Handbook for AGW sceptics

[brenthutch 383]

"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."
— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.


Syun Akasofu, Ph.D, University Of Alaska
Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)
Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D, Anderson Materials Evaluation
J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
Colin Barton Csiro, (retired)
David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008
John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus)
Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy
Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University
Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Roger Cohen, Ph.D, Fellow, American Physical Society
Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus)
Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D, Past-President, Italian Geological Society
Susan Crockford, Ph.D, University Of Victoria
Joseph S. D'aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired)
David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma
Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist
David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester
Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy Conversion, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, Ph.D, University Of Western Ontario
John Ferguson, Ph.D, University Of Newcastle
Upon Tyne, (retired)
Eduardo Ferreyra, Argentinian Foundation For A Scientific Ecology
Michael Fox, Ph.D, American Nuclear Society
Gordon Fulks, Ph.D, Gordon Fulks And Associates
Lee Gerhard, Ph.D, State Geologist, Kansas (retired)
Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D, Technische Universitat Braunschweig
Ivar Giaever, Ph.D, Nobel Laureate, Physics
Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D, Scientific Director, Inttas (Paraguay)
Wayne Goodfellow, Ph.D, University Of Ottawa
James Goodridge, California State Climatologist, (retired)
Laurence Gould, Ph.D, University Of Hartford
Vincent Gray, Ph.D, New Zealand Climate Coalition
William M. Gray, Ph.D, Colorado State University
Kenneth E. Green, D.Env., American Enterprise Institute
Kesten Green, Ph.D, Monash University
Will Happer, Ph.D, Princeton University
Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D, University Of Connecticut, (emeritus)
Ben Herman, Ph.D, University Of Arizona, (emeritus)
Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D, U.S. Navy, (retired)
Doug Hoffman, Ph.D, Author, The Resilient Earth
Bernd Huettner, Ph.D.
Ole Humlum, Ph.D, University Of Oslo
A. Neil Hutton, Past President, Canadian Society Of Petroleum Geologists
Craig D. Idso, Ph.D, Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And Global Change
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Agriculture (retired)
Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D, Yokohama National University
Steve Japar, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Sten Kaijser, Ph.D, Uppsala University, (emeritus)
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, University Of Stockholm, (emeritus)
Joel Kauffman, Ph.D, University Of The Sciences, Philadelphia, (emeritus)
David Kear, Ph.D, Former Director-General, Nz Dept. Scientific And Industrial Research
Richard Keen, Ph.D, University Of Colorado
Dr. Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D, Lifetime Achievers Award, National Science And Technology Forum, South Africa
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Former Editor, Climate Research
Robert S. Knox, Ph.D, University Of Rochester (emeritus)
James P. Koermer, Ph.D, Plymouth State University
Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D, University Of Alaska Fairbanks
Wayne Kraus, Ph.D, Kraus Consulting
Olav M. Kvalheim, Ph.D, Univ. Of Bergen
Roar Larson, Ph.D, Norwegian University Of Science And Technology
James F. Lea, Ph.D.
Douglas Leahy, Ph.D, Meteorologist
Peter R. Leavitt, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
David R. Legates, Ph.D, University of Delaware
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
Harry F. Lins, Ph.D. Co-Chair, IPCC Hydrology and Water Resources Working Group
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D, University Of Missouri
Howard Maccabee, Ph.D, MD Clinical Faculty, Stanford Medical School
Horst Malberg, Ph.D, Free University of Berlin
Bjorn Malmgren, Ph.D, Goteburg University (emeritus)
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D, Australian Environment Foundation
James A Marusek, U.S. Navy, (retired)
Ross Mckitrick, Ph.D, University Of Guelph
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D, University Of Virginia
Timmothy R. Minnich, MS, Minnich And Scotto, Inc.
Asmunn Moene, Ph.D, Former Head, Forecasting Center, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Michael Monce, Ph.D, Connecticut College
Dick Morgan, Ph.D, Exeter University, (emeritus)
Nils-axel Morner, Ph.D, Stockholm University, (emeritus)
David Nowell, D.I.C., Former Chairman, Nato Meteorology Canada
Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., University Of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D, University Of Tasmania
Alfred Peckarek, Ph.D, St. Cloud State University
Dr. Robert A. Perkins, P.E. University Of Alaska
Ian Pilmer, Ph.D, University Of Melbourne (emeritus)
Brian R. Pratt, Ph.D, University Of Saskatchewan
John Reinhard, Ph.D, Ore Pharmaceuticals
Peter Ridd, Ph.D, James Cook University
Curt Rose, Ph.D, Bishop's University (emeritus)
Peter Salonius, M.Sc., Canadian Forest Service
Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study
Thomas P. Sheahan, Ph.D, Western Technologies, Inc.
Alan Simmons, Author, The Resilient Earth
Roy N. Spencer, Ph.D, University Of Alabama-Huntsville
Arlin Super, Ph.D, Retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Dept. Of Reclamation
George H. Taylor, MS, Applied Climate Services
Eduardo P. Tonni, Ph.D, Museo De La Plata, (Argentina)
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D.
Dr. Anton Uriarte, Ph.D, Universidad Del Pais Vasco
Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy
Gosta Walin, Ph.D, University Of Gothenburg, (emeritus)
Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On Climate Change
Forese-Carlo Wezel, Ph.D, Urbino University
Edward T. Wimberley, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University
Miklos Zagoni, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Antonio Zichichi, Ph.D, President, World Federation Of Scientists

[billvon 2,400]

If only science worked by petition, we could solve all our problems.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

If only science worked by petition, we could solve all our problems.

When science becomes political, it's crossed over to being amenable to petition (and popular opinion, and spin, and manipulation, and...)


But, if not petition, perhaps decree.

Didn't the G8 recently order the climate to cease and desist temperature increases? I'm sure that's going to work.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rushmc 18]

Quote

If only science worked by petition, we could solve all our problems.

So, is science by petition similar to science by concensus? Or is that different?

Then, does it just matter if one is on the politically correct side or not? I'm just asking....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>When science becomes political, it's crossed over to being amenable to petition . . .

Nope, it still doesn't matter. It just means people are confusing science and politics.

When the Bush administration tried to suppress reports of climate change, it didn't make it cooler. When Al Gore gives a speech, temperatures don't increase. When anti-AGW petitions are signed, it doesn't reduce CO2 levels or change thermodynamics.

If the people who signed that petition had stuck to "we don't think that climate change is that big a problem" I would have had no problem with it - because that is a political opinion, and petitions are fine for that. But when they start deciding that a petition means that "climate models fail" then they have lost sight of the difference between science and politics.

[jerryzflies 0]

Since you have so much regard for scientific opinion:

pewresearch.org/pubs/1276/science-survey

According to a Pew survey of over 2500 scientists released last week, 84% of scientists believe the Earth is warming due to human activities.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[winsor 186]

Quote

>Again, why the emphasis on CO2?

In terms of the energy balance, there is no special emphasis on CO2.

In terms of what we can do to affect the climate, there's a big emphasis on greenhouse gases (of which CO2 is the major one) because it's our biggest influence on the worldwide climate.

Take smoking. Your body is an incredibly complex machine, and requires thousands upon thousands of systems to work together to keep you healthy. Why would a doctor harp on smoking as a problem if there are so many other systems within your body that are working just fine, and aren't even affected by smoking?

Here we get to the crux of the issue: relative importance.

Let us grant that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that its presence is a factor on the overall energy balance of the ecosystem. Anyone who made it through Undergraduate Heat Transfer (NOT Thermodynamics, which is a misnomer - it should well be called Thermostatics) to the extent that Radiation was covered should be able to get the basics.

Now let us look at the relative importance of the addition of CO2. For one thing, the potential damage is half done already. Even if everyone began quit using fossil fuels today, half of the petroleum variants have already been consumed (make that the easy to obtain half), as well as a similar amount of the high-quality coal and natural gas. If the atmospheric percentage of C02 prior to the industrial era was the ideal concentration (against what standard?), then we are already screwed.

Let us contrast the OH MY GOD, THE PLANET IS GETTING WARMER! problem with a few other factors related to fossil fuel consumption. First you have the food supply. We eat fruit grown in Chile and fish caught in Vietnam courtesy of rapid, fossil-fuel powered transportation. Seafood is harvested at heroic, unsustainable rates by diesel-powered trawlers. Grain is grown with fertilizers and pesticides produced by the Petrochemical industry, irrigated from slow-to-refresh aquifers (another problem, but what the hell), harvested by diesel tractors and combines, and moved to market by diesel transport.

Our population has burgeoned to a level sustainable only by massive amounts of readily available (read - fossil fuel) energy, and we are past peak oil. FWIW, when the US dollar tanks, we in the US of A will go from 20 million barrels per day to 5 million barrels per day, pretty much overnight. When that happens, we're scrod.

Like it or not, global warming or climate change or whatever you wish to call it is a self-correcting issue by comparison to the more immediate and dire problems we face. If climate change was anywhere near the most serious problem we faced, we would be in fantastic shape by comparison. As it stands, the greenhouse gas issue is but a side effect of the process by which we are authoring our own doom, and focusing on it as a primary issue is nonsensical. It's like changing a tire on a car stuck on railroad tracks - yeah changing the tire is important, but if you don't get the bloody car off the tracks before the Express comes through, it is of relatively little importance.

If you want to address greenhouse gases, you will have to do it as part of getting the population of the planet below 1.5 billion if you want me to take the proposal seriously. 100 thousand people driving around in coal-fired locomotives have less impact than 10 billion people riding bicycles and using candles for illumination.

If Al Gore espouses something, you can bet there is something conceptually wrong with it.


Unnaturally blue skies,

Winsor

[billvon 2,400]

>So, is science by petition similar to science by concensus?

You mean consensus? Sort of; neither of them work well. Peer-reviewed science does work fairly well, though.

>Then, does it just matter if one is on the politically correct side or not?

Not at all. It just matters if the science is correct. It may be politically inconvenient for a politician to admit that the basics of AGW are sound; doesn't change the laws of thermodynamics one bit.

[JackC 0]

Quote

If you want to address greenhouse gases, you will have to do it as part of getting the population of the planet below 1.5 billion if you want me to take the proposal seriously. 100 thousand people driving around in coal-fired locomotives have less impact than 10 billion people riding bicycles and using candles for illumination.

And that is the unfortunate truth. Population is the real problem and there is not a thing you can do about it.

[billvon 2,400]

> Even if everyone began quit using fossil fuels today, half of the
>petroleum variants have already been consumed (make that the easy to
>obtain half), as well as a similar amount of the high-quality coal and
>natural gas.

Agreed on oil. Also agreed on natural gas, albeit for different reasons. (It's a lower carbon fuel but methane leaks are a bigger deal.)

However, coal is a different story. Not only is it the dirtiest (in terms of CO2 _and_ other pollutants) fuel we have, we have lots of it, especially the lower quality and dirtier bituminous coal. Even at present rates of expansion we'll be able to level mountains for at least another 60 years. And in the process of leveling those mountains we'll be damaging waterways (reducing available fresh water) and watersheds (also reducing available water.)

Take coal out of the equation, though, and you are right - oil-based CO2 emissions are a self-limiting problem in the long run.

However, there are other reasons to reduce our use of oil in a big way, right now. The biggest one is that our military runs on oil. We have alternatives for cars/trains/buses/trucks (ethanol, electric, biodiesel, methane, hydrogen) but no good alternatives for the military yet. Another good reason is that oil is an incredibly useful material. We make everything from roads to drugs to plastics out of it, and it makes little sense to burn our remaining reserves of it as rapidly as possible. Save oil for the really important uses.

> We eat fruit grown in Chile and fish caught in Vietnam courtesy of
>rapid, fossil-fuel powered transportation. Seafood is harvested at
>heroic, unsustainable rates by diesel-powered trawlers. Grain is grown
>with fertilizers and pesticides produced by the Petrochemical industry,
>irrigated from slow-to-refresh aquifers (another problem, but what the
>hell), harvested by diesel tractors and combines, and moved to
>market by diesel transport.

All significant problems - but fortunately all fairly solvable. We get all our vegetables and fruit from a local organic farm, where food is grown and transported the less-than-heroic distance of 20 miles to a local home where we pick it up. We have to give up bananas but we gain food that was picked that morning.

Water is another big one. One need only fly over western Texas or Nevada and see the thousands of acres of green lawns and ski boat ponds to see how much water we're using for fun. Pricing water what it costs will help there.

>100 thousand people driving around in coal-fired locomotives
>have less impact than 10 billion people riding bicycles and using
>candles for illumination.

Agreed. But the goal should not be "as few people as possible" - the goal should be a population we can sustain with what we have.

Right now we have around 7 billion people on the planet. To support them all sustainably to US standards, we'd have to trim that to 1.5 billion. To support them all sustainably to Indian standards, we could grow to 18.4 billion. So choose your level of desired lifestyle and go from there. Given historical trends 1.5 billion is probably a good target.

It is good to see both the US and the UN addressing this problem. Not sure how much good it will do, but at least they recognize it as a problem.

>It's like changing a tire on a car stuck on railroad tracks - yeah
>changing the tire is important, but if you don't get the bloody car off
>the tracks before the Express comes through, it is of relatively little
>importance.

Right. A wise policy will result in a car with the tire changed (or better yet, no flat to begin with) parked somewhere else than on the tracks.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>So, is science by petition similar to science by concensus?

You mean consensus? Sort of; neither of them work well. Peer-reviewed science does work fairly well, though.

>Then, does it just matter if one is on the politically correct side or not?

Not at all. It just matters if the science is correct. It may be politically inconvenient for a politician to admit that the basics of AGW are sound; doesn't change the laws of thermodynamics one bit.

Hmm, so this is why you dont use the consensus agrgument anymore.

Ok, Thanks

Oh, and by the way, there are peer reviewed work refuting your position too. But then, I am sure you are aware of that.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>Hmm, so this is why you dont use the consensus agrgument anymore.

You have it a bit backwards. There's a consensus because scientists agree on the science - the science does not exist because there's a consensus among scientists. In other words, scientists agree on the science because they now understand it pretty well; science does not change itself to agree with scientists.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Hmm, so this is why you dont use the consensus agrgument anymore.

You have it a bit backwards. There's a consensus because scientists agree on the science - the science does not exist because there's a consensus among scientists. In other words, scientists agree on the science because they now understand it pretty well; science does not change itself to agree with scientists.

No, I think I have it correct. This is the lie I am posting about

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Then why have 10,000 stations if you think they should all read the same? In that case 1 should be enough to satisfy you, yes?

You are misrepresenting my statement. We've got stations that show surface cooling. 10k stations more spread out would give a better idea of the localized trends. It'd be objectively preferable and more accurate to have 50 km smoothing versus 1500 km smoothing because the smoothing would assume linearity. For example, assume that Vostok wasn't there - then it would be assumed that the whoel right lower quadrant of Antartica was cooling. The more raw data, the better the localized surface trends can be identified.

Quote

Great! Now some data says antarctica is warming, some says cooling,"

No. Data shows some parts are warming and some parts are cooling. That's different, isn't it?

Quote

but on average the data says warming.

Okay. I can handle that if that's the case. But the raw observational data has not shown it. IT has shown, on average, cooling. Biggest exception is the peninsula.

Quote

But this didn't pass your smell test, implying that you don't trust it. Why not?

The results from the 2009 publication by Mann et al does not pass my smell test. Recall that prior to six months ago there was evidence that Antarctica was cooling on average. There was no clear reason as to why - no answer because it was contrary to the hypotheses.

Said Michael Mann, with a political spin of words, "Contrarians have sometime grabbed on to this idea that the entire continent of Antarctica is cooling, so how could we be talking about global warming?" Note - no "contrarian" (spin) who looked at the data would have said the "entire continent" was cooling.

There are challenges - Ahmundsen Scott has shown cooling since 1957. So did satellite data. The IPCC admitted it in 2007 - Antarctica showed a "lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region."

So Mann et al went hunting for data. "The researchers devised a statistical technique that uses data from satellites and from Antarctic weather stations to make a new estimate of temperature trends." Even other scientists are skeptical. Kevin Trenberth (an IPCC author) said "I have to say I remain somewhat skeptical...It is hard to make data where none exist."

The new results be validated? They cannot. Thus, I am skeptical. Highly skeptical. We will never know what the temperature was in those places. We can guess. We can estimate. We will not know.

Quote

warming resumes next year and runs so the underlying average maintains the general upward trend it has done for the last 100 years, will the cooling period still be a problem?

First - it's not a cooling trend. I never said it was. It's a pause in the warming trend. The two are distinct with entirely different implications.

Now, if the temperature resumes its climb, then it matches what should have happened 10 years ago. Leading to questions: (1) If it does not resume anew, how long will this break occur?; (2) this is not predicted by the models, so what are the models missing; (3) if it does start warming again, what caused the warming to resume; and (4) Most importantly, what caused it in the first place?

With no explanation for this we show a lack of knowledge of the forcings involved. Sure, we understand greenhouse gases and their forcings. Those forcings have been overcome by other factors. What are they? How did it happen? Even adjusting for solar activity, this shouldn't have happened.

Quote

There have been other extended cooling periods in the last 150 years over the background warming trend, why is this one special?

Again, this is not an extended cooling. It is a pause in warming.

What makes this different is no explanation. The coolings for which good worldwide data was available showed things that caused high warming and cooling. A strong el nino is expected this year. Historically, this makes the temperature climb. A strong La Nina makes the temperature go down. Volcanoes make the temperature go down.

In the absence of volcanoes or La Nina, the CO2 forcings are hypothesized and modeled to predominate. The last ten years should have shown an increase of .25 Degrees C of global temperature according to the hypotheses and models because there was no interference.

It didn't happen. It didn't cool. It didn't warm. It should have warmed. Nothing out there explains why it did not. No proximate cause.

I think that a ten year non-warming trend that is not predicted and unexplained should be significant. The answer to the question of "why" will lead to a better understanding of the climate as a whole.

As stated - this one is different. Even if it isn't, it should be understood.

Quote

The mechanisms are understood but the interactions between them are chaotic. That makes them extremely difficult to predict and prone to errors that get larger the further ahead you try to predict. You do the best with what you've got.

And you try to get more to work with. "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered. The point is to discover them." - Galileo Galilei. Saying that this is "chaotic" and leaving it at that is somewhat of a scientific cop out. And if the system is "chaotic" then any models must refect that, meaning an increasing margin for error.

Quote

because chaotic systems are very difficult to predict

Right.

Quote

Scientists generally are more interested in the research, publication in scientific journals is a necessary evil. PR through more mainstream media is treated with the same distrust skydivers treat media wuffos to report the latest "death plunge from 15000ft".

And some scientists, however, have learned to utilize the press to their benefit. Hence, some are available for comment prior to the release to scientific journals. Thus, we read about studies, letters, etc., due to appear in Nature next week, with commentary by the authors.

Note - The journals like them, too, because it increases their income.

Quote

This is quite possible and if true it means the PETM and the current AGW systems are forced by different mechanisms. That's reasonable when you think that dinosaurs didn't have SUVs or coal fired power plants.

OR -

It means that the same mechanism is at work, with an additional factor of anthropogenic CO2. I don't think it entirely appropriate to say, "Ahhh. Things are different now. We have anthropogenic CO2. What's happened in the past is therefore irrelevant because we've got a new variable that wasn't present."

Quote

the mechanism for AGW is settled. To deny it, you'd have to be a loon.

Yes. To deny the mechanism would make someone loony. To ask whether - or even allege that - other factors and/or forcings may be at work because they have been in the past does not seem loony to me.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

We've had 15 year "pauses" before, even 10 year periods where the temperature went down. But when you look at the trend it's still clearly upwards.

There's been a identifiable proximate cause to the previous downturns. This one has no identifiable proximate cause. The event not consistent with models.

The trend is still up. Yes. It is. The trend is even now. Question: "Why is the trend even for the last decade? What is going on?"

You often use the term "signal to noise." Noise is significant. When the noise overrides the signal its significance increases.

Bill - do you think that this should simply be ignored? "No need to explain this. No reason to figure out what's going on."

Just ignore it?

Quote

And the journal Science has a paper entitled "Deep-Sea Temperature and Ice Volume Changes Across the Pliocene-Pleistocene Climate Transitions" which indicates that the transition could be more rapid than we once thought. WHY IS IT BEING SUPPRESSED?

I didn't say anythign is being suppressed. I wrote that there are a few proponents who are very skilled at PR. The opponents who are skilled with PR generally are a bit loony. Those who are not loony generally aren't skilled in PR.

And much has to do with there being not much sexy about the studies themselves. That's understandable.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Then, there's still that little 800 year lag between temps and CO2 levels
>from the ice cores...

Yep. Proof positive that dinosaurs didn't drive SUV's or burn coal in their power plants.

Also proof positive that CO2 has *NEVER* led temperature.

Thank you for reminding us for the umpteenth time that there is a positive feedback loop which will reinforce our CO2 output and make it even worse.

So, we should be worrying about the temps in 800 years, is what you're saying?

Maybe you should go read that Nature Geo report that shows that CO2 can only account for half the temperature increase during the PETM.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If only science worked by petition, we could solve all our problems.

Well, why not? We're already basing science on 'consensus'.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,400]

>There's been a identifiable proximate cause to the previous downturns.

OK, what was the proximate cause of the cooling from 1900-1915?

> Question: "Why is the trend even for the last decade? What is going on?"

Good question. Decreased solar output is the biggest potential culprit. Solar output was a bit lower during the last solar cycle (1996-2007) and is now much lower; we're seeing one of the quietest solar cycles on record.

(BTW sunspot activity finally resumed about two weeks ago.)

>Bill - do you think that this should simply be ignored?

Not at all!

>I didn't say anything is being suppressed.

I know; I was poking fun at some skeptics who have elaborate conspiracy theories concerning grad students, peer-reviewed journals, the IPCC, Al Gore and the mainstream media.

>You often use the term "signal to noise." Noise is significant. When the
>noise overrides the signal its significance increases.

Right. But before you can make any conclusions about SNR you have to decide what is a signal to you and what is noise. If your parameter of interest is "what's going to happen next year?" it's almost all noise. If the parameter is "what's going to happen over the next few decades?" you get more signal. (To get technical, you have to apply a low pass filter with a period of decades if you care what happens over the course of decades.)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>There's been a identifiable proximate cause to the previous downturns.

OK, what was the proximate cause of the cooling from 1900-1915?

Which one? The 1900-1905 one? Or the 1908-1910 one? By 1915 the temperature was higher than 20 years prior. Then it tanked again and recovered.

There is evidence to suggest strong El Ninos in 1891 and 1925-1926. According to noaa, La Nina occurred in 1904, 1908, 1910, 1916 and 1924. The El Nino Souther Oscillation appears to support it.

I'm not certain about El Nino/La Nina, but it's a possible explanation. On the other hand, there appears to be a similar unexplained pause in warming in the 1940s.

Quote

Decreased solar output is the biggest potential culprit. Solar output was a bit lower during the last solar cycle (1996-2007) and is now much lower; we're seeing one of the quietest solar cycles on record.

(BTW sunspot activity finally resumed about two weeks ago.)

That has apparently been factored in so as to make it an unlikely explanation.

Quote

If your parameter of interest is "what's going to happen next year?" it's almost all noise. If the parameter is "what's going to happen over the next few decades?" you get more signal. (To get technical, you have to apply a low pass filter with a period of decades if you care what happens over the course of decades.)

Well, to be more specific, this depends on what you are trying to do - a GCM is not good at predicting next week's weather. They are useful at predicting signal in 50 or 100 years, so long as underlying assumptions are correct.

I suspect that the reason why this doesn't match the climate models is that the climate models assume that warming is linear. The models assume an exponential growth of CO2. When coupled with the logarithmic heat trapping capacity of CO2 increases, the obervation is mainly linear.

It's just my thought. There are thousands of explanations and only science can come to some viable conclusions. But there's gotta be a constant reexamination of the underlying science.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>Which one?

The entire period. 1900 was the warmest year for 15 years.

>By 1915 the temperature was higher than 20 years prior. Then it
>tanked again and recovered.

Right. And if someone back then had suggested that therefore we wouldn't see significant warming in the future, he'd be wrong as well.

>That has apparently been factored in so as to make it an
>unlikely explanation.

As many people are still claiming that warming is due to the sun INCREASING its output (witness all the Mars comments) I don't think that's the case. Until recently everyone assumed that the previous solar cycle was just a bit low and this one would be normal - but that turned out to not be the case.

>a GCM is not good at predicting next week's weather. They are useful at
>predicting signal in 50 or 100 years, so long as underlying assumptions
>are correct.

Precisely.

>I suspect that the reason why this doesn't match the climate models is
>that the climate models assume that warming is linear.

No climate models assume that. Almost nothing in the physics of the system - from blackbody radiation to IR absorption to evaporation rates to sea level rise due to temperature - is completely linear (or independent.)

>The models assume an exponential growth of CO2.

Depends on the model. The latest IPCC models have several scenarios, some of which assume exponential growth, some of which assume a more controlled growth.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

if someone back then had suggested that therefore we wouldn't see significant warming in the future, he'd be wrong as well.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that warming for the last ten years has "paused." A decade of pause. Could turn out to be two decades of pause. Five decades. We don't know except to say that right now it is paused and we don't know why.

Quote

As many people are still claiming that warming is due to the sun INCREASING its output (witness all the Mars comments) I don't think that's the case.

There, of course, exists the possibility that the sun has not been properly factored. We don't know. There just isn't a clearly ascertainable proximate cause. When somethign happens and we don't know why, we have problems.

Quote

>I suspect that the reason why this doesn't match the climate models is
>that the climate models assume that warming is linear.

No climate models assume that.

As I explained, they assume that the growth in CO2 is exponential (i.e, 1% per year increase). Combining an exponential increase in CO2 with a logarithmic response can get a straight line.

Particularly, the CMIP-1 models tended to converge in linear results.

Quote

The latest IPCC models have several scenarios, some of which assume exponential growth, some of which assume a more controlled growth

Yes. This change seems to result from the measured results being on the lower end of predictions. So the models are being modified - which is good.

It doesn't assume linearity, it results in it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Then, there's still that little 800 year lag between temps and CO2 levels
>from the ice cores...

Yep. Proof positive that dinosaurs didn't drive SUV's or burn coal in their power plants.

Also proof positive that CO2 has *NEVER* led temperature.

Thank you for reminding us for the umpteenth time that there is a positive feedback loop which will reinforce our CO2 output and make it even worse.

So, we should be worrying about the temps in 800 years, is what you're saying?

Maybe you should go read that Nature Geo report that shows that CO2 can only account for half the temperature increase during the PETM.

I don't recall anyone claiming that CO2 was the ONLY cause of any event. You really should quit using straw men.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Then, there's still that little 800 year lag between temps and CO2 levels
>from the ice cores...

Yep. Proof positive that dinosaurs didn't drive SUV's or burn coal in their power plants.

Also proof positive that CO2 has *NEVER* led temperature.

Thank you for reminding us for the umpteenth time that there is a positive feedback loop which will reinforce our CO2 output and make it even worse.

So, we should be worrying about the temps in 800 years, is what you're saying?

Maybe you should go read that Nature Geo report that shows that CO2 can only account for half the temperature increase during the PETM.

I don't recall anyone claiming that CO2 was the ONLY cause of any event. You really should quit using straw men.

We've been discussing CO2 the whole thread - the IPCC talks about CO2 all the time - any 'strawman' is your own.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Then, there's still that little 800 year lag between temps and CO2 levels
>from the ice cores...

Yep. Proof positive that dinosaurs didn't drive SUV's or burn coal in their power plants.

Also proof positive that CO2 has *NEVER* led temperature.

Thank you for reminding us for the umpteenth time that there is a positive feedback loop which will reinforce our CO2 output and make it even worse.

So, we should be worrying about the temps in 800 years, is what you're saying?

Maybe you should go read that Nature Geo report that shows that CO2 can only account for half the temperature increase during the PETM.

I don't recall anyone claiming that CO2 was the ONLY cause of any event. You really should quit using straw men.

We've been discussing CO2 the whole thread - the IPCC talks about CO2 all the time - any 'strawman' is your own.

Pretty lame logic even for you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Then, there's still that little 800 year lag between temps and CO2 levels
>from the ice cores...

Yep. Proof positive that dinosaurs didn't drive SUV's or burn coal in their power plants.

Also proof positive that CO2 has *NEVER* led temperature.

Thank you for reminding us for the umpteenth time that there is a positive feedback loop which will reinforce our CO2 output and make it even worse.

So, we should be worrying about the temps in 800 years, is what you're saying?

Maybe you should go read that Nature Geo report that shows that CO2 can only account for half the temperature increase during the PETM.

I don't recall anyone claiming that CO2 was the ONLY cause of any event. You really should quit using straw men.

We've been discussing CO2 the whole thread - the IPCC talks about CO2 all the time - any 'strawman' is your own.

Pretty lame logic even for you.

And NO logic from you. Funny how you were perfectly happy talking about CO2 the entire thread, until evidence came to light that it WASN'T the boogeyman under the bed.

STILL waiting for proof on that positive feedback too, John.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706