Hey, what ever happened to Watts' groundbreaking paper on UHI which Watts said disproved the BEST results (which Watts said he would accept no matter what until he found out those results supported AGW)?

He never published it and those he gave credit to in the paper backed away from it.

Chris Kennedy....SHHHHH!! Watts think swe all forgot about his--ahem--sophistry. :)

This is a very coherent analysis of the resistance to climate change models. Ultimately it is led by political interests prodded into action by the industries most likely to lose funding and whose investments in technology and infrastructure are most likely to become obsolete. The pipeline issue is a flashpoint. So is resistance to fracking.

I'd like to follow up on the Auspol connection. Could you provide the twitter names of Cook and the Australian politician?
Thx.

But I wonder, looking at the above graphs, if the earlier part of the 20th century saw a metastable shift – changing from one equilibrium to a new and different equilibrium – in weather patterns, caused by CO2 induced warming, the effects of which arose for a while then faded away.

I have had a related notion about what happened in the 1940-1970 time frame. If you look at the temperature anomaly curve, you will see that it was flat or even slightly negative during that period. What else was going on during those years? There were little dustups in Europe and the Pacific that you may have heard about, and then there was a series of atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons continuing until the mid 1960s. These things would tend to kick a bunch of aerosols into the stratosphere, something that is known to have a temporary cooling effect. Volcanoes can do the same kind of thing: the last time the temperature anomaly was well below the trend line was the early 1990s, following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, and "the year without a summer" (1816) is associated with the Tambora eruption of 1815, the largest volcanic eruption witnessed by people who lived to write about it.

The point is that our current warming trend could well be interrupted (at least temporarily) by a major war--something made all the more likely as climate change stresses agricultural yields and as rising sea levels force some coastal people to migrate to higher ground--and the usual suspects would likely claim that global warming theory was disproven (I don't think the models include possible wars among their forcings). If I were betting on a location for this flash point, I'd take Pakistan (which has a barely stable government already, and their primary commercial city, Karachi, is at sea level) lobbing nukes at their traditional enemy India, which is capable of retaliating in kind. But that's not the only possibility.

I think there is a gap in the major volcano activity during this period, so I'm betting on things like blowing up much of Eruope and the bomb tests.

Sure polar vortex is older than Limbaugh claimed but I bet it doesn't predate Gore. Checkmate! Or some such "logic"....

I picked on a shift from Laden's blog that I had never thought about before but I think could represent a positive shift for those concerned about increasing awareness of the issue of climate change: instead of saying "climate change denialism" he said "climate SCIENCE denialism. Just like evolution denial is fundamentally an assault on science denying the findings of science on the climate change issue is most fundamentally an attack on science itself. I think there could be a better outcome in the debate if we begin to drill this into everyone's head.

Duane @ 10 and Greg @ 11: Excellent. "climate science denialism" and "science denialism." Exactly. Take charge of the language and force the other side to justify theirs.

But also: Trying to fight denialism by "explaining" facts, is a losing battle. "He who _explains_, _loses_." Explaining is playing defense. You need to start playing _offense_.

There's a famous video wherein Apollo astronaut Neil Armstrong is at some hotel at a conference, and a Moon landing denialist was following him around, hassling him, saying to his face that the Moon landings were faked, etc. etc. (Moon landing conspiracy theories are apparently getting more common, about which I was skeptical at first but just this week ran into a bunch of it in comments on a story.)

At first, Armstrong was the total gentleman about it. When the nutcase conspiracist kept following him and hassling and pestering him, he tried to walk away from the guy. But then, finally, when the guy wouldn't quit and wouldn't go away, and got in Armstrong's face and called him a fraud, Armstrong (who is still as fit as a soldier in his older years) turned around and punched the guy in the nose. That, finally, made the guy go away. And a police officer who happened to be there did not arrest Armstrong, because it was clear who started it and that Armstrong would have a viable claim to self-defense.

That's how to fight: do the verbal equivalent of punching the denialists in the nose. Hit them hard, and don't hesitate to get personal and/or use emotional zingers where appropriate.

For example with the Australian MP: "Sir, if you are trying to defend the legacy of a family member who worked in the coal mines, all you are accomplishing is to dishonor all coal miners." (Note: Australia has a _huge_ cultural thing about coal mining and coal miners, and this is a key reason why Australia is still infested with denialists.)

For example with the lobbyists: "You sir, are merely defending the unproduced assets of your employer. That makes you a corrupt shill, a liar, and a prostitute."

For the Galileo wannabees: Take a hint from a ferociously effective zinger at a presidential candidates' debate in the 90s (that is famous enough to still be relevant): "I knew Galileo, and let me tell you, you are no Galileo." Or with an audience too young to remember that one, "So, you think you're Galileo? Did you think you were Jesus last year too? Do you often hear voices nobody else can hear? Calling your name, swearing at you, that kind of thing?"

As for Rush Limbaugh, "He himself admits he's nothing but a clever entertainer. He doesn't even believe half of what he says on the air. He's a clown. He's not even a very funny clown."

Phrases such as "19th-century energy sources" are also useful. "Why are you defending 19th-century energy sources in the 21st century? Are you some kind of Luddite?"

Also, "Are you one of those anti-nukers?" and "What other conspiracy theories do you subscribe to? 9/11 Truther by any chance?"

Lastly, be willing to fight dirty. Go into the denialist blogs and make posts that bring in other conspiracy theories, the wilder the better. 9/11 Truther stuff is always useful. Moon landing fakery stuff is apparently popular now so use it as well. "The Queen of England is in cahoots with the international drug cartels" is a classic, and easily tracked back to Lyndon LaRouche who is a well-known nutjob conspiracy theorist. The goal is to encourage "crank magnetism," to get denialists to chime in with all the conspiracy theories they support.

In general, be willing to use all lawful means at your disposal, and don't let squeamishness stop you. The science is settled, the politics are not. We are fighting on the ground of politics, where the niceties of the science community are seen as quaint and antiquated, where red meat works, and where reasoning takes a back seat to emotion. That's the empirical reality on the ground, and we ignore it at our peril.

"Chances are, a view of nature held by only a few is wrong."

Even though I agree with almost everything Greg writes, I'm a little uncomfortable with this sentence. It contains an important germ of truth, but it seems a touch too strong.

As an example, I deny the existence of supernatural beings. This places me in a tiny minority worldwide. If, in a discussion with a believer, they were to say to me "You are wrong because so few people in the world agree with you", I would consider that they were making a mistake in their reasoning.

First out of the box laurels on AGW go to whichever ( or whatever ) anthropitihcienes of the >1000th millennium BP set the first uncontrolled forest fire in hope of enjoying some barbecue in its wake.

Best supporting role in prehistoric geoengineering is a toss up between the Aboriginal hunters who organized the first paperbark fueled marsupail drive , and the last brave native Americans to fire the understory of the Forest Primeval before the Pilgrims came ashore.

Remember that someways chaotic book _Chaos_ the occurrence of "phase doubling" as a system enters a new norm.
Also, not long ago a heavy rain might lay down half an inch of rain over a couple of days. Now one or two inches fall is ordinary.
Sorry for terse. Tired.

G @ 12:
"There’s a famous video wherein Apollo astronaut Neil Armstrong is at some hotel..."

It was Buzz Aldrin:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2272321.stm

Re. MWS @ 17: Thereby exposing my notorious bad memory for names. The way my brain is wired, names are arbitrary character-strings like telephone numbers, that have zero semantic meaning. Anyway, kudos to Buzz Aldrin for doing with his fist what climate activists should be doing with words. Fight hard, hit hard, do not "explain," and do not apologize.

First, some words about Berkeley and Watts. The Berkeley study did take the urban heat island effect into account. In a New York Times op-ed Richard Muller, who led the study, wrote:

“We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-…- skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
To begin with, Watts refused to accept the Berkley conclusions because the paper had not yet been peer-reviewed. Then, when the paper had been reviewed, Watts rejected it because it had not been reviewed in an established journal. There was no way Watts could have accepted the conclusions of a paper that undermines all he stands for, and the only reason he said that he would stand by the results was that Muller previously had aligned himself with the septics and that Watts therefore assumed the results would be to his liking.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/20/349544/berkeley-temperature-st…- confirm-global-warming/
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/01/best-study-peer-reviewed-and-co…

Re. science denial, I think it's worth mentioning that it first became prominent when science began playing a role in the regulation of industries, and could be seen as inimical to corporate interests. It's hardly a coincidence that the vast majority of climate science denying books have been financed by, or associated with conservative think tanks.

Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010
http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr12ASRFeature.pdf

The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Jacques%20et%20al.%202…

The septics' allegations of fraud could be an example of projection. In any event, the economic interests behind the septics themselves are undeniable:
“Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, an organization founded and financed by the oil industry and some of the Republican party's wealthiest donors, told the National Review in December his group made "great headway" during the past three years in turning acceptance of climate science into a political liability. "The vast majority of people who are involved in the [Republican] nominating process—the conventions and the primaries—are suspect of the science. And that's our influence. Groups like Americans for Prosperity have done it," he said.”
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120221/republicans-santorum-romney…

@Philip
Well, I don't know the whole story behind it, but I remember Watts saying that the UHI effect is irrelevant concering global temperatures, because of the study's outcome. Maybe a bit late but at least he accepted it.

@HarryWiggs
So you want me to post a link to wuwt in here?

@Mr.Laden

Just some remarks: I totally agree with, that science doesn't usually get "Galileoed". Let's take lagrangian mechanics, looks fine, works fine, makes totally sense, everything is fine. Then some guy named Maxwell did some generalisation of all the electrodynamical phenomena described by Ampère, Faraday etc.. Then someone noticed that there is a fundamental problem with electodynamics that just won't fit into the classical mechanics way (we call it lorentz invariance). Well in the light of the present, it turned out Maxwell already made an realtivistic equation, but it took about 50 years (?) for Lorentz and Einstein to realize that the problem lies in classical mechanics, not in electrodynamics. Hence, we got the Theory of Special Relativity.

In this example, mechanics does not get "Galileoed", but rather limited to certain applications, and extended to a new principle generally applieable.

Ok so here is my point (after this long and mostly inaccurately repeting of science history). We talk about physics. Ye, it is that plain simple. We have no model about the climate where scientists are saying: "Oh yes this is the best describtion of reality we have. Just look how well it works." or other scientists saying: "Hmm yes, it works here, but how do you explain that?". So all in all, we know the physics, yet we don't know the dynamics occuring in such a complex system. The whole topic, nonlinear dynamics and chaos, is like 20 years old, a completely new mathematical approach. (Ye quite now, I'm asking myself what I actually want to say in here, well I let you decide)

Kemmy, I don't buy the "it's too complex to understand" argument, and I especially don't buy the "Its not at the level of this or that physics yet"

Regarding the former, climate science is a subset of earth system science, which is parallel to and similar to biology (and maybe geology) in that it is a mixture of historical, dynamical, contingent, (and yes, in there somewhere but overrated in importance, chaotic etc.) systems and we've been studying complex systems like this for a while. The earliest major book that I've read that addresses this is Darwin's Coral Reef monograph. I don't buy the latter because the study of complex systems does not ever reduce to something as simple and obvious, once it is noticed by a genius or two, as relativity!

Kemmy Landurm –
"So you want me to post a link to wuwt in here?"

Like HarryWiggs, I don't recall that the BEST study got Watts to modify his claims. As you have a clear memory that he did, you should have no trouble providing documentation for your assertion. If you feel that a link to WUWT would meet with disapproval, you could instead provide us with the title(s) of the relevant post(s), which we then could google.

Mr. Laden,

This is an excellent and crystal-clear discussion. I like how accessible you make the complex ideas. I would also add that there are cultural and psychological factors that play into the phenomenon of AGW denialism. I teach a class on it, and invite you to stop by my blog about it for more information: http://unofficialfactchecker.wordpress.com/

Interesting blog, but there are several things wrong within the presentation.
1. Yes, it did warm slightly more rapidly in the early 20th Century than the end of the 20th Century. No one knows why the early 20th century warming happened. There are multiple theories, but no single cause/effect.
2. The Dust Bowl drought was a minor drought in the USA. Paleo records, AND observed records are abundant with longer, much more intense droughts. After the drought of 1955-57, the frequency and intensity of droughts has actually declined.
3. There is NO evidence that higher CO2 levels add temperature to the oceans. The radiation band of CO2 is called Long Wave. It penetrates water approx 2 microns. Short Wave radiation, sent to us by the sun, penetrates water up to 30+ meters. The evaporation of water is faster, under most circumstances, than the radiation band of CO2 can overcome. This is easily documented via laboratory tests.

We are in a long term warming rebound from the LIA. The LIA was a world wide event confirmed by proxy data. While proxy data is not perfect, (resolution etc problems), it is what we have.

Basic physics and gas laws show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The bands over lap the H2O vapor bands. Even with that overlap, a doubling of CO2 should increase temps approx 1.0C, everything else static. The atmosphere is NOT static. Hence, sensitivity comes into play. The current climate models have a divergence problem. They are based on CO2 as a large driver of climate. Observations indicate the sensitivity is lower than had been previously thought. This is not good nor bad. This is how science works. Make a best prediction of a non linear atmosphere and see how it plays out. The divergence now is approx 2 sigma, which is a clear signal that sensitivity, as previously understood, was too high.

We have not warmed for 15-17 years, depending on the temperature metric. That has caused the divergence problem. Time to go back to the drawing board, which is being done, and get a better understanding of our chaotic climate.

Once again, interesting op-ed, but fraught with failure.

Always easy to set up straw man arguments in an echo chamber and knock them down.

Very few, if any, disagree that man-made CO2 emissions have pushed atmospheric CO2 to around 400ppm from about 280ppm, or there is warming since about 1850. Nor is there disagreement that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would be expected to cause some warming for an iconic doubling of CO2, all things being equal, which of course they aren't. Climate sensitivity is theoretical and derived from computer models. Some recent papers suggest a sensitivity below 2C, others suggest higher. A CO2 rise of about 120ppm has been accompanied by about 0.8C of warming, although not all of that can be blamed on CO2 (e.g 15% for solar if we consider TSI only?).

Hopefully no one 'denies' that climate (and weather) is naturally variable and has been changing as long as we have had a climate?

A temperature 'anomaly' is derived from (arbitrarily?) comparing a chosen period of time with another. Claims that 20th century warming is 'unprecedented' isn't necessarily true given the well known problems with some proxy data and methodology. It is also likely that a warm bias remains in the surface temperature record.

I'm sure no one considers Gavin Schmidt et al or Ben Santer et al as 'deniers' but they are an example of those who have been trying to explain the 'pause, ' which could already be 20 years long if the Santer paper is correct. It's over 17 years in the satellite record (RSS and UAH).

We can congratulate the IPCC for climate sensitivity being supported by observations at the low end of IPCC model projections.

It looks as though we have an extended period of low solar activity through cycles 24, 25 and 26, predicted 3 decades ago, which should provide the opportunity to test solar v CO2. If solar wins, the 'pause' will continue and there will be no warming with the coolest period around the 2030s before solar activity picks up again.

My disagreement is with counter-productive alarmism or catastrophism, which is a 'big turn' off for the public and promotes bad policy. I am a scientist, by the way, but not a climate scientist. Alarmism over the subsequently de-bunked 'gulf stream scare' prompted me to look 'under the hood' of global warming (or climate change).

Weather is chaotic, climate is not. If you think it is, you don't even understand what climate is.

Mr. Laden:
The interface you mentioned is a very minor source of heat in the oceans. The main force of heating the oceans is short wave radiation. We both know that, I would hope.

The range of climate sensitivity to CO2 has been expanded to include a lower number. The reason for this is, at present, no one really has a good handle on said range.

H2O vapor is the driver of change or stability in our climate. It dwarfs any other green house gas. The over lap of radiation bands between CO2 and H2O is well understood. In the troposphere, CO2 has virtually no effect on temperature because of this.

The present warming is not unprecidented during the Holocene era, which we are in. The rate of warming isn't even unprecidented.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=greenland+ice+core+alley+2000&id=84…

Greenland is not the world, but is reflective of at least NH climate/temps. Dr. Alley's ice core interpretation has been confirmed via shell studies in that area.

I am not attempting to minimize sensitivity. The range was expanded in IPCC 5. The lower end lowered because of an increase in knowledge. It has as high a probability, with our current understanding, as the higher end of climate sensitivity.

There is no denying in my comments. There is a better presentation of what our current understanding is, with no political bend to it.

Thanks.

I don't think understanding was his objective.

Mr. Laden:
This is a recently published paper concerning H2O vapor concentrations.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052094/abstract

From you misdirect to SS, I must presume that you are not aware of the current knowledge on this subject.

Thanks.

As we all know, the science and the facts are incontrovertible. Those arguing against climate change are doing so because of two reasons. the first is because people are lazy, threatened, scared or just plain stupid. the second and more vocal and organised lots are zealots of what I like to call the religion or belief system of NEO-conservatism. The reason why you hear there voiced so much in this FALSE BALANCE debate we have in the media is simply because the media is owned, operated and controlled by corporate interests. When you step outside this cooped corporate space into alternative media sources you do not hear the babble of 'denialist' because these media sources question and actively rebut their false and misleading claims.

Stephen Brailey: Man - made catastrophic global warming, or climate change, isn't a fact. 'The science' is framed mostly as evidence with low to high confidence. Claiming people are arguing against climate change is another straw man - who is arguing that the climate doesn't change? If you want to 'follow the money' follow the beneficiaries of the tens of billions spent on the climate agenda by governments. False balance comes from the fact that it is career suicide to speak out against flaws in 'the science.' Judith Curry has "fallen on her dagger" for being outspoken against certain aspects of the 'consensus.'

@Mr. Laden

Yes, of couse we can't simply say "It's too complex, forget about it", but I guess we both agree that we are dealing with a complex system. Additonally, mathematic studies towards chaotic system won't derive any huge leap towards the understanding of a perticular problem, at least not in the next few decades. So we got the data, telling a waming trend since at least 150 years. Therefore we are wondering why is that? Even more because there doesn't seem to be any natural cause of the warming. So yes, it makes totally sense that enrichment of CO2 in the atmosphere did it, as we know the physical properties of this molecule. (Well this not a discussion, because while writing this I notice that I totally agree with you)

Ok there is one thing that really troubles me. You can't say that relativity is obvious. Yes hell yeah it is obvious if you know 1.constant of speed of light, 2. basic principle of physics: physics is the same no matter in which frame you are. But that's the point: It took a while to realize this, and, even then it took a while to notice to what consequences these two assumptions will lead to.

But Greg. Anthony Watts IS the new Galileo! Rick Perry said so . . .

Really good blog article Greg, enjoyed it! One thing I think was missed in your review is the how strongly most of those who claim to be skeptical of human caused global warming seem to believe there is some vast conspiracy of scientists, politicians, and environmentalists (and Beta Retigulans, big foot, Elvis and who knows what else) to doctor all scientific findings. While I recognize and agree with your points regarding the science, I am finding that there is a cadre of denialist/conspiracist individuals that will accept no honest review of the science, regardless of it's origin. I think that the recent cold weather in the US has simply brought this group out again; basically its cold out so the climate science is a hoax. (Love that one BTW "climate science denial" I will be using that!) It seems to me that much of the media is geared towards this small but vocal group. In essence, I am thinking that they perceive this group to have more influence/money than they perhaps do.
A targeted campaign to avoid the media outlets (Fox, Forbes etc) that are most egregious in promoting this false but persistent denialism might dent their pocket books enough to force them to give a real balance to the discussion.

"The Wizard of Oz, the writings of John Steinbeck, and other cultural phenomena are a very interesting proxy for those climate events, in a way. I’m afraid that at the moment the data required to examine this period are not sufficient...."
"The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" was written in 1900 and was hugely popular. It's a coincidence that a movie about it came out in 1939. Just sayin'.

Re. Philip @ 20: "...Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity..." Given what we know to expect in terms of death and destruction due to climate change, that makes Tim Phillips a domestic terrorist, and Americans for Prosperity a domestic terrorist group. They should be treated accordingly.

Re. Stephen Brailey @ 34: "...Those arguing against climate change are doing so because of two reasons. the first is because people are lazy, threatened, scared or just plain stupid. the second and more vocal and organised lots are zealots of what I like to call the religion or belief system of NEO-conservatism...." No, no, no. That's "not even wrong."

Fossil fuel interests are seeking to protect their unproduced assets (e.g. coal mines full of coal, oilfields full of oil) from the financial devaluation that will occur if fossil fuels are regulated and phased out. That's the _cause_. Everything that follows is an _effect_.

Fossil fuel interests have bought off certain scientists and elected officials and created a "tribal" mentality among a segment of the media and general public. The laziness and stupidity and zealotry of which you speak, are _effects_, not _causes_.

In order to be effective in the fight, you need to understand the difference between the root causes and the observable surface effects. For example the denialist trolls who post comments in this blog and elsewhere are not part of the cause, they are part of the effect. Tim Phillips and "Americans for Prosperity" are bought & paid for by fossil fuel interests, so they are part of the cause.

No - a range of projections from theoretical climate models isn't real data - they can't all be right. That's astrology - not physics. Projections need to be matched with observations. Climate sensitivity may well be nearer to 1C rather than 6C - we'll see. The balance of positive/negative feedbacks aren't proven science.

There's plenty of evidence to support warmer and cooler periods in the last few thousand years, without significant changes in CO2, along with plenty of evidence for a solar link to various aspects of climate.

As for the quality of surface temperature data - IPCC AR5 conceded that the AR4 position is fabricated:
2012 IPCC report (AR5, chapter 2 page 34) "AR4 concluded that this correlation ceases to be statistically significant if one takes into account the fact that the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes but provided no explicit evidence for this overall assessment result."

And yes - that's my prediction - non-warming/cooling reaching a low in the 2030s based solar magnetic activity/eruptivity. I've already proved David Hathaway of NASA wrong with his 2006 prediction of a 'big' solar cycle 24.

I agree wee need to replace carbon fuels with something of equivalent affordability and viability. George Olah's 'Methanol Economy' looks a good bet. But carbon fuels aren't done yet - coal is still king, and we only extract the easy 25% of oil - the rest is more difficult and expensive to get, but the higher that oil prices go, the more financially viable it becomes to extract it.

Greg - you're trying to create certainty out of uncertainty.

There's a wealth of published evidence suggesting current warmth is not unusual in the Holocene. In the UK, viticulture, which is climatically controlled, demonstrates the RWP, MWP, LIA and the modern warm period, with the RWP being the warmest.

The 2011 Muller/Curry BEST study paper was rejected by JGR, but Muller continued to promote the results despite the serious shortcomings that prevented publication. Wickham et al was also rejected. I suspect that BEST is crap, no matter who produced it.

Any prediction, including mine, will be judged against the reality that either does or does not manifest itself in the future.

The LIA is even evident in Australia (e.g. Pollack et al 2006)

We'll have to agree to disagree about paleoclimate and statistically insignificant hockey sticks with highly questionable data and methodology.

Greg – It would help me and perhaps others if you would specify the comments to which you are responding. As comments are numbered here, @+number would be enough.

Re. Camburn
I appreciate it when others provide documentation for their assertions. It enables me to learn more about something that interests me, or to check whether a particular commenter is loyally presenting the material he/she cites. In the case of Camburn 33, the imputation seems to be that the link substantiates his/her claim regarding the relationship between CO2 and water vapor. As far as I can see (based on the abstract), it doesn't. The title is “Weather and climate analyses using improved global water vapor observations,” and it does not appear to discuss the relative importance of CO2 and water vapor.

Greg has already provided some information about this. Here's more:

Lacis, Schmidt, Rind, Ruedy: Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature

“Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4 and CFCs, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can, and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other non-condensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate to an icebound Earth state.”
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~sgw/ATMS321/2010_Lacis_etal.pdf

Lacis later wrote a post for Judith Curry's blog:

“Even though we have known and understood for decades the basic science of the terrestrial greenhouse effect, and water vapor feedback effects, in the current climate (politically speaking) of the frequently expressed irrational thinking, there is unfortunately a clear and pressing need to keep on repeating and explaining the most basic of global climate concepts.

...the aim of our Science paper was to illustrate as clearly and as simply as possible the basic operating principles of the terrestrial greenhouse effect in terms of the sustaining radiative forcing that is provided by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, which is further augmented by the feedback response of water vapor and clouds...

(1) The terrestrial greenhouse effect is comprised of two distinct components: (a) the non-condensing greenhouse gases that provide the ‘radiative forcing’ that sustains the terrestrial greenhouse effect; (b) the ‘feedback component’ by water vapor and clouds that acts to amplify the radiative effect of the non-condensing greenhouse gases.
(2) The radiative forcing by the non-condensing greenhouse gases is accurately known, and fully understood. Of the GHGs, atmospheric CO2 is the principal contributor, hence the principal control knob that governs the strength of the greenhouse effect and global temperature. The greenhouse physics, and the increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases as the fundamental basis for global warming, are well founded.
(3) Water vapor and clouds account for about 75% the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect, but are feedback effects that require sustained radiative forcing to maintain their atmospheric distribution. Their radiative effects are accurately known. The magnitude of their feedback sensitivity is also reliably known, to within order of 10%.”
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/09/atmospheric-co2-the-greenhouse-thermo…

See also:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

Even the few scientists associated with the septics recognize the status of CO2 and attempt to distance themselves from those who don't:

Patrick Michaels
"It's hardly news that human beings have had a hand in the planetary warming that began more than 30 years ago. For nearly a century, scientists have known that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide would eventually result in warming that was most pronounced in winter, especially on winter's coldest days, and a cooling of the stratosphere. All of these have been observed. . . .
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/live-climate-change
http://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels

Richard Lindzen

“The claim that the earth has been warming, and that there is a greenhouse effect, and that man's activities have contributed to warming, are, in fact, trivially true statements. They are not argued...”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Sh1B-rV60&feature=player_embedded (45:35)

Judith Curry

“From the perspective of comparative planetology, I think that Lacis makes a
plausible argument, from which I infer that without CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth’s climate would more closely resemble the climate of its moon rather than the current Earth’s climate.  For reference, the surface temperature of the moon can swing between  -150°C during the night and 120°C during the day.  (pay attention, greenhouse effect deniers).”
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/20/co2-control-knob-fallacy/

Now let's go to Greenland. Camburn's link in 31 is based on Richard Alley's ice core analysis, which shows evidence of abrupt climate change in the past. If anything, Alley's findings seem to point to higher, rather than lower sensitivity, and this appears to be consonant with more recent research:

"Climate sceptics like to criticise climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect," said Sherwood. "But what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by the models which predict less warming, not those that predict more."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/31/planet-will-warm-4c-…- climate/print

The septics use Alley's data to show that abrupt changes in the past have not been dependent on CO2, and that CO2 thus cannot be responsible for modern warming. Peter Sinclair has a video on this
(What the Ice Cores Tell Us, and How Deniers Distort
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ )
that among other things refers to a post by Andrew Revkin in which Alley distances himself from the septics' interpretation.

“First off, no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world. One of the lessons drawn from comparing Greenland to Antarctica and many other places is that some of the temperature changes (the ice-age cycling) are very widespread and shared among most records, but other of the temperature changes (sometimes called millennial, or abrupt, or Younger-Dryas-type) are antiphased between Greenland and the south, and still other temperature changes may be unrelated between different places (one anomalously cold year in Greenland does not tell you the temperature anomaly in Australia or Peru).“

After a number of other caveats, Alley concludes:

“So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-c…

Finally, in 48, Camburn links to a paper that he obviously hasn't read, and the link provides no more information than the sentence he/she has already quoted. In any event, one of the co-authors was the lead author of a paper that found:

“A threat of irreversible damage should prompt action to mitigate climate change, according to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which serves as a basis for international climate policy. CO2-induced climate change is known to be largely irreversible on timescales of many centuries1, as simulated global mean temperature remains approximately constant for such periods following a complete cessation of carbon dioxide emissions while thermosteric sea level continues to rise.”
Ongoing climate change following a complete cessation of carbon dioxide emissions
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n2/full/ngeo1047.html

Paul Biggs #36:

You're talking about "...the beneficiaries of the tens of billions spent on the climate agenda by governments."

I see this claim made over and over in these discussions. Where do the numbers come from? Please cite a source for a) the "tens of billions", or b) ANY evidence that climate scientists are better paid than other respected scientists in their fields.

As you say, "Projections need to be matched with observations."

Greg H –
I think his numbers come from here:

"The prominence of conspiracist ideation in science rejection is not unexpected in light of its cognitive attributes: For example, if a scientific consensus cannot be accepted as the result of researchers converging independently on the same evidence-based view, then the belief in a scientific conspiracy can provide an alternative explanation for the consensus [18,20,21]. Moreover, because conspiracist ideation need not conform to the criteria of consistency and coherence that characterize scientific reasoning [30], its explanatory reach is necessarily greater than that of competing (scientific) theories [31]. Conspiracist ideation is also typically immune to falsification because contradictory evidence (e.g., climate scientists being exonerated of accusations) can be accommodated by broadening the scope of the conspiracy (exonerations are a whitewash), often with considerable creativity [32]. Those cognitive attributes render conspiracist ideation ideally suited for the ongoing rejection of scientific evidence...

The driving psychological force that is underlying the rejection of science is ‘‘system justification’’ [42,43]; that is, a person’s need to perceive the current political and economic system as fair, legitimate, and stable. According to the system justification view, scientific findings are rejected by people high in system justification when the evidence challenges the status quo [42], rather than on the basis of ideology per se. Hence, because system justification tends to be greater among conservatives than liberals [42], climate science is primarily rejected by people on the political right because they tend to be particularly concerned with system justification and hence respond to the threat to the economic status quo that might arise from climate mitigation efforts...

Finally, in a reversal of conventional scientific reasoning, evidence against conspiracy theories is often construed as evidence for them, because the evidence is interpreted as arising from the conspiracy in question.

The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0075…

Another source is this:

"[He]'ll be fooled by anything as long as it rejects climate science.”
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/hoity-toity-christopher-monckton-sez…

Paul Biggs 52
“The 2011 Muller/Curry BEST study paper was rejected by JGR, but Muller continued to promote the results despite the serious shortcomings that prevented publication.”

This is a lie. The paper was not rejected. JGR made certain demands that would have delayed publication, but did not find deficiencies in the paper itself.

“Referee comments from the initial submission to JGR did not uncover any significant errors although they asked for many worthwhile clarifications (largely because the mathematic techniques, although standard to statisticians, were new to them) that held back the acceptance. We responded to the editor, arguing that this requirement was unusual and ill conceived. We can point to a vast number of papers with results that were published prior to the kind of detailed analysis of methods that we were being required to produce. In fact, the results paper was written to be able to stand alone; it contains all that is needed. Nevertheless, JGR refused to forward our paper for peer review, so we never received any comments from the JGR referees on the results paper. Delaying submission to JGR until after the methods paper was accepted would almost certainly have excluded the Berkeley Earth work from the next IPCC report. So we began searching for a journal with open access, quick turn around time, and a good grasp of modern statistics -- and finally settled on GIGS.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/faq

Biggs
“There’s a wealth of published evidence suggesting current warmth is not unusual in the Holocene.”

Then you should have no problem documenting this warmth and that it was a global rather than a local phenomenon.

Paul Biggs 54
“...statistically insignificant hockey sticks with highly questionable data and methodology.”

Documentation? If all you have is McIntyre and McKitrick, you have nothing.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delu…
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/the-h…

Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence
Eugene R. Wahl · Caspar M. Ammann

Abstract The Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400–1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and pro- cessing of included climate proxy data. A systematic sequence of analyses is presented that examine issues concerning the proxy evidence, utilizing both indirect analyses via exclusion of proxies and processing steps subject to criticism, and direct analyses of principal compo- nent (PC) processing methods in question. Altogether new reconstructions over 1400–1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed.

Thanks Philip. I don't disagree with you, but this is an example of such a wide-spread denialist meme that people as well-educated as Mr. Biggs must have some justification for repeating it. To my mind, it reduces the credibility of any other arguments he cares to advance. And yet this must be clear to him as well, yes?

Some may find this paper and presentation of interest. This is in regards to H2O action/reaction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUWsZJq_LQA

http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/bala-iisc-2011.pdf

GregH –
“And yet this must be clear to him as well, yes?”

Really, no. There's a good reason why the septics' sources of information are called an “echo chamber,” and that particular meme reverberates constantly. The remark, "they'll be fooled by anything as long as it rejects climate science," is pretty accurate.

Camburn @27

We have not warmed for 15-17 years, depending on the temperature metric.

Evidence that it deviates significantly from earlier projections, please. Don't forget to calculate the P values and include ocean temperatures (I am not aware of a single person who has claimed there is a 'hiatus' and backed it up with any statistics).

Regarding the ice core data linked to in #31, notice that the graph does not start at the present time and also be aware that 'present day' by convention refers to the summer of 1950. Conditions in Greenland have changed since then.

We have not warmed for 15-17 years? Maybe we should tell the oceans that...

Camburn, reference needed for your claim that "There is a step jump in 2003 as a result of shifting from a multitude of sources to ARGO".

Note that you will have to prove two things:
a) that there is a step jump in 2003, and
b) that this is due to a shift to ARGO data

I am skeptical you will be able to prove either point, see e.g. Lyman et al 2010, who point to a *flattening* of the 0-700 m OHCA around 2004, coinciding with the shift to ARGO. Exactly opposite to your claim...

So we still don't have anyone who has claimed that there is a 'hiatus' in global warming and backed it up with a statistical analysis.

I ran across this website while doing research about global warming. I was impressed for just about two seconds. Then the displays of cognitive dissonance, appeals to authority, and just plain out right fallacies in reasoning were too great to bear.

I continue to read in an attempt to see just how high the BS would mount despite a growing migraine headache.

It seems there are lemmings in the 21st century and they are the ones that follow global warming or climate change or whatever they're calling it today.

First in the 1970s it was global cooling with claims beyond all certainty that glaciers would cover Kansas City by 1995 if we didn't hand over the reins of our economy to the government who, after all, knows far better what to do with the fruits of our economic labor then we do.

The reader might note those same glaciers failed to appear. Making a major point that when predictions fail it means the theory must be thrown out and re-configured, not the data reconfigured to fit the theory as has been done with climate change.

Statistically speaking the error of the predictions are far greater in magnitude than the predictions themselves meaning the predictions cannot be trusted with any certainty at all.

Not only that the models are based on datasets that have been manipulated to show the very global warming that we have all been warned of. Several statisticians of very strong reputations have demonstrated so. Confirmation bias rears its head.

Oh, Poe Dan...

Republican strategist Frank Luntz is actually behind the shift from GW to CC: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

Too bad all of you are scientifically and statistically illiterate. You can dismiss the truth alll you want in the name of your ideology. Truth is still truth. Too bad ignorance of counterfactual is so endemic here.

unofficial fact checker is wrong again. There is no consensus. And if there was, its irrelevant as far as science is concerned. Science is hypothesis testing with empirical data, not made up data.

Poe it on, Dan! Poe it on!
Moar, MOAR!!

Dan, once again, you miss the point: the consensus among scientists exists because the data and analysis led them to it.

But, if you have evidence that the data is faked, you must evidence: put it on the table and present it. If you have proof for what you'll say then, well, you'll be a hero to some people and rewarded.

Without presenting any proof, you will be considered nothing more than a foaming at the mouth lunatic.

I know graphs of temperatures are lost on all of you but here I go.

1850-2006, 150 years of no temp variance. Data source and how derived noted in the graph itself.

http://postimg.org/image/x0tz0cv1p/

Here is a link to a heavily footnoted article about the "adjustments."

Its by Paul Homewood whom the climate alarmist blogosphere has gone ape attempting to prove something, anything about him.

I contend it just demonstrates more statistical illiteracy amongst the faux intelligensia of climate alarmists.

Homewood's methods are statistically valid. They show a profoundly solid education and many years of experience.

But then again, comparing historical trends as written from several different sources against the NASA data sets is no small thing. It's research of the highest order and demands a very sharp mind and an eye for detail.

I'm posting is article about the Arctic adjustments because they are so egregious. And demonstrate the potential level of fraud inherent in the rest of the measurements.

So I ask again if you can find anything wrong with his methodology please demonstrated otherwise your opinion will be assigned the value it demonstrates.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/temperature-ad…

When the proof is deleted, its called censorship.

Wow, name calling already, I will be mirroring and displaying my comments and your responses on my web page.

Truth is truth, despite post modern ideology that wishes it wasnt. All of you are just fooling yourselves.

The link is to a timeseries of temperature data because the comment section deleted my hyperlink.

And, last I could care less what you call me. It just affirms to me the statistical illiteracy, reasoning fallacies, and lack of scientific acumen so thoroughly present in the climate alarmist crowd.

Laughable is the word that comes to mind.

For Dan (and then again, maybe not, as it contradicts what he believes):
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/noise-on-the-tele…
and:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A3X8yRHfPg

Come on then, Dan, show me wrong by doing a full analysis of the points brought up by Rasmus Benestad (an actual climate scientist) and Kevin Cowtan (a scientist in another field, but author of one climate paper).

"lack of scientific acumen so thoroughly present in the climate alarmist crowd."

A scientist would note adjustments and then do a thorough literature study to determine why those adjustments take place. Neither Homewood nor you have done that. It is thus clear who it is that lacks the scientific acumen...