effect is “more potent at night than it is during the day”, it’s that the entrapment of additional heat manifests in relatively greater increases in night-time anomalies as re-radiation to space is decreased. This is a different mechanism to the greenhouse effect being “more potent at night than it is during the day”.

    If global warming was a result of increased insolation the warming would be relatively more evident in day-time temperatures. Also, there would be an observable increase in actual insolation, and guess what – it hasn’t been happening.

  254. #254 freddy
    March 9, 2013

    Bernard can you answer three simple questions?

    1: What would be today’s mean global temperature with an atmosphere without CO2 (as difference to today’s global temperature)?

    2: What would be today’s mean global temperature with an atmosphere with 280ppmv CO2 (as difference to today’s global temperature)?

    3: What would be today’s mean global temperature with an atmosphere without water vapour but with 400ppmv CO2 (as difference to today’s global temperature)?

  255. #255 freddy
    March 9, 2013

    wow, have you ever published a scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal in natural sciences?

  256. #256 Wow
    March 9, 2013

    freddy, have you ever read one?

  257. #257 Wow
    March 9, 2013

    1: What would be today’s mean global temperature with an atmosphere without CO2 (as difference to today’s global temperature)?

    About -18C.

    2: What would be today’s mean global temperature with an atmosphere with 280ppmv CO2 (as difference to today’s global temperature)?

    About 15C.

    3: What would be today’s mean global temperature with an atmosphere without water vapour but with 400ppmv CO2 (as difference to today’s global temperature)?

    Around -6C

  258. #258 Wow
    March 9, 2013

    Those are thermodynamic equilibrium temperatures of the entire earth.

  259. #259 freddy
    March 9, 2013

    wow “freddy, have you ever read one?”

    Not the answer to my question. Please answer my question, which was fairly simple. Thank you. A simple yes or no would be sufficient.

  260. #260 freddy
    March 9, 2013

    wow, interesting: what is your definition of “thermodynamic equilibrium temperatures of the entire earth”?

  261. #261 Wow
    March 9, 2013

    The same as every other scientists’ definition of it, freddy.

  262. #262 Wow
    March 9, 2013

    And I note you haven’t answered my question. A simple yes or no would suffice.

  263. #263 Cacadores
    June 3, 2013

    Your first chart measures the rise in world CO2 at Mouna Loa? Isn’t that a volcano? On Hawaii, an island with lava lakes throwing out mantel plumes the larget component of which (after water vapour) is… yes, you’ve guessed it: CO2.

  264. #264 coby
    June 3, 2013

    Hi Cacadores,

    Please see this article: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/mauna-loa-is-volcano/

    I’m honestly not sure what it says about your own intellectual faculties that you would assume such incompetence of experts, but rest assured that they are not as stupid as you presume.

  265. #265 coby
    June 3, 2013

    I should just add for people who don’t like to click links: what would one expect this record to show if it were dominated by local volcanic CO2 out gassing? A steady, year-on-year rise? And imposed on top, a nice, regular seasonal cycle?

    It is implausible in the extreme that the record taken by Keeling is an artifact of Hawaiian volcanism, as it is implausible in the extreme that the scientists studying atmospheric composition would be such bumbling fools as to not be aware of and account for such local effects.

    The other simple point made in the linked article is that there are in fact many other locations around the globe where CO2 is measured and there is no disagreement.

  266. #266 Jack
    United Kingdom
    February 27, 2014

    Hi, just wondering how you would respond to these points by William Happer? http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/happer-on-cnbc.html

  267. #267 coby
    February 27, 2014

    Hi Jack,

    I did not watch it all but I am familiar with Happer’s POV and have heard these types of arguments before. You can try these three links:
    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather/
    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/01/climate-is-always-changing/
    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/geological-history-does-not-support/

    In general I think it is an intellectually lazy argument to merely observe that the world was much warmer millions of years ago, therefore what’s the big deal…if I turned up with my pet tyrannosaurus and said “relax, dinosaurs existed before!” would you relax? We, and more importantly the entire biosphere, are adapted to the current climatic zones and conditions, it is not okay to alter them suddenly and drastically. And yes, 3 or 4oC rise in one hundred years is both sudden and drastic, nor will it stop there. The change from the deepest glaciation 25K years ago to the current general climate took 5 to 10K years and involved a global average temperature change of only 5oC.

    A geologists musings on how the world is always evolving over the eons is a truly irresponsible way to inform policy decisions that effect humans within their and their children’s lifetimes.

  268. #268 Wow
    February 28, 2014

    Cacadores, do you think that the scientists were too dumb to notice the volcano? Do you think they were too dumb to think anyone else could see the volcano?

    Or is it you’re too dumb to think that anyone else would have noticed?

  269. #269 mandas
    March 2, 2014

    “….just wondering how you would respond to these points by William Happer?….

    I don’t know Jack, how would Happer react to a climate scientist telling him that he didn’t know what he was talking about in regard to optical physics and spectroscopy?

    Oh yeah, that’s right. He would tell them to fuck off and to stop publishing opinion pieces that are at odds with the evidence. Or he could tell Happer that if he disagreed with the views of climate scientists, that he could go out and collect the data, analyse it, then publish it a peer reviewed journal for comment by other scientists, rather than just writing op-ed pieces for the media.

    You know – like an ethical scientist is supposed to do.

  270. #270 Prime
    April 5, 2014

    Crude oil, coal and gas are fossil fuels. They were formed over millions of years, from the remains of dead organisms,

    coal was formed from dead plant material
    crude oil and gas were formed from dead marine organisms.

    Fossil fuels are non-renewable. They took a very long time to form and we are using them up faster than they can be renewed. Fossil fuels are also finite resources. They are no longer being made or are being made extremely slowly. Once they have all been used up, they cannot be replaced.( http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/ocr_gateway/carbon_chemistry/crude_oilrev1.shtml )

    If fossils fuels were once living organisms then doesn’t that means they once inhabited our planets surface. So if all those molecules and carbon were once at the surface why is it a problem them back to the surface and emit them into the ecosystem. Is our current ecosystem so different from when those “fossil fuels” once inhabited the planet that we would destroy our planet? I find it hard to believe that we will destroy our planet by using fossil fuels that were actually part of the ecosystem of the planet. This is not a comment about weather the earth is warming this is a comment of is this warming destroying our planet.

  271. #271 coby
    April 17, 2014

    If fossils fuels were once living organisms then doesn’t that means they once inhabited our planets surface.

    Yes, this is correct.

    So if all those molecules and carbon were once at the surface why is it a problem them back to the surface and emit them into the ecosystem.

    Why would the fact that that CO2 was once in the ocean-atmosphere suggest it does not matter now? Once upon a time the atmosphere only had a few percent oxygen, we need the 20% there now.

    Is our current ecosystem so different from when those “fossil fuels” once inhabited the planet that we would destroy our planet? I find it hard to believe that we will destroy our planet by using fossil fuels that were actually part of the ecosystem of the planet.

    “Destroy our planet” is of course hyperbole, but I will take that to mean “render it inhospitipal for today’s life forms”. So, yes, our current ecosytems are extremely different today. But steady-state differences aside the real problem is changes at a rate far exceeding the rate at which adaptation and evolution can keep pace.

  272. #272 John
    Australia
    April 28, 2014

    As someone with a very basic understanding of physics, I am seeing a very clear pattern in all this debate. The fact that the IPCC has allowed a “proof” that CO2 is a major contributor to climate change (later shown to be flawed), to be the smoking gun that dictates how the world addresses climate change. To entertain/research the possibility that this in fact a minuscule contributor would entertain the possibility that the IPCC was wrong and that literally trillions of dollars go down the plughole. To base a strategy for tackling climate change on conjecture without seriously investigating whether you’re unfairly blaming 1 life giving gas for so much of it, is crazy. But I guess I ask myself, if I’d made that call to wage war on CO2, would I be willing to entertain the possibility I’ve been barking up the wrong tree? Maybe if I was feeling very brave, and didn’t mind flipping burgers the rest of my life.

  273. #273 Ian Forrester
    April 29, 2014

    Here is a correction for you John. You have absolutely no understanding of physics as displayed in the rubbish you posted. You have a very poor understanding of English grammar too. Could your poor understanding of the English language be a reason for your inability to understand basic physics?

    How many hours a day do you spend flipping burgers? if you do not like it I suggest you get an education.

  274. #274 mandas
    April 29, 2014

    “….As someone with a very basic understanding of physics,….”

    Then here’s some advice – when your understanding is as basic as yours, you only look foolish when you make pronouncements about things that are not only way above your level of education, but which have been well understood by real scientists for over a century.

    “….But I guess I ask myself, if I’d made that call to wage war on CO2, would I be willing to entertain the possibility I’ve been barking up the wrong tree? Maybe if I was feeling very brave, and didn’t mind flipping burgers the rest of my life….”

    Looks like John is not one to admit to the possibility that – based on a lack of understanding of physics – he might be wrong. Worse, he thinks he can get a job for which he is clearly unqualified.

  275. #275 Frank
    September 16, 2014

    But what evidence do we have to support that the temperature we have TODAY is the optimal temperature?

    That seem very unlikely.

    Has the.8 degrees temperature increase we have had over the last 150 years made the world a better place or a worse place? We live longer, fewer people starve to death and fewer people freeze do death. We spend less money on heating our homes.

    Why is cooler good and warmer bad? And for whom?

    I wouldn’t mind it to be 10-15 degrees warmer all year long to be honest.

  276. #276 coby
    September 16, 2014

    Hi Frank,

    That is a common question and it is answered here: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather/

    As to some of your specific spin on that, I don’t think it is very likely that the 1oC rise over the last 100 years (not .8 over 150) has had a discernible global effect on the food supply especially since agricultural practices have evolved so quickly (not that one would expect any direct correlation between temperature increases and crop yields). Yes, there may be less spent on heating, but there is more spent on air conditioning at the same time, though that seems a pretty small picture concern.

    Anyhow, do read the other article and let me know why if ever you don’t find it satisfying.

  277. #277 Wow
    September 19, 2014

    “But what evidence do we have to support that the temperature we have TODAY is the optimal temperature?”

    Well, London, New York, etc, are all at places where the water isn’t.

    And if it were warmer, there’d be less ice and more water in the oceans, meaning these places would no longer be liveable.

    There’s one piece of evidence for you.

    I.e. the current temperature is optimal for what we have.

    Unless you want to cost up the cost of moving every port inland, including some of the most expensive real estate (and having an extremely long outage of the stock exchanges while you move the buildings), we’ll just have that it would be very bad to have these places under water.

  278. #278 freddy
    October 7, 2014

    wow, you are a political conservatist re climate, everything should stay as is, no development, no future

  279. #279 Marco
    October 11, 2014

    Freddykaiboristroll, how’s that report you and your ‘team’ were supposed to submit to congress going?

  280. #280 Wow
    October 14, 2014

    Care to put a case as to how moving the LSE and NYSE will create vast new wealth and opportunities, trollballs?

  281. #281 freddy
    October 20, 2014

    wow, elaborate more on your mixed-sense expressions!

  282. #282 Wow
    October 21, 2014

    That isn’t answering the question, boy.

    Care to put a case as to how moving the LSE and NYSE will create vast new wealth and opportunities, trollballs?

    If any of those words are too long, feel free to ask a grown-up what they mean.

  283. #283 freddy
    October 25, 2014

    wow, there is no argumentation in your “controbution”. you should elaborate on the relationship between “moving” certain diseases and “wealth”. boy, are you aware of the vicious in your thinking?

  284. #284 Craig Thomas
    October 28, 2014

    We have raised the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to levels they haven’t been at for millions of years.

    In other words, the CO2 level right now is higher than at any time during our species’ evolution.

    In other words, it couldn’t possibly be optimal for our species.

    Additionally, last time CO2 levels were as high as they are now, the Oceans were 40 metres higher than they are today.

    So, today’s CO2 levels are utterly unoptimal for anybody living between 0 and 40 metres above sea level, which is quite a few hundreds of millions of people.

    I wonder if that answers Franks stupid question?

  285. #285 freddy
    November 4, 2014

    Craig Thomas

    I do not agree with your speculation on future CO2 levels. Nobody can know this. Even the IPCC admits that the future is unknown.

  286. #286 Wow
    November 5, 2014

    Yup, classic “angry teen£” response there, kaibot. “I DON’T AGREE!!!”. No actual evidence for it, but then you’ve been brought up on the anti-intellectualism of fundamentalist xtians so just lain hate “book learnin'” unless it’s fiat from”The Good Book” ™. Just like you disagree that having to move, for example, the entire NYSE will be a bad thing economically, but have NO IDEA how it could be of benefit

    Kaibot. Jump off a bridge.

    I can guess what the future holds if you do that.

    Do you?

    Then you can’t claim the future is unknown. You KNOW what happens if you jump off a bridge.

Current ye@r *