Apparently, the people who have been reporting on climate change are as incestuous (and even more incompetent) as the people studying it. Color me unshocked. They’re likely economic ignorami as well.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Well, here’s one reporter who’s strayed from the reservation. A “saturated greenhouse” theory? If true, this would be huge. There are good reasons to wean ourselves from fossile fuels (if done in an economically sane manner), but climate change wouldn’t be one of them.
[Late morning update]
“AGW? I refute it thus.”
If there’s anyone left you know who STILL believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming, you might want to show them this chart.
It’s pretty striking.
realclimate.org
You mean the realclimate.org that is basically Hansen’s, Mann’s and Jones’s bitch? Useful for some things, but the bias has to be noted, along with Gavin Schmidt’s (sp?) habit of not publishing comments that in any way dissent from the catastrophic AGW orthodoxy.
Optical depth for long wavelength radiation can increase which would allow the lower atmosphere to be hotter. I don’t think that can be modeled yet reliably without actually running up the CO2 level.
I remember seeing that saturated greenhouse thing under a less cleverly-formulated name a year or two ago; the author supposedly had gotten bounced from an American climate shop – NOAA maybe? The line of attack in that set of articles was that the warmers had mis-set the atmosphere bounds to “infinite” in their calculations, and thus were grossly wrong in even offering the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect given the known depth of the Earth’s atmosphere. And really, that’s the actual threat. A slight or moderate warming isn’t an existential threat worthy of catastrophic solutions – runaway warming is.
What’s misleading about the graph is the black line. It’s not atmospheric CO2 in parts per million, it’s man-made CO2 emissions. That makes it look like there was no CO2 in the atmosphere prior to the 20th century.
“Central England Temperatures, WORLD Emissions.” The problem with that should be obvious. Even cursory research into climate change shows that many models predict something akin to a mini ice-age for Europe.
Here’s a breathtaking sentence:
You might as well measure the average height of human beings by only measuring people in one English town.
You might as well measure the average height of human beings by only measuring people in one English town.
What a foolish and statistically ignorant analogy.
Is it your claim that the CET dataset is not considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures? If so, can you provide some support for such a claim?
Rand – “your side” takes potshots at “our” data. “We” are returning the favor. (For whatever values of “our” and “your” floats your boat.)
Here’s the overall problem I have with the anti-AGW group: The same scientific methods and research that tells me I should get vaccinated, heck, the same methods that make this conversation over the Internets possible, is telling me that global warming is real and man-made. So, faced with the choice of spending years to study and do independent research or believing people that have done the research and have no motive to lie, what should I do?
The same scientific methods and research that tells me I should get vaccinated, heck, the same methods that make this conversation over the Internets possible, is telling me that global warming is real and man-made.
They are not the same. The climate “science” people are doing non-replicable work. And many real scientists from other fields are looking over their shoulders and pointing it out.
people that have done the research and have no motive to lie
Of course they have a motive to lie. If the problem disappears, so does the grant money.
You keep saying that the climate science work is “non-replicable.” Were that the case, there would be no money for new research, because you couldn’t do more research. In fact, all sort of scientists are doing research and getting published. This includes some research cited here about how Kilimanjaro’s fading ice cap was not a result of AGW.
Arguing that “if the problem goes away, so does the money” is stupid. Are we suddenly not going to care what the climate is like, or not want to get better long-term weather prediction?
You keep saying that the climate science work is “non-replicable.” Were that the case, there would be no money for new research, because you couldn’t do more research.
I see you don’t understand what the phrase “non-replicable” means.
79 billion (and counting) will buy alot of lies.
This is for Chris Gerrib, Ethan and anybody else who may be interested in the “science” behind the current catastrophic AGW narrative.
Take a look at the responses I posted to this RealClimate article…
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
…(No. 53, 246, 273, 303, 517) and the associated ‘comments’ to which they respond. As you’ll see, I never got any real answers to my questions, though there were a few attempts to understand my way of thinking.
All I can say is that the degree of uncertainty admitted to by the IPCC makes me wonder how anyone with an interest in science can accept this stuff as fact, let alone push political actions based upon it.
Arguing that “if the problem goes away, so does the money” is stupid. Are we suddenly not going to care what the climate is like, or not want to get better long-term weather prediction?
If you want to check the validity of your statement, I suggest you look at total climate research funding prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall and compare it to total climate research funding since that time.
Some would argue that even at a certainty level of 50% one should take action, just in case, when the predictions are that dire. And it seems to me they’re a lot more certain than 50%.
They would make such an argument fallaciously.
I agree. that’s why fascist thugs like Gore, Hansen, Monbiot, and Mann must be killed or imprisoned now, before they can implement their political and economic policies, which have so often been shown to destroy lives and economies.
Is it your claim that the CET dataset is not considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures?
People doing climate science to go great trouble to measure temperatures from hundreds of weather stations scattered around the planet. The notion that they could have saved the trouble and just used a single station in central England does not pass the smell test. A small change in the trajectory of the Gulf Stream could dramatically change temperatures in England, without affecting the Northern Hemisphere average at all.
So no, I do not have any evidence handy to say that the CET temperatures are not a good proxy for the entire Northern Hemisphere, but I’d think that the burden for such a claim would run the other way.
The notion that they could have saved the trouble and just used a single station in central England does not pass the smell test.
It’s not a single station in central England.
But that’s beside the point. A proxie can be good enough to disprove the theory without being good enough to do serious, precise, quantitative science with it.
Funny, the warmmongers have been the only people I know who have seriously proposed trying and executing anyone. They are out for the blood of “Deniers.” So it’s a strange switcharoo, Akatsukami …
As for “saturated greenhouses,” look at Mars. It has 8.9 times the amount of CO2 in its atmosphere as the earth has in its. And since it is a smaller planet, the amount per unit area is about 54 times. Mars reflects an average of half as much incident radiation as the earth. It receives from 36% to 52% as much incident radiation (it has a very eccentric orbit — the earth’s orbit is more circular, but the annual variation in incident radiation is still 6.9%).
Even at it’s maximum temperature, the radiation power density on Mars lies almost entirely within the CO2 rotational absorption bands (for the earth, only half the radiated thermal power is within CO2 absorption bands).
If one plugs in the numbers for the type of calculation performed by Arrhenius (*Savant* Arrhenius, as the warmmongers love to call him), Mars should be much more toasty than it is. But the transport phenomena involved are more complex than the Simpsons would have you believe (and I’m pretty certain that’s where most of the non-scientist warmmongers learned what they think they know about it), and I don’t think anyone has accurately modeled them.
R.W. Wood’s classic “greenhouse effect” experiment demolished the idea that a greenhouse is heated by trapping infrared radiation, and none of the AGW crowd still clings to that notion. But it still sells to the public at large, and no one really tries to stop it.
Mars shows that a comparatively simple system (with virtually constant albedo and no water) does not obey the simple rules of Arrhenius calculations when it comes to relative concentrations of CO2. I know that some of the climate models were calibrated against Mars, but we have at best a half dozen weather stations on the entire planet to provide actual weather data. And Mars researchers are as continually surprised by weather and climate phenomena on Mars as Democrat economists are by every single piece of economic news, so I suspect that those models are hardly “anchored.”
Mars *should be* a saturated greenhouse. But it doesn’t live up to the temperature one would expect by simple-minded calculation. The predictions of the warmmongers are not materially different from those of Arrhenius, so one could reasonably expect them to be at least qualitatively the same for Mars. But reality doesn’t cooperate.
I could (and will) write a great deal more about this, but for now I will just assert that anyone who “thinks” we are 50% certain of anything regarding man’s effect on the climate is, by virtue of that opinion, not qualified to take part in the conversation.
1. climate “science” is not ‘replicable’ – at best it’s curve-fitting based on observations
2. many of those initial observations have been discredited – ie CRU and more recently NASA
3. indeed, those initial observations have not been made available for others to evaluate the data using their own models
4. the models used by proponents of AGW – the workhorses of climate ‘science’ – are also not freely available
5. skeptics are described as ‘deniers’, in a clear reference to holocaust deniers to marginalise them and frighten them off asking inconvenient questions
6. temperature station data is confused and the siting of some stations is highly dubious
7. every Hollywood actor, attention seeking politician and ‘celebrity’ says there is a problem – this should be warning enough that there’s something iffy going on
8. the narrative is to over-emphasise the bad effects of global warming, and to look at every outlier predicted data point as though it were 100% certain to happen (massive sea level rise, desertification on a continental scale, etc)
There is a clear drive to *do something, anything – now!*, at the cost of trillions of dollars *now* which *will kill* people *now* (poverty does that), when the world economy will be 7 times greater in 50 years (4% compound) making the money spent then to ameliorate possible global warming effects much cheaper, and combined with 50 years of technological development it will be vastly less expensive (and cleaner) than doing something today.
Ethan wrote: “…it seems to me they’re a lot more certain than 50%.”
Given that none of the IPCC models includes things like Lindzen’s ‘iris’ mechanism or Svensmark’s cosmic ray ‘seeding’ mechanism, I find it quite staggering that people can then claim the lower ‘sensitivity’ value must be constrained to more than 2C because the models show that it must be so. Such circular logic reflects a blind faith in the models and puts into question all subsequent conclusions drawn from them.
Note, however, that my questioning of the models is based entirely upon the facts presented by the IPCC themselves. However, if you now add to this the questions raised against the input data (e.g. by Climategate), it seems to me that having even a 50% certainty in the model predictions requires an unjustifiably large a leap of faith… and the term ‘Cargo Cult Science’ suddenly starts to seem quite apt.
Chris Gerrib Says:
January 15th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
“What’s misleading about the graph is the black line. It’s not atmospheric CO2 in parts per million, it’s man-made CO2 emissions. That makes it look like there was no CO2 in the atmosphere prior to the 20th century.”
Won’t change the lack of correlation Chris.
Just a few more snippets for those who think the ‘science is settled’…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/a-demonstration-that-global-warming-predictions-are-based-more-on-faith-than-on-science/
…or that the IPCC’s reporting credentials are impeccable…
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/1/15/new-scientist-on-glaciers.html
You really couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.
Some would argue that even at a certainty level of 50% one should take action, just in case, when the predictions are that dire. And it seems to me they’re a lot more certain than 50%.
Ethan, the problem here is that this is extremely poor risk management. First, there’s no analysis of costs and benefits. Even if the problem is “dire”, the solution may be more dire. For example, Obama’s proposed solution to global warming involves the US cutting its carbon emissions by 80%. That is wholly unrealistic in my view without destroying much of the US economy. It also manifests in unrealistic cost projections of corrective action, if global warming goes untamed. Moving people over long periods of time just isn’t that costly an endeavor since people naturally move anyway.
Second, why can’t we wait until we have much greater certainty? Nobody has shown that global warming is so urgent that we can’t act later on better evidence. The “boiling frog” analogy doesn’t work because there’s no “point of no return” beyond which we are hopelessly addled by climate change and unable to make a sound decision.
Mike Borgelt – actually, it does change the correlation. The correlation is to percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Looking at amount emitted without looking at amount absobed (or net concentration) will lead to incorrect and misleading graphs.
MfK – the issue with Mars, which you are not addressing, is that the atmosphere is so thin as to have very little greenhouse effect. CO2 concentration is also wildly variable considering that CO2 snows out at the poles in winter. I note you don’t discuss Venus.
Rand – “replicable” means “go get your own set of data and re-run the analysis.”
No, “replicable” means “capable of being replicated.”
I read that article you linked me to the first time you did it, Rand, and it’s so full of logical fallacies itself that I didn’t bother to respond to it the first time.
Rand – “replicable” means “go get your own set of data and re-run the analysis.”
Chris, here is a learning opportunity for you. Good science is reproducible from top to bottom. You should be able not only to reproduce the experiment or observation using your own data, but you should also be able to reproduce the conclusions of the original research from the data, procedures, and models used by the researchers themselves. That implies that good research has everything open so that another party can check the whole thing.
Now, you might ask yourself, “why do I need ‘good’ science? The CRU stuff was by reputable scientists. I don’t care that the raw data has been withheld from people I don’t like. And it reaches conclusions about the Earth’s climate that I happen to believe are true.”
The problem is what happens if they are wrong? How do we find this out? If opponents just do their own closed research and get different conclusions, what does that tell you? Merely, that there’s at least one party that’s wrong, maybe two. Suppose everyone repeats their research and gets the same results they got before? Who’s right now? You are no better off than before. At least with open research you can look at the research in depth, spotting any flaws in it.
…it’s so full of logical fallacies itself that I didn’t bother to respond to it the first time.
Well, I guess that settles it, then. Ethan says it’s “full of logical fallacies…”
Surely, if it is really “so full of logical fallacies,” you could point out one or two?
“MfK – the issue with Mars, which you are not addressing, is that the atmosphere is so thin as to have very little greenhouse effect. CO2 concentration is also wildly variable considering that CO2 snows out at the poles in winter. I note you don’t discuss Venus.”
Mars’ atmosphere is 95.72% CO2, so the concentration isn’t “variable” at all. And, as I wrote above, there is more of it in Mars’ atmosphere than there is in the earth’s atmosphere. That means the CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is 54 times “thinner” that that on Mars (per unit area). The entire argument is over how “thick” the CO2 in our atmosphere is getting. What don’t you understand about that?
I don’t mention Venus because it’s irrelevant, but now that you brought it up…
The atmosphere of Venus is also 96.5% CO2, but it’s at 1,350 psi and 863 F. Making all of the appropriate adjustments, there is 81,500 times more CO2 per unit area in Venus’ atmosphere than in earth’s. It receives nearly twice the insolation of the earth, but doesn’t reflect quite twice. The temperature is so high that the bulk of the thermal power is radiated at wavelengths outside the absorption bands of CO2. Though no surface radiation within the absorption bands of CO2 does reach the upper atmosphere, that isn’t where the bulk of the power is anyway.
Venus has a constant, total cloud cover of sulfuric acid mist, which reflects surface radiation. Just as cloud cover on the earth will keep the nighttime warm, the so the Venusian cloud cover keeps it hot.
That’s why I didn’t mention it. It is irrelevant.
Because you wrote it, to be perfectly frank. I didn’t see the point.
But on reading it again, it looks to me like you use insinuation and a few comparisons to unlike situations, and then after two pages draw no conclusion at all. Needless to say, I remained unconvinced.
Because you wrote it, to be perfectly frank.
You realize that’s another fallacy, right? Do you never tire of embarrassing yourself here?
…on reading it again, it looks to me like you use insinuation and a few comparisons to unlike situations, and then after two pages draw no conclusion at all.
In other words, you didn’t understand it.
There’s no fallacy there. I wasn’t saying I didn’t like the article because you wrote it, I was saying I didn’t respond to it because you wrote it. Avoiding a pointless debate with the author of an article you didn’t find convincing is not a hard decision.
And I understood it perfectly, I just found it a rather lame argument.
Chris Gerrib Says:
January 16th, 2010 at 9:49 am
“Looking at amount emitted without looking at amount absobed (or net concentration) will lead to incorrect and misleading graphs.”
If you were looking for confirmation that rising CO2, whatever its source, were driving temperatures, you would be correct. But, the Warmist position is specifically that the natural variation is wholly absorbed, and the anthropogenic forcing is wholly responsible for the increase in concentration.
‘Rand – “replicable” means “go get your own set of data and re-run the analysis.”’
Incorrect. ‘Replicable’, in this context, means you share your data and methods so that others may replicate or find fault with your results. That is the Scientific Method:
MfK – You really want to argue that a planet with and atmospheric pressure 1% that of Earth’s should have more greenhouse effect than Earth? The fact is that the Martian atmosphere is too damn thin to stop much of anything.
In Venus’ case, how did those sulfuric acid clouds get there? They got their because the extra insolation and CO2 levels led to a runaway greenhouse effect, which “cracked” other atmospheric gases, accelerating the effect.
And I understood it perfectly, I just found it a rather lame argument.
But you’re unable to describe what it is that’s “lame” about it, or actually point out a “fallacy,” even though you claim that it’s full of them (which makes me wonder if you even know what a fallacy is, or if you’ve ever actually taken a class in formal logic). You seem to be reduced to ad hominem. Very persuasive.
“MfK – You really want to argue that a planet with and atmospheric pressure 1% that of Earth’s should have more greenhouse effect than Earth? The fact is that the Martian atmosphere is too damn thin to stop much of anything.”
You really don’t understand even the basic concepts behind all this, do you? I mean, even the basic concepts of gas mixtures. From an optical standpoint our atmosphere is much “thinner” than that on Mars.
Neglecting water for a moment, there are three principle gases in our atmosphere: nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, in that order. None of them absorb infrared radiation, so it doesn’t matter whether they are there or not. It wouldn’t matter whether they were present on Mars or not. They do not contribute in any way whatsoever to the phenomenon supposedly causing global warming.
If our atmosphere consisted only of its CO2, it would still make the same contribution to the supposed blocking of IR emission that it does now. And the atmospheric pressure would be 5.6% of the atmospheric pressure on Mars. It IS much “thinner” than Mars’ atmosphere.
Let me put it in simpler terms. If you had a foot thick window made out of NaCl with a 1 mm thick facesheet of flint glass, it would have exactly the same infrared optical thickness as a 1 mm thick sheet of flint glass. For the purposes of this phenomena, you would not be able to tell the difference. But one is clearly physically “thicker” than the other. It’s just the fact that NaCl doesn’t absorb infrared that makes that foot thickness irrelevant.
Oh, and the sulfuric acid clouds on Venus are due to vulcanism. But the planet gets twice as much radiation from the sun as does the earth. I’m not particularly surprised that the absolute temperature is 2.5 times that of the earth.
“What’s misleading about the graph is the black line. It’s not atmospheric CO2 in parts per million, it’s man-made CO2 emissions.”
Agreed. If you instead plot the integral of the black line (actual CO2 content), the chart is much, much more convincing.
Pretty great graph and sharing I was wondernig this stuff of information only.Thanks for such a great article within us.I would like to know more in it please share more news on this topic only.
The problem with a lot of the current generation of scientists is they are not really capable of logical thinking. Somehow they are able to deduce from the (debatable) fact mathematics is a science that all science is mathematics. So they stripped out of their research anything that could not be mathematically analyzed and ended up with an equation that had CO2 on one side and rising mean temperatures on the other which is a catastrophic oversimplification.