The credibility of the global warming meme continues to sink. We are often told by alarmist apologists that we rubes irrationally refuse to believe the “settled scientific fact ” of AGW. But that is reductionist because there is much more to the issue than whether the earth is measurably warming (it has over the last century, although the rate seems to have slowed). The real issues are whether–and the extent to which–warming is human caused, what the likely consequences might be, when they might accrue, and if we have a serious problem looming, how to best deal with it as a human society–just to name a few. These are not settled facts.
We are also told that we are just too weak to follow the lead of global alarmists. We can’t believe a just God (or whatever) would allow the predicted apocalypse to take place. We’re too scientifically illiterate to understand what the scientists do. We don’t understand the difference between weather and climate, poor rubes. We are supposedly anti intellectual, anti science, in the thrall of Big Oil’s propaganda, yadda, yadda, yadda. The intellectual snobbery drips off the paragraphs.
But if alarmists want to learn the real reasons for their loss of credibility, they should look in the mirror. They say one thing one day, and when that doesn’t work out, they turn on a dime. That, people do understand.
An excellent column in Forbes by James Taylor, of the skeptical Homeland Institute lays it out. First, he points out how the alarmists were saying only a few years ago that we would have less snow, and now claim that our snowy weather is caused by warming. From “Global Warming Alarmists Flip Flop on Snowfall:”
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report was…straightforward… “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms,” IPCC reported. That was in 2001. Now, however, with an unprecedented number of major winter snowstorms hitting the northeastern U.S. during the past two winters, the alarmists are clamming up and changing their tune…
Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at the Weather Underground, and Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, explained to the media at the UCS press conference why they believe global warming caused the heavy snowfalls in the northeast these past two winters…During the question and answer portion of the UCS press conference, I quoted the IPCC Third Assessment Report and asked Masters and Serreze if they were saying IPCC was wrong on the science. “I would say that we always learn,” replied Serreze. “Have we learned a great deal since the IPCC 2001 report? I would say yes, we have. Climate science, like any other field, is a constantly evolving field and we are always learning.”…
In other words, we can say whatever we want and not be held to it. Being a global warming alarmist means never having to say you’re sorry.
In their own minds. The snowfall meme isn’t the only “settled science” that has become inoperable after being “refuted by real-world climate conditions.” In bullet points from Taylor’s piece:
- The alarmists used to claim global warming was causing more hurricanes, but real-world data show hurricanes have fallen to historically lows levels.
- The alarmists used to claim global warming was causing the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s mountain snowcap, but scientists now understand that local deforestation is the culprit.
- IPCC claimed in its 2007 assessment that global warming would likely melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035, but IPCC now admits there is no scientific basis for such an assertion.
- IPCC claimed in its 1990 assessment that global temperatures should rise 0.6 degrees Celsius between 1990 and 2010, yet NASA satellite data show global temperatures warmed by merely half that amount, at most.
For years, alarmists have claimed “the science is settled” and “the debate is over.” Well, when was the science settled? When global warming would allegedly cause Himalayan glaciers to melt by 2035, or now that it won’t? When global warming would allegedly cause fewer heavy snow events, or now that it will allegedly cause more frequent heavy snow events?
And that is part of why Americans are not about to turn over their already weak economy to a hubristic and unaccountable international bureaucracy, refuse to give our remaining wealth over to the “international community” to be redistributed, and don’t want to squash the energy sector when it will take decades to transition into cleaner approaches.
A good start to restoring credibility would be for the alarmists to apologize and show a little humility in the face of a climate system of almost incomprehensible complexity.
March 4th, 2011 | 12:34 pm
Mr. Smith, it is you who should apologize.
It is a fact that vague and sometimes unsubstantiated accusations of fraud get into the press with relative frequency. It is also a fact that not all of these stories translate into a valid legal case.
That said, do you know how the climategate case turned out?
Do you know what the word “absolved” means?
In November of 2009, thousands of emails and other documents were stolen from the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and made public. Within a few days, every conservative hack in America was trying to turn them into a worldwide, Al Gore, conspiracy.
What followed was a series of 5 independent inquiries, soon to be 6.
On March 31, 2010, the Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported that the emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that “global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity“. They also said that they had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.
On April 14, 2010, the Independent Science Assessment Panel published and concluded that the panel had seen “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit.” It found that the CRU’s work had been “carried out with integrity” and had used “fair and satisfactory” methods. The CRU was found to be “objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda.” Instead, “their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible.”
In July 2010, a British investigation commissioned by the UEA, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, announced and published in its final report that it had exonerated the scientists of manipulating their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming. The “rigour and honesty” of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt. The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any “competent” researcher.
A separate review by Penn State University into accusations against Michael E. Mann cleared him of any wrongdoing, concluding that “there is no substance” to the allegations against him.
After the July 2010 reports, the New York Times referred to Climategate as a “manufactured controversy,” and expressed the hope that reports clearing the scientists “will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies,”.
The Columbia Journalism Review criticized newspapers and magazines for failing to give prominent coverage to the findings of the review panels, and said that “readers need to understand that while there is plenty of room to improve the research and communications process, its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever.”
CNN media critic Howard Kurtz expressed similar sentiments.
In June 2010 Newsweek called the controversy a “highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal.”
Newsweek isn’t exactly a liberal rag.
Think about the fact that it’s a major sin to wrongly accuse someone.
Shame on you.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Newsweek is a liberal rag. And I didn’t deal with Climategate in this post. So, you wasted a lot of angry energy and time in your life you will never have again.
March 4th, 2011 | 1:01 pm
For years, alarmists have claimed “the science is settled” and “the debate is over.”
I agree – and we should therefore stop funding settled science.
Graham Reply:
March 8th, 2011 at 3:55 am
@Steve Colby,
I love the way denialist cult devotees always put that so-called ‘quote’ “the science is settled” in quotation marks as though some scientist actualy said it.
You see this piece of crap posted in every filthy denierblog on the net over and over again. Always the quotation marks – never the source. Just WHO do you parrots fondly imagine you are ‘quoting’ here?
Science is NEVER “settled”. No true scientist, by definition, would ever claim it was. You might find some politician claiming this but I’ve never seen a scientist saying it and neither have any of you.
I might just add while I’m here that the level of ignorance displayed by denialist cult devotees on this subject is simply jaw-dropping. And I have no problem whatsoever in saying that “I know more about climate science than the deniers”. Because I do. You gullible morons are an absolutel disgrace to your country.
March 4th, 2011 | 1:01 pm
“In July 2010, a British investigation commissioned by the UEA, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, announced and published in its final report that it had exonerated the scientists of manipulating their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming.” – Harryhammer
If you were to look into what involvement Sir Muir Russell has in the ‘green’ movement you would see that his chairing of the ‘investigation’ meant that the who thing was little more than an farce from the start. But if you had any sort of unbiased interest in the story you would have already known that.
Interesting post, Mr Smith, thank you.
March 4th, 2011 | 3:10 pm
@Harryhammer
Nowhere in the piece did Mr Smith discuss or in any way refer to the nest of vipers uncovered in “Climategate”. In fact, he never used the sequence of letters “gate” (as suffix or in any other way). The first use thereof occurs in your rant. Is it your warmist guilt which shows?
You tilt, Sir, at windmills. Is your patron saint “San” Quixote? You, my dear Sir, exhibit a level of intelligence and rationality more compatible with the Don’s companion’s mount.
Robert Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
We should thank him for coming to this site to provide a proof-of-concept to everything Mr. Smith has said concerning those who have abandoned reason for hysteria.
Harryhammer Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 11:22 am
@Rarm,
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
March 4th, 2011 | 3:44 pm
5 separate independent inquiries, soon to be 6.
Soon you’ll be adding your mama to the list of Al Gore conspirators.
Scientific opinion on climate change is clearly identifiable. It’s given by an amalgamation of reports produced by scientific bodies, of both national and international standing, and by surveys of the opinions of climate scientists from everywhere, including the United States.
It’s true that it doesn’t include the personal views of individual scientists. Nevertheless, as of today, no scientific body of national or international standing agrees with you.
Here are some of the more recent surveys of climate scientist opinions:
Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”. EOS 90 (3): 22–23. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final…..
^ Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2009). “A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change”. http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008….
^ Lavelle, Marianne (2008-04-23). “Survey Tracks Scientists’ Growing Climate Concern”. U.S. News & World Report. http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008…. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
Here is the most recent survey of climate scientists’ opinions:
Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and resulted in the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
(ii) The relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Let me put it to you in plain English:
Only a very small percentage of below par researchers share your dissenting opinion.
March 4th, 2011 | 3:51 pm
Mr. Smith, in a court of law, an expert witness is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience¬, is believed to have expertise and specialize¬d knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person.
That said, if we went to court to settle this issue, who would you call as your expert witnesses?
You would call James “Mountain Jim” Inhofe, along with his new book “HOAX”.
I’d bring the National Academy of Science of the United States.
As a matter of fact, I could bring anyone of 32 national science academies that have issued joint declaratio¬ns confirming anthropoge¬nic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
You would bring Patrick Michaels, one of the most vocal global warming deniers.
However, he’s in hot water right now for lying to congress about who signs his pay check. When asked, he said that only 3% of the $4,000,000 he received last year came from oil and gas interests when in fact it was more like 40%.
I would bring the American Geophysica¬l Union and its 58,287 members.
The AGU was established over 90 years ago, and for more than 50 years has operated as an unincorporated affiliate of the National Academy of Sciences. These aren’t “NOBODIES.” The National Academy of Sciences is like the Supreme Court of science; they are the best of the best when it comes to science, of an entire nation.
You would bring Khabibullo Abdusamato¬v, a semi-retired Russian astrophysi¬cist.
I’d bring Stephen Hawking, one of the most awarded scientists in human history.
You would bring 87 year old Fred Singer.
Singer is best known for his denial of the health risks of passive smoking.
I’d bring the American Institute of Physics.
The AIP has been publishing scientific journals for almost 80 years.
You would bring Henrik Svensmark a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen who studies the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation.
I’d bring NASA.
You would bring Sherwood B. Idso, the coal guy.
I’d bring The Royal Society of Canada, the oldest association of scientists and scholars in Canada.
I could bring every scientific organizati¬on that knows anything at all about this subject because they all agree with the conclusion¬s of the IPCC.
The Republican Party is practicall¬y the only political party in the world to be in denial?
Wake up Mr. Smith.
March 4th, 2011 | 3:52 pm
Mr. Smith, in a court of law, an expert witness is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialized knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person.
That said, if we went to court to settle this issue, who would you call as your expert witnesses?
You would call James “Mountain Jim” Inhofe, along with his new book “HOAX”.
I’d bring the National Academy of Science of the United States.
As a matter of fact, I could bring anyone of 32 national science academies that have issued joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
You would bring Patrick Michaels, one of the most vocal global warming deniers.
However, he’s in hot water right now for lying to congress about who signs his pay check. When asked, he said that only 3% of the $4,000,000 he received last year came from oil and gas interests when in fact it was more like 40%.
I would bring the American Geophysical Union and its 58,287 members.
The AGU was established over 90 years ago, and for more than 50 years has operated as an unincorporated affiliate of the National Academy of Sciences.
These aren’t “NOBODIES.”
The National Academy of Sciences is like the Supreme Court of science; they are the best of the best when it comes to science, of an entire nation.
You would bring Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a semi-retired Russian astrophysicist.
I’d bring Stephen Hawking, one of the most awarded scientists in human history.
You would bring 87 year old Fred Singer.
Singer is best known for his denial of the health risks of passive smoking.
I’d bring the American Institute of Physics.
The AIP has been publishing scientific journals for almost 80 years.
You would bring Henrik Svensmark a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen who studies the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation.
I’d bring NASA.
You would bring Sherwood B. Idso, the coal guy.
I’d bring The Royal Society of Canada, the oldest association of scientists and scholars in Canada.
I could bring every scientific organization that knows anything at all about this subject because they all agree with the conclusions of the IPCC.
The Republican Party is practically the only political party in the world to be in denial?
Wake up Mr. Smith.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Get a life Harry. You have spent untold time, effort, and passion not responding to what I wrote.
March 4th, 2011 | 3:58 pm
Mr. Smith, realize that when Al Gore was in kindergarten Time magazine and Popular Mechanics were running articles on the work of a physicist named Gilbert Plass.
Physicist Gilbert N. Plass had just completed some calculations on the atmospheric warming effect of carbon dioxide. He certainly wasn’t the first person to make such calculations, but he was the first to make use of computers to perform the calculations in much greater detail. He drew attention to the point that man-made CO2 emissions would have a significant warming effect on the Earth’s temperature. Popular Mechanics reported the results under the headline,
“Growing Blanket of Carbon Dioxide Raises Earth’s Temperature”.
Furthermore, there has always been a consensus predicting that global average temperature would rise.
Climatologist Thomas C. Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., and his colleagues put together a team to survey all major journal papers published between 1965 and 1979 and found that out of a total of 71 major journal articles, only 7 articles predicted that global average temperature would continue to cool. During the same period, 44 journal papers indicated that the average temperature would rise and 20 were neutral or made no climate predictions. The report was in the September Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
The score is 98 to 2 right now.
March 4th, 2011 | 4:30 pm
Mr. Smith, you’ve been led to believe that there are two sides to this debate when in fact there are three.
First, you have the 2% of below par researchers who know squat.
Second, you have the 98% of scientists who know anything.
A lesser known fact is that the 98% group has two sides of its own.
A substantial number of climate scientists out there believe that the consensus predictions of the IPCC are much too optimistic and they have plenty of proof to back them up.
Most of the IPCC’s climate models from 10 years ago were wrong. They were for the most part way too conservative. The earth is warming much faster than any of these models predicted.
We are seeing the IPCC’s worst case scenario unfolding before our eyes.
March 4th, 2011 | 4:35 pm
Mr. Smith, in a court of law, an expert witness is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience¬, is believed to have expertise and specialize¬d knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person.
That said, if we went to court to settle this issue, who would you call as your expert witnesses?
You would call James “Mountain Jim” Inhofe, along with his new book “HOAX”.
I’d bring the National Academy of Science of the United States.
Now you know why scientists – the entire community – enjoy record lows when it comes to prestige.
There was a time when science was respected – revered.
The community sold it all, squandered, on partisan politics and money money money.
Now people don’t even trust the scientific community to vaccinate their kids, let alone hand over entire economies just on their say-so.
March 4th, 2011 | 6:52 pm
Excellent column Wesley and so well said. I’m tired of the intellectual superiority that global warming alarmists wear as a badge of honour. If they are so smart, why do they keep getting it wrong. And why do the mistakes always overstate the case of warming? People like harryhammer are pretentious and boring.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
JimmyV: Harry is more than welcome here. He is true believer, which is fine. I am about some things too. But writing long litanies that ignore the point of what I wrote, isn’t a very effective use of time, it seems to me. But it’s his dime.
I keep pointing out the cause of the credibility gap about this issue, and those who are most frustrated about that gap keep trying to have a different discussion. But until they get a grip on their problem, the gap will only grow.
Harryhammer Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Mr. Smith, thank you for allowing me to comment on your site.
Jimmy V, have you ever heard of the Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan?
http://harryhammer.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/global-climate-science-communications-action-plan/
The New York Times wrote an article about the American Petroleum Institute in April of 1998. It outlines a very specific and detailed plan by oil and gas industry representatives to invest millions of dollars in an effort to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol and discredit the scientific consensus opinion that greenhouse gases are causing the planet to warm.
The draft plan, titled “Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan,” concedes that opposition to the protocol is not shared by the public or a vast majority of scientists worldwide.
“There has been little, if any, public resistance or pressure applied to Congress to reject the treaty, except by those ‘inside the Beltway’ with vested interests,” it notes.
Jimmy V, do you know about the most successful international agreement of all times?
The Montreal Protocol is said to be the single most successful international agreement to date. All countries in the United Nations have now ratified the original agreement and three of the many noteworthy scientists who worked hard to solve the problem were awarded a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Their names are Mario Molina, Paul Crutzen, and Frank Rowland.
You see, in the 1980′s, scientists were concerned about the ozone layer when most of the world didn’t have the slightest clue about what ozone was.
Scientists were saying that a compound best known by the DuPont brand name “Freon” was harming the planet. They said that certain chemicals were destroying part of the atmosphere that is essential for human life because it blocks out harmful ultraviolet radiation that causes cancer.
The first step was The Vienna Conference; the first international conference on ozone layer depletion.
Next came The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer; a multilateral environmental agreement.
Soon after, came The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer; an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of a number of substances believed to be responsible for ozone depletion.
While all this was happening, a handful of scientists upheld the minority view that the case against these harmful chemicals was exaggerated. They were saying that the public was being misled, bamboozled, and manipulated.
In fact, a majority of them went from denying the potential danger associated with Freon to denying the potential danger associated with second hand smoke, to denying the potential danger of global warming.
Jimmy V, the most of your favorite global warming deniers have a history of being dead wrong.
Here’s a reality check from the floor of the House:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwbiDaiLrkk
The most cited living author can explain what’s happening better than I can:
http://www.thenation.com/video/158093/noam-chomsky-how-climate-change-became-liberal-hoax
Mr. Smith, I look forward to hearing your comments.
March 4th, 2011 | 8:19 pm
Polls show a majority of Americans understand that global warming is a threat. But it’s true that the the percentage has been decreasing over the past five years or so. And why shouldn’t it? The forces aligned against reason and truth, e.g., this site, FOX News, Gateway Numbskull, and the rest of the conservative media have been working non-stop to mislead their listeners, readers and viewers. These groups are good at what they do. Frankly, I’m surprised they haven’t been more successful.
Wes says that climate scientists come off as smarty-pants, and try to make him feel as if he doesn’t have a Ph.D. in physics and 2 decades of experience studying the Earth’s climate. This is a tactic used by the right-wing whinists these days. They are victims. They feel that arrogant, elite, snobs are looking down their nose at them making them feel bad.
No one uses “settled science” and “the debate is over” quite as often as the whinists.
A climate system of almost incomprehensible complexity? Let’s simplify.
I ask this all the time, since the goal of the whinists is to confuse.
Is the Earth warming?
If so, why?
Wes knows the answers but his ideological (economic?) mission is to mislead his loyal readers.
For those interested, please Google James Taylor and The Heartland Institute, a front group for the tobacco and energy industries. They are paid to mislead us.
It is a well-funded and effective misinformation campaign. Wes appears to be part of it.
What exactly should the climate scientists apologize for? For being smart?
Huub Bakker Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
@Jeffery, I get so tired of warmists tossing the Big Oil and Tobacco money into the equation. Looking up their contributions shows them spending tens-of-millions of dollars into the sceptics camp. But then what do you say about similar funds from governments to Greenpeace and the WWF? These are $150 million a year industries driving the warmist agenda. Then there are BP and Shell who are foundation sponsors of the CRU at the University of East Anglia. Big Oil is heavily into the Green Energy industry because they can see where the subsidies are going. (Why else would a solar plant in Spain use diesel generators to run arc lights so that they can generate ‘solar’ power at night!)
How do you count the carbon traders who clipped the tickets of $128 billion in carbon trading during 2008 and the climate change research and green energy industries that are sucking down about $7 billion in government funding in the US alone?
I’d leave ad hominum attacks based on funding out and stick to the science. Well, actually I wouldn’t since the scientific evidence for man-made global warming is tissue thin and no warmists seem to be able to provide me with real evidence that hasn’t come out of a computer model or been adequately explained by natural causes.
Jeffery Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
@Huub Bakker, Huub, Please point out the climate scientists and advocates being paid to support a particular ideology, as the likes of the Heartland Institute are. Paid advocates like this are as reliable as and PR firm. Taylor’s repetitive claims have been debunked and explained ad nauseum, but he (and Mr. Smith) exhume them.
The whinists make the same “argument”, that the evidence for man-made global warming is weak. You are wrong.
Since you brought it up, what is the natural cause for the current warming event (the past 40 years or so)?
Huub Bakker Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 4:33 am
@Jeffery, Certainly. If you look at the correlation between temperature over the last 100 years and CO2 you will get a figure of about 0.6. Against the Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation and the Pacific Decal Oscillation you will an R^2 of about 0.8. This disproves the null hypothesis that the warming is not natural.
So how about something concrete to disprove the null hypothesis?
As for people in the pay of vested interests, you ignored the one in my post. BP and Royal Dutch Shell have funded the CRU at East Anglia.
Jeffery Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
@Huub Bakker, Please show your work (where did you get your info). And I’ve always wanted to say this to a denialist… correlation is not causation! In any event, how do you propose that the Pacific Decal (sic) Oscillation adds or causes the retention of heat?
Do you think that BP’s and Shell’s funding of the CRU influenced the results of the data analyses?
March 4th, 2011 | 8:37 pm
Can you be more specific as to who the ‘alarmists’ are? Are all people who support human-caused climate change alarmists, or only the people who support sweeping policy change?
It seems your argument is either incorrectly stating scientists considered these mistakes ‘settled science’ or saying that people making mistakes when talking about science is evidence science itself is wrong. There are a few other interpretations, though
You could also be arguing against activists/agencies who get the science wrong, but the quotes from scientists suggest you think the scientists themselves and their research are in error. Maybe you’re criticizing only ‘alarmist’ scientists?
It could be just me, but your argument looks pretty ambiguous.
Huub Bakker Reply:
March 4th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
@Glau Hawkings, it seems pretty straightforward to me. Alarmists are those who always manage to blame humans for anything that happens to the climate, and that such things are always catastrophic, no matter what the evidence shows.
When the global temperature is climbing then it’s ‘global warming’ and there will be less snow. When the global temperature is flat or falling and there is far more snow then it’s ‘climate change’ and there will be more snow.
The support for a scientific theory comes from it’s ability to predict events in the future. So far the predictions from global warming/climate change/climate disruption ‘science’ have not managed a single successful prediction. Strangely the predictions are always many years into the future and/or the theory has always changed by the time that future arrives.
Jeffery Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 12:00 am
@Huub Bakker, Huub,
Once again, you are wrong, and are repeating (unknowingly, I hope) a clear and common falsehood in the denialsphere. Man-made global warming has been predicted for a century. For a primer try:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Huub Bakker Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 4:40 am
@Jeffery, The Mayans have predicted stuff too, as did Nostradamus. If I predict global warming over the next century I have one chance in two of being right. That’s no prediction it’s a bet. Getting the sign of the 13-year averaged temperature anomaly right for three quarters of the next 10 years would be a prediction.
Jeffery Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
@Huub Bakker, You miss the point or are intentionally wishing to mislead. The computer predictions correlate with the temperature record.
Did you read the link I supplied?
Glau Hawkings Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 2:09 am
@Huub Bakker, That interpretation occurred to me, but it doesn’t seem like much of a claim to say that people who reflexively blame global warming for everything are wrong–would anyone disagree with that?
Also, the debunking of ‘scientists said there will be no more snow’:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nJuAslQPaY#t=02m45s
Quick summary: the claim came from the Independent interviewing a single journalist who spoke outside his area of expertise and no credible research actually made that suggestion.
March 4th, 2011 | 11:32 pm
I like to think of “alarmists” rather as climate controllers or climate cowards. History is already calling us former believers the “modern day witch burners”.
Obama didn’t even mention the CO2 mistaken crisis in his STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH. And were the scientists outraged? No, and now the majority of us voters now are former believers and yes we know what pollution is. It’s just that CO2 wasn’t one of them and the planet is not dying after all. REAL planet lovers are happy when a climate crisis is avoided. REAL progressives and REAL planet lovers welcome the challenges of the future with courage and optimism.
Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for 25 years of climate control instead of obviously required population control.
Condemning our kids to CO2 death just to get them to turn the lights out wasn’t civilized but we meant well. Fear was never a sustainable motivation.
Lesson learned planet.
Jeffery Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 12:05 am
@Meme Mine, The majority of voters actually understands the seriousness of global warming.
subl33t Reply:
March 12th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
@Jeffery,
I’d wager that the majority of voters you refer to are also the same voters who religiously watch “Jersey Shore”
March 5th, 2011 | 12:00 am
The science of Global Warming/Climate Change is settled except for the magnitude of the changes that are coming. What hasn’t been settled is how much more noise the Global Warming Deniers will make to promote their political tribalism.
The following organizations provide evidence that:
1) Global Warming / Climate Change is real.
2) Human activities are by far the largest causative agent.
3) Global Warming / Climate Change is a continuing, ongoing phenomenon.
NASA
http://climate.nasa.gov/warmingworld/
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarmingQandA/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif (The graph)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/about/wmo50/e/world/climate_pages/global_warming_e.html
American Meteorological Society
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research
“How do we know Earth is warming now?”
http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/now.php
Earth System Research Laboratory – Global Monitoring Division
“Climate Forcing”
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/climate.html
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.jsp
Jet Propulsion Laboratory – California Institute of Technology
“Global Climate Change” “How do we know?”
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
American Geophysical Union (world’s largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists)
“Human Impacts on Climate”
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Association for the Advancement of Science
“The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now”
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/
U. S. National Academy of Sciences
“Climate change is real”
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
National Science Foundation
“Global Warming Greatest in Past Decade”
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=112206
U. S. Geological Survey
“Glacier and Landscape Change in Response to Changing Climate”
http://www.usgs.gov/global_change/glaciers/default.asp
Time lapse video: “Glacier Erasure: South Cascade Glacier in a Changing Climate”
http://wa.water.usgs.gov/projects/glacier/video.html
Geological Society of America
“The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs . . . that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.”
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
National Snow and Ice Data Center – Global Glacier Recession
“We live in a time of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations with an attendant warming of the climate.”
http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/
United Nations Environment Programme/World Glacier Monitoring Service
“Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures”
“There is mounting evidence that climate change is triggering a shrinking and thinning of many glaciers world-wide”
http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/ (Introduction and links to a 26 MB WGMS report)
The United States Energy Information Administration
“Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy”
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“Report: Human activity fuels global warming”
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/climate.html
Also: “The new projections are . . . the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C
http://globalchange.mit.edu/pubs/abstract.php?publication_id=990
California Institute of Technology
“How We Know Global Warming is Real”
“The science behind human-induced climate change”
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/papers/skeptic_2008.pdf
Stanford University
“Global warming . . . is now well documented and accepted by scientists as fact.”
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html
Atmospheric Sciences – University of Illinois – Champaign
“Evidence continues to mount that human activities are altering the Earth’s climate on a global scale.”
http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/research/01climate.html
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
“Global Warming”
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (University of California – San Diego)
http://scripps.ucsd.edu/img/climate_flyer.pdf
The UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre
“Climate change – the big picture”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/
The UK’s Royal Society
“Climate change controversies: a simple guide”
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Based in Switzerland)
“Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report”
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Japan Meteorological Agency
“Global Warming Projection Vol.7”
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/gwp7/index-e.html
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
“Our climate has changed substantially.” “Global climate change and global warming are real and observable.”
http://www.amos.org.au/publications/cid/3/t/publications
Royal Society of New Zealand
“The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.”
http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/Site/news/media_releases/2008/clim0708.aspx
National Geographic Magazine
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/
Scientific American Magazine
http://www.sciam.com/topic.cfm?id=global-warming-and-climate-change
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Jeffery Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 12:22 am
@Bill Butler, Yes, but a paid hack from Heartland wrote a list of falsehoods in Forbes trumping all your “sciency” stuff.
There was an error in the last IPCC report where they claimed Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. That proves climate change is a hoax.
Huub Bakker Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 4:47 am
@Jeffery, So you’ll be able to tell me what smoking gun evidence disproves the null hypothesis that the warming is natural. Must be real simple with all those societies on board working it out and explaining it. Just tell me and I’ll go my merry way. (And, strangely, this smoking gun evidence won’t require you to make ad hominem attacks.)
Jeffery Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
@Huub Bakker, Not certain to what ad hominem attacks you’re referring (although I am getting close to one!).
You maintain that the current warming event is natural and are asking me to disprove it. 97% of climate scientists disagree but that’s neither here nor there. The most likely explanation is the accumulation of greenhouse gases. Why do scientists think this? Because the evidence supports it.
Can you flesh out your thinking on methods for testing your hypothesis about whether or not warming is natural?
Blake Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
@Jeffery,
There was a time when scientists “agreed” that phrenology could determine whether a person is guilty of murder.
A scientist’s opinion is not what makes something scientific. It’s the results of his tests that count as evidence. So stop asking us to believe something because “X percent” of climate scientists believe it.
The scientific community is currently ruled by groupthink, and they hound and harass anyone who dares to violate their taboos, so it really means nothing if 100% of them agree on something.
Huub Bakker Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
@Jeffery, Sorry again but I can’t let this pass. The 97% figure you mention is the result of a self-selecting email survey of the 14,000-odd members of the AMS where about 73 replied. This cannot, by any stretch of a reasonable imagination, be considered a statistically-valid survey.
Jeffery Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
@Huub Bakker, They had a response rate of some 30% from 10,000 or so requests of Earth scientists. The 97% value came from the 77 respondents who are active climate researchers. Overall, “only” 82% of Earth scientists thought that man-made greenhouse gases are responsible for current global warming.
I can find no reference to the researchers using the AMS listings. They approached 10,257 Earth scientists obtained from lists of all geosciences
faculty at reporting academic institutions,
along with researchers at state
geologic surveys associated with local
universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities.
Do you really dispute that most climate scientists support the theory of man-made global warming?
Jeffery Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
@Huub Bakker,
I think your null hypothesis is a fair representation and is where most climate scientists started.
Ho: Greater than 50% of the current global warming event is due to natural (non man-made) causes.
Are there sufficient data to reject the null hypothesis? No. Therefore, the current global warming event is either natural or man-made. Fair enough?
Now that we’ve “proven” that the current global warming event is either natural or man-made do you have any evidence to support that it is natural? It only takes one good piece of credible evidence to show the theory of man-made global warming is flawed.
Where is that piece of credible evidence? Please cite your work, if you would be so kind.
Since the evidence in support of man-made global warming is so overwhelming, might this be the null?
Ho: Man-made greenhouse gases are causing at least 50% of the current global warming event.
It takes just one credible piece of evidence to reject.
Huub Bakker Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
@Jeffery, Sorry but I’m not the one with the theory that warming is man-made or that 50% is man-made. I’m simply asking for the apparently unequivocal evidence to show this is the case because I am a sceptic. The state of the science before this time was that the global warming was entirely natural (I’m excluding regional or local warming caused by deforestation or the like.) so the null hypothesis is that global warming is entirely natural.
(I should point out that there is no statistical evidence that the warming before World War II is any different to that in the latter half of the century when CO2 is apparently the only possible explanation.)
So where is the evidence that this is not the case? Apart from computer models, that are not evidence, and some correlation studies for climate sensitivity that come out way below the IPCC’s estimates but are inconclusive I know of none.
So, over to you Jeffery. :-)
Jeffery Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
@Huub Bakker, And I’ve asked you for an alternative credible explanation for the current warming event. :-)
It’s up to you now :-)
March 5th, 2011 | 2:52 am
You seem to be five years behind the eight ball Mr Smith.
March 5th, 2011 | 8:43 am
The science is never settled. All the data are never in. The scientific debate is never over.
Evidence could be revealed tomorrow that would overturn the theory of man-made global warming, although it becomes increasingly unlikely. Why? Because the evidence supporting the theory continues to accumulate. Climate scientists and most other scientists understand that the Earth is in a warming event, almost certainly caused by accumulating man-made greenhouse gases.
What are the alternative theories for accomodating the current warming event? The sun has been in a lower irradiance state lately so it’s not the sun. Cosmic rays? Too little evidence. If the Earth is warming now, what is the alternative explanation?
Those opposed to potential solutions for a rapidly warming Earth (in geological terms), either for economic or ideologic reasons, are campaigning to confuse the issue.
March 5th, 2011 | 11:59 am
I just stumbled on your site -
Observation:
The main thrust of Wesley J. Smith’s article (in my opinion), is the following:
1. Do we have a problem?
2. Is it caused by human activity?
3. Can we actually do something about it?
4. What should we do do about it?
He points out that we laypeople were told a decade or so ago that future winters would become milder and milder (due to AGW). That was apparently true in the 90s and even the early 00s. But for the past 2-3 years, winters (at least in N. America, Europe and N. Asia) appear to have become colder and snowier. Is this a climate trend? (One probably can’t say yet). But to now hear claims that the recent severe winters are the RESULT of AGW does indeed raise eyebrows and stretch credibility (since the opposite was stated not so long ago).
So I THINK he’s saying that we laypeople would truly appreciate climate scientists using the phrase “we are uncertain” rather than “this is completely coherent with our models” when predictions didn’t come true. Ditto for IPCC’s sweeping claims (in the absence of “proof”) e.g., that CO2 is truly driving earth’s temperatures upwards significantly.
This, naturally, since the measures being debated could be nothing short of devastating economically.
OR, PHRASED ANOTHER WAY, “AREN’T THERE PERHAPS SOME NATURAL PHENOMENA AT PLAY WHICH WE REALLY DON’T UNDERSTAND ALL THAT WELL?” (which may have nothing to do with CO2?)
As to the “science” (as in theory, data, analysis, … … experiment: proof) all we seem to hear from this field is “peer review” and “consensus”; am I mistaken, or is something new going on here?
It appears to me that most posters here are engaging in name-calling rather than rational, conscientious correspondence.
Does the moderator agree, and if so, could we get back on track?
{Jeffrey’s most recent post is more in line with reasonable discourse}
Huub Bakker Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
@Kurt in Switzerland, Agreed. I apologize to Jeffrey. It was some of the other posters who I was really aiming at.
However, I’m still waiting for the evidence that the null hypothesis has been overturned. Talk of why it’s not natural causes can not overturn it. Besides, the lack of solar activity nicely explains the recent lack of warming.
Huub Bakker Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
@Huub Bakker, Sorry, I should have been clearer. I’m working off an iPhone and cutting corner to reduce the typing.
The null hypothesis is that the warming is caused by natural causes. You either have to prove conclusively that it was caused by man-made CO2 or you have to prove that NO POSSIBLE combination of natural causes are responsible. You can’t disprove a negative.
I’ve pointed to correlations between temperature and the AMO and PDO ocean currents being better than for CO2. You must now disprove the effect of these two to have any chance of claiming a human-caused origin to global warming.
Jeffery Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 12:30 am
@Huub Bakker, You are absolutely right. There is no smoking gun. The null hypothesis stands. The Earth is warming naturally.
Where did the increased CO2 in the atmosphere come from?
Why hasn’t this CO2 caused the retention of heat in the atmosphere (as simple physics predicts)?
Now that we’ve agreed that the current warming is natural, what do you think is driving it?
Raven Chukwu Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
@Huub Bakker, I am afraid you misunderstand what a rejection of the null hypothesis entails. When one rejects a null hypothesis, one does not prove that it is impossible; one merely establishes that it is unlikely based on the available data (i.e. that the probability of its being an adequate explanation of the data falls below some predetermined level).
March 5th, 2011 | 3:30 pm
Mr. Smith, do you know what 40,000 U.S. barrels per second looks like?
According to David O’Reilly the CEO of CHEVRON, the world currently consumes oil at a rate of about 40,000 US gallons per second.
He says,
“The scale of the energy system is enormous.”
So, I did some math.
1 barrel of oil = 42 US gallons
1 cubic meter = 264.172052 US gallons.
According to the 2008 World Fact-book, the world currently consumes about 85,270,000 barrels of oil per day.
85,270,000 barrels per day x 42 US gallons per barrel = 3,581,340,000 US gallons per day = 149,222,500 US gallons per hour = 2,487,042 US gallons per minute = 41,451 US gallons per second.
So, Mr. O’Reilly was right when he said that the world consumes about 40,000 US gallons of oil per second.
41,451 US gallons of oil per second = approximately 157 cubic meters of oil per second.
Imagine a river of oil.
I thought it might interesting to see just how much oil we are talking about here, so I compared the amount of oil that we are currently burning in the world to the amount of water that flows in various waterfalls.
I used average yearly flow rate figures.
Jog Falls, created by the Sharavathi River falling from a height of 253 m (830 ft), is the highest plunge waterfall in India. It flows at a rate of about 153 cubic meters per second, a little less than our imaginary river of oil.
You can see what 153 cubic meters per second looks like here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU0CjwPVfrw
Now imagine it on fire, 24/7, day after day, year after year, with black smoke billowing into the air.
To adamantly insist that this couldn’t be effecting the environment is irrational.
Now add to that a massive blazing mountain of coal.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 5th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Harryhammer: Enough. This isn’t an open thread. Please restrict your comments to the point of the post. Thank you.
March 5th, 2011 | 3:38 pm
[...] [...]
March 5th, 2011 | 5:56 pm
ref null hypothesis:
The IPCC has never been about “understanding climate science”. It was created for the sole purpose of gathering evidence that man-made CO2 was causing the globe to heat excessively.
Read the Preface to the First Assessment Report.
So 20 y later we have plenty of data on temperature, drought, floods, etc. (and the probable environmental and socio-economic effects of changes in key climate parameters). We also have dozens of climate models, all apparently ascribing a radiative forcing factor (plus a healthy amount of feedback) as a function of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. All conjecture.
Can this hypothesis be tested in a lab? Can it be proven (or disproven)?
The one thing we are certain of is that atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising (and will probably continue to rise for the foreseeable future).
There are a number of possible climate drivers which just aren’t well enough understood today such that anyone can state conclusively that the null hypothesis isn’t valid. (Take the effect of clouds, for example — addressed as a a major uncertainty in the FAR, incidentally).
Furthermore, the IPCC is by definition loath to accept the bait of “disproving” the null hypothesis, since this would potentially deprive it of its raison d’etre!
Jeffery Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 12:49 am
@Kurt in Switzerland, Can you supply the relevant description of the IPCC objective of proving man-made global warming?
How could the Earth not warm under the conditions of increased greenhouse gases we are now experiencing? (There are actually ways this can happen).
March 6th, 2011 | 2:16 am
I am constantly amazed by the number of articles like this one from conservative groups that raise a few hard to prove (or disprove) vague facts, but always finish with a statement about the financial implications of trying to avoid warming.
Seems these articles are really less interested in getting to the truth about the science than protecting the money in peoples pockets. The logic goes something like this…. it is just not fair to tax me, so this AGW stuff is all false.
Sadly no amount of denying will change the warming. Wish it could. The only hope we have lies with the finest minds in this field… and they are telling us, almost without exception, to limit the carbon we put into the air.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 6th, 2011 at 10:59 am
Simon: And I am constantly amazed at believers in global warming who refuse to grapple with the point being made. I think a psychological study should be conducted.
March 6th, 2011 | 6:02 am
@Jeffery,
Jeffrey,
FYI: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/weather-channel-met-scolds-skeptics-using-questionable-global-warming-consensus-study
A nice article describing the methodology used by the surveyors of this study.
derekcrane
March 6th, 2011 | 3:53 pm
@Jeffery,
1. Go to the IPCC site.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
2. Scroll down to the First Assessment Report
3. Download the document.
4. Read the document.
Now, if you can get through just the italicized pages and still believe this represents an honest effort to understand all the potential factors affecting climate on earth (as opposed to one which ‘a priori’ chose mankind’s contribution to Greenhouse Gases, primarily CO2, as the “culprit”, give me a shout).
If you want to look at a background study on what led to the foundation of the IPCC, try the following (Princeton researcher, published in 1998):
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w28x724593566g1t/fulltext.pdf
While I don’t agree necessarily with the author’s assessment, I find the report to be quite clear that the PURPOSE of the foundation of the IPCC was political rather than scientific.
To your second question, “How could the earth NOT warm under the conditions of increased GHG we are now experiencing?” (my emphasis) –
I would like to offer the following: please show ME conclusive evidence that e.g., doubling CO2 increases the average temperature on the earth by 1, 2, 3 or 3+ deg. C.
Certainly increased atmospheric CO2 may increase temperatures. This is a question of extent. Science demands accuracy, not hand-waving. 1st order formulae, backed up with real data, would be quite helpful (in convincing laymen, not to mention skeptical scientists). Has the IPCC (or anyone) done this?
If you know of a scientific report which “proves” the hypothesis that increased atmospheric CO2* is actually driving climate, please show it to me.
*independent of the correlation between mankind’s burning of fossil fuels and the CO2 levels measured (and independent of the mechanisms in the planet for absorbing and releasing CO2, namely from plants, soils, oceanic absorption/outgassing as f(T), volcanic sill release, … — all of which are still rather poorly understood!)
March 6th, 2011 | 5:00 pm
Jeffrey,
I’ll post at the end here because I’m finding it difficult to keep track of all the tos and fros. This is also the fourth time I’ve tried to post a comment. I keep running foul of small screens. :-(
1) I’ll take the survey question on the chin. I was on the road and working from memory. (Not as good as I thought it was it seems. :-)
2) Your statement was “Man-made global warming has been predicted for a century,” which I responded to directly regarding simple yes-or-no predictions. The other half of that was a link to skepticalscience, which deals with simulations by GCMs. The two are not connected because the GCMs have never predicted global warming for a century; they have HINDCAST global warming for a century. (This is a fairly trivial exercise if you have enough free parameters.) The temperature graphs in Figure 1 of the skepticalscience page (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm) are all of this nature and stop short of the last 10 years. The last 12 years have shown no increase in temperature and the real test would be if the models had predicted this.
3) From your comments, Jeffrey, it seems that you are accepting that the evidence for man-made global warming is that the models (GCMs) can’t explain the warming of the last half century without resorting to man-made CO2. GCMs hindcasting are not evidence, period. If you want to use the “can’t explain the warming” argument you must show that ANY POSSIBLE cause can not explain it, no matter how outrageous. This is always going to be a weak position.
So I put forward my explanation as the AMO and PDO ocean currents. The correlation can be seen at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/amopdo-temperature-variation-one-graph-says-it-all/ and has an R^2 of 0.85. Why is this credible? Because the ocean contains far more heat than the atmosphere and can heat it or cool it depending on whether cold water is being brought to the surface or not. Now you need to disprove this Jeffrey or the man-made global warming theory fails.
I have others waiting as well should you be able to disprove this one. :-)
4) Where did the CO2 come from? Since man only adds less than 3% of the total CO2 that goes into the atmosphere, it’s a good question. The current theory is that, because we are still warming up after the Dalton and Maunder minima, the CO2 is coming from the oceans, which (again) contain far more than the atmosphere. This is in line with the evidence of ice cores that show that CO2 lags temperature by about 800-1000 years, and we are about that far from the medieval warm period.
I think I’ve put answers to all your questions.
March 6th, 2011 | 10:19 pm
2) Figure 2 from skepticalscience extends the predictions in time, and in fact into the future. Yes, El Ninos, La Ninas, uncertainties about clouds, and the sun make it difficult to predict. Haven’t the models correctly predicted increased temperatures, especially in the arctic? Your claim that the temperature hasn’t increased in 12 years is clever, but false. Please tell me you are not using 1998 as your starting point. The truth is that the Earth continues to warm. Figure 20 on the WUWT site, that you are using to argue for natural warming, clearly shows current warming.
3) Your argument that the ocean currents are warming the Earth is interesting. Did you notice the correlation was between US surface temperature and the PDO/AMO? The US is about 2% of the Earth’s surface. In your link, Anthony Watts even noted the faulty statistics in the paper. The conclusion is that there is a correlation between El Nino/La Nina and the US mean surface temperature. Since the oceans are giving up their heat to the atmosphere, we should easily be able to measure ocean cooling. Do you have that data handy? (Actually the heat content of the oceans is increasing. We need to explain where that heat is coming from).
Note too, that I have admitted your null hypothesis argument has swayed me. So now we have to work together to make sure we understand the natural forces that are causing warming. The null hypothesis doesn’t lie. We need to explain the natural cause of global warming.
4) Since the oceans are giving up their CO2 it should be easy to measure the lower levels of CO2 in the oceans. Do you have those data handy? (This is a trick question. Of course, the ocean CO2 levels are increasing, too. So where are the oceans getting their CO2?)
This is actually fun. We need to construct the theory of natural global warming so we can test it. It sounds as if we’re saying the sun has heated the oceans in centuries past and the oceans are now redistributing that heat. Atmospheric CO2 is a symptom not a cause. We’ll propose that the CO2 is coming from the Earth as it warms (the actual data on ocean CO2 won’t allow us to claim it comes from the ocean, sorry. There are isotope data that shows the CO2 comes from fossil fuels but we can ignore that for now). The ocean levels (therefore volume) have increased due to thermal expansion. We need to see if the amount of thermal expansion is consistent with the amount of heat the oceans are releasing into the atmosphere. We need to also see if the amount of energy radiating from the Earth has changed during the last half century of so. For our theory to be sound that answer should be no I would think.
The heat has been sequestered in the ocean deeps, there is no reason to think the re-radiation from Earth has changed (that’s only for those silly AGWers). Do you know if the temperature in the stratosphere has been constant over this time?
Huub Bakker Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
@Jeffery,
2) Figure 2 of the SkepticalScience uses Hansen’s data which is out of step with the other temperature series. Here’s a link that shows the ensemble with 2005 much lower than in Hansen’s graph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
So his prediction was already out in 2005 and, as you can see, the temp is flat from that point on. I exclude 1998 of course although I’m tempted to include it when I include the 2010 El Nino as well (http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/).
My statement stands, the models have not successfully predicted temperatures over the last 12 years.
3) The US has the highest quality surface station set and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are ocean currents on both borders of the US. Not such a bad comparison after all. The global temperatures aren’t that much different so the correlation is still going to be reasonably close.
You’ll have to show me that the ocean temperatures are or are not going up or down. Remember you have to disprove this theory. Arm waving isn’t good enough. Remember too that Kevin Trenberth called the LACK of warming in the oceans a “traversty”.
Not disproved.
4) Again, where is your data that the CO2 in the oceans is increasing? At what depth? Sorry Jeffrey but I’m allowed to arm wave, I don’t have to prove anything. You have to disprove what I say. :-)
Jeffery Reply:
March 7th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
@Huub Bakker, Hubb :-), I’m on your side, Huub. We agree that the null hypothesis is stronger than the force. :-)
Huub, you have proposed that the 20th-21st century warming of Earth is due to the ocean currents. Sounds like a hypothesis to me. I am just trying to help you, Hubb. :-)
It’s just that Huub all the physical evidence is contrary to our hypothesis. :-)
The sun, Huub, is not on our side. And we can’t explain, Huub, why the stratosphere is cooling (although those odious warmers can). :-) We also have a problem explaining the heat content of the oceans, Huub. It’s increasing. The problem with those warmists is that all the evidence is theirs. It’s almost as if, Huub, there’s a new null hypothesis in town! :-)
Ho: The current global warming event, Hubb, is mostly because of man-made greenhouse gases.
All it takes to disprove the null is one piece of credible evidence. :-)
Where is the smoking gun that disproves this hypothesis? :-)
Huub Bakker Reply:
March 10th, 2011 at 12:28 am
@Jeffery, You don’t seem to get it no matter how many times I say. You have to disprove my hypothesis or the man-made global warming theory dies. No arm waving, no “the sun is not on our side”. You need clear evidence, backed up references that my theory is false. You haven’t even begun to do that. And please don’t pretend we’re working on this hypothesis together; I set it up, you need to knock it down.
Oh, and by the way, your figure 2 may predict into the future but there is no empirical data to compare it to after 2005 (apparently). It is disingenuous of you to say otherwise.
March 9th, 2011 | 8:07 am
Hello Jeffery et al,
It became rather quiet of late. Jeffery, I responded to your two questions, any feedback?
1. IPCC was clearly founded to {demonstrate that COs was the “culprit”}, i.e., the creators already had it figured out!
2. Warming from 80s-90s: just because we DON’T model the existing background mechanisms all that well DOESN’T prove that our conjecture on CO2 increases [driving climate] is accurate!
Since Huub is apparently offline, I will offer my own thoughts (once again, returning to the article from Mr. Smith, our fearless and intrepid moderator):
In view of recent “about-faces”, “flip-flops”, etc. from the purveyors of AGW (e.g., wrt “milder winters”, the onus is on them to gain credibility (not vice-versa).
So back to the null hypothesis: you’ve got it backwards (as Huub has tried to point out on several occasions) — namely, the proposition that anthropogenic GHGs were (and are) driving climate can be accepted as true iff the other {non-anthropogenic} drivers can be ruled out. The onus is on you to demonstrate why recent warming is NOT due to natural factors, not on Huub & co. to demonstrate how or why your hypothesis is invalid! (This doesn’t seem that difficult of a concept).
My point stands: the “science basis” (i.e., direct numerical correlation between +CO2 and +T) is subject to a great deal of assumption and conjecture (esp. the feedback forcings, both in value and in sign!). It can’t be proven (or disproven) based on “scientific tests” (apparently). All that exists is a collection of Climate Models [each one of which ascribes an equivalent and fairly arbitrary "solar forcing" to GHG as a f(concentration in the atmosphere) and the historical record].
So we’ve all got to wait to see what the future holds (esp. over the coming 2-3 y. This is only because the AGW crowd has staked its reputation on those models). Our laboratory is Mother Earth. This is frankly independent of whether legislators & administrators in the W. World enact Cap & Trade / CO2 tax or not. ‘Cause the atmospheric CO2 level is going upwards. Likely we’ll see plenty of fanfare when the “threshold” of 400 ppm is reached in a few years.
If the “curve” of T vs. time through 2015 actually returns to the slope from the 80s/90s, you might have something. If it flattens out for a longer period (or even continues its recent decline), maybe some of those “deniers” and “heretics” suggesting “natural causes” [for recent warming] weren’t all that far off the mark. Would you agree?
And while we’re at it, it would be tremendous if scientists could agree on what constitutes “average global temperature” (like a Dow Jones Industrial Average, DAX, FTSE, SMI, etc.)? Maybe we could agree on that one.
P.S. I find it abhorrent that the current article on GHG in Wikipedia refers to carbon dioxide as a “pollutant”; could there be a political angle here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Back to you!
Kurt in Switzerland
March 11th, 2011 | 8:47 am
@Graham,
“You see this piece of crap posted in every filthy denierblog”
Dear eco-nazi Graham – your comment echoes something my parents once heard about us “filthy jews”, so I just wonder when are you going to get around to sending us “filthy deniers” to death camps like James Hansen et. al. called for a few years ago?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact