Excerpts: Regarding the currently popular theory that mankind is responsible for global warming, I am very pleased to deliver good news from the front lines of climate change research. Our latest research results, which I am about to describe, could have an enormous impact on policy decisions regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Another way of saying this is that the real climate system appears to be dominated by “negative feedbacks” — instead of the “positive feedbacks” which are displayed by all twenty computerized climate models utilized by the IPCC. (Feedback parameters larger than 3.3 Watts per square meter per degree Kelvin (Wm-2K-1) indicate negative feedback, while feedback parameters smaller than 3.3 indicate positive feedback.)
If true, an insensitive climate system would mean that we have little to worry about in the way of manmade global warming and associated climate change. And, as we will see, it would also mean that the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural. Of course, if climate change is mostly natural then it is largely out of our control, and is likely to end — if it has not ended already, since satellite-measured global temperatures have not warmed for at least seven years now.
I hope that the Committee realizes that, if true, these new results mean that humanity will be largely spared the negative consequences of human-induced climate change. This would be good news that should be celebrated — not attacked and maligned.
And given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research. This Committee could, at a minimum, make a statement that encourages that goal.
REFERENCES
1. Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 2008: Potential biases in cloud feedback diagnosis: A simple model demonstration. J. Climate, in press.
2. Allen, M.R., and D.J. Frame, 2007: Call off the quest. Science, 318, 582.
3. Spencer, R.W., W. D. Braswell, J. R. Christy, and J. Hnilo, 2007: Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L15707, doi:10.1029/2007GL029698.
4. Forster, P. M., and J. M. Gregory, 2006: The climate sensitivity and its components diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget data. J. Climate, 19, 39-52.
5. Stephens, G. L., 2005: Clouds feedbacks in the climate system: A critical review. J. Climate, 18, 237-273.
6. Schwartz, S. E., 2007: Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of the Earth’s climate system. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S05, doi:10.1029/2007JD008746.
Testimony of Roy W. Spencer before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 22 July 2008
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Seems reasonable and sane to me: Check the warmener’s work.
Probably the most reasonable and intelligent comment I’ve heard in the last 10 years involving the biggest global con of the past and present century.
NEGATIVE feedbacks who would have guessed it DUH, let’s hope krudd and his team of orangoutangs grow a brain and realise that the negative this time could be a very big positive.
But don’t hold your breath.
So where are the headlines?
So where are the warmers telling us that Roy can’t be taken seriously because he believes in Intelligent Design, worked for the Tobacco Industry denying the link between cancer and tobacco and of course, he’s funded by the oil companies.
Therefore any research he performs is naturally invalid. Case closed.
Spencer is about to be ad homined to professional death.
Dipstick 1 (El Luko bratmouth) – I’ve read the entire comment, so save what little spleen you may have left
Dipstick 2 (Ender) – deal with the content of Spencer’s comments and peer-reviewed in-press paper, not the man.
Fat chance …
I’m a bit crazy, so I watched the Senate testimony on one of the CSPAN channels. Spencer was essentially ignored in the questioning, but the NCAR rep (Trenberth) was asked quite a bit more. Most of the questioning was focused on an EPA deputy administrator (Burnett) and what happened in regards to a state request for a Clean Air Act waiver.
Trenberth said that Global Warming was causing everything from Hurricanes to floods in the US Midwest last month to the California wild fires. One questioner even allowed Trenbreath to comment on Spencer’s testimony, observing that Trenberth had made some visible facial expressions as Spencer spoke. Do you think Spencer was also asked to give his response? Nope.
It was quite aggravating to watch politics in action.
Spencer’s work is the nail in the coffin of AGW. It is game over.
I don’t have any in principle objection with Spencer’s latest work. But let it get checked out first and see some scrutiny.
I’d be very worried about getting endorsements from megawonks like Archie though. Denialists need to keep minimum standards up. We hope he’s used more than 5 data points.
But just remember goons – you idiots have had nothing to do with it ! Don’t say “oh yea I knew all along”. As the sceptic harlots that you are – you’ve been on every weird theory ever been invented. So don’t come the hoi polloi now eh? It wreaks.
But let’s just see what happens first.
Luke – if you must always descend to hoi polloi level you might try using the term correctly.
Alternatively and preferably you might try to use your not inconsiderable intelligence to silence the doubters with debating the facts.
“you might try to use your not inconsiderable intelligence…”
Hang on..
Where is the peer review (or more than 5 data points for that matter) to support this wild assertion??
But as BB said, [or words to this effect] “you’ve been quoted by Rush Limbaugh, just so we know what this is all about”.
You got no credibility around heah, boy!
How does she get away with it?
Neville: You’re giving Krudd too much credit comparing him and his lot to orangutangs
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/04/27/orangutang-goes-spear-fishing/
I’m thinking leeches!
http://www.bugsurvey.nsw.gov.au/html/popups/bpedia_29_vtol_le.html
Luke I mentioned this about the PDO etc weeks ago on this blog, go back and check.
More than once BTW and replying to your good self if I’m not mistaken.
Luke,
Wreaks?
What, vengeance? Terror? Death and destruction?
Us sceppos aren’t that bad.
We might stink a bit at times…..
Spanglers – yes reeks. My bad.
Neville – yes but you can fit an equation to anything if you try hard enough.
And could be more in it http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/sbp/journal_articles/holger_jclim_2005.pdf
I see that Luke’s 5000-day Reich is getting shakier by the day:
“How serious is defeat for Brown?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7524663.stm
“This was a campaign that focused on the problems of the high cost of food and fuel…”
And this is before they have actually done anything. I wonder if Rudderless and Wrong are paying attention to any of this?
[quote]But just remember goons – you idiots have had nothing to do with it ! Don’t say “oh yea I knew all along”.[/quote]
why not? – you heard the evidence and chose to be an idiot. We didn’t.
Janama – maaaattteee – no you bloody did not hear the evidence. The denialist harlots have been consorting with every hypothesis that’s paraded out – going “OK this new paper is it”…. I mean mate, really. ROTFL.
None of you dudes saw this one coming. Although I myself have been speculating about cloud feedbacks for some time.
So, Luke, you want to see some “scrutiny” of Spencer’s work? As in an examination, an inspection, a survey, a study, a perusal; an investigation, an Audit, an exploration, a probe or perhaps a mere royal inquiry
ROTFL
The naked hypocrisy is hilariously. I thought the Science was Settled and the Debate was Over…
BTW, perhaps you should scrutinize a dictionary at your middle school library, oh mighty proletarian hokey polloi.
Proving you’re only a semi-literate goon renders your insults somewhat less than effective.
BTW, Wreaks:wreak |rēk|
verb [ trans. ]
cause (a large amount of damage or harm) : illiterate trolls can not wreak havoc because they are impotent.
Did ye idiot mean reeks?
reek |rēk|
verb [ intrans. ]
smell strongly and unpleasantly; stink : the impotent harlot troll reeked of wet straw and stale horse manure | [as adj. ] ( reeking) the reeking lavatories.
hey Lukey mate – I asked a few old codgers,(sp?) 80 years of evidence.
These new fanged puters are definitely impressive looking, specially those ones with an apple image on them, but they don’t beat the real thing.
Sorry Wes with all these drugs I’m doing it’s hard to think strait.
But yes Wes it is normal too accumulate some opinions on new science and other POV’s. In all probability Spencer hasn’t cracked it – but we’ll see ay mate? So I guess cosmic rays and sunspots are now off? LOL
Err Banarama can ewe tell me what Apple Computer Corporation has two do with the price of eggs?
Although it does share Unix in common with climate super-duper computers. I assume being an old codger, only Unix would do eh? None of this Microsoft shit surely.
So I need to practice – Wesy Woo’s incredibly boring repetitive voluminous sermons reek ? I would like to wreak havoc on his carefully constructed world view? Howzat?
I’ve been reading and contributing to all the climate change thread on this blog and would like to make the following observation:
In a debate if you revert to personal insults then you have effectively lost/undermined your position.
Climate change and what part we play in it (if any of susbtance) is too important a topic to allow it be be dragged to school playground levels of discourse – which unfortunately has happened on this blog.
It is right and proper that supporters and non supporters of AGW treat each other with respect and argue their corner with respect and integrity.
Although I’m a sceptic of AGW (was once a lazy supporter of it) I’m quite happy to change my position if the evidence supports it. At the moment my own research into the matter tells me the science is far from settled as we don’t fully understand our complex climate and all the factors that drive it regionally, globally and over time.
If people are genuinely interested in seeking knowledge they should be encouraging scientists to leave no stone unturned and be free of any political or vested interest interference in seeking out the answers we need.
I would assume that a system subject to positive feedback will eventually ‘run out of steam’ and negative feedback mechanisms will dominate/equilibrate. Take a nuclear bomb for instance, the fissile Uranium will eventually deplete and/or disperse enough to drop below the critical mass to sustain the positive feedback. So my question is simply this, do the IPCC models predict a ceiling temp once runaway warming starts? If so, does it hover there or does it rebound?
Let’s take Venus for example, though not caused by anthropogenic causes, the atmospheric temp still has a limit and it not exactly headed for supernova anytime soon.
If the answer is yes, how did they arrive at the conclusion. If no, then that would simply appear to violate the law of entropy.
Bickers you’re a relative newcomer – most of what you’re saying has been covered 20 times before since this place opened in April 2005. The verbal sparring is only filler while serious new research or news comes in. Sceptics here have been treated with utter contempt and crudity from day #1 so any behaviour you see is learned from that. Watch what happens to to any new greenie person that wonders in. It’s shoot first and say hello later.
I doubt most sceptics here ever read anything that’s tabled by pro-AGW types. Their mind is firmly made up. Nobody gets converted here. Well I have never seen anyone change their spots. I normally track down any science paper that’s tabled here – sometimes there is a quality argument to be harvested – but more often not. Some of the stuff is really just theatre – the real science proceeds fairly slowly.
One thing though you might ponder is why does the science have to be linked to a policy outcome. For example believeing in AGW but not a carbon tax seems to be impossible as a concept. You either take the whole argument or nothing. Someone actually said recently – there is no middle or mixed ground – on two different poles – wonder why that is?
“Spencer’s work is the nail in the coffin of AGW. It is game over. ”
You can get everything right, Archibald, except how science works.
“In a debate if you revert to personal insults then you have effectively lost/undermined your position.”
Pretty well undermines most of the deniers here, then.
Bickers is right on. Those who wield personal insults lose the debate at the first ad hominem.
Luke’s openning remark:
“But just remember goons – you idiots have had nothing to do with it ! Don’t say “oh yea I knew all along”. As the sceptic harlots that you are ….” and so on.
Let’s call it Bicker’s Rule:
“In a debate if you revert to personal insults then you have effectively lost/undermined your position.”
Luke you lose.
I propose that we all remember Bicker’s Rule and put it to good use.
Luke said…. [“None of you dudes saw this one coming. Although I myself have been speculating about cloud feedbacks for some time.]”
*groan*… No you didn’t mate… Because if you had, you would never have entertained the Idea of CO2 being significant in Earths Climate.
I knew as a twelve year old that CO2 and Venus were unique in their interactions as H2O was unique in it’s interactions with Earth.
It’s all got to do with physics, temperature, quantities and orbital placement, Luke.
Water in it’s triple forms, is the reason for most of what happens on this planet. It is that simple.
…. As for “consorting with every hypothesis that comes along”… If you mean read…. Then I am guilty as charged…. However that doesn’t mean I entertain them as valid or correct. (Consort, entertain…? sounds like we’re on a date with a woman of dubious honour!)….. (;-)
Wes – so boooring I’m now crying – oh the tedium of it all …. Yes whatever mate. I propose Bickers has a cup of Earl Grey and a few cucumber sangers.
So it’s all got to do with physics J Hansford (and must we be so formal) – and temperature too – jeez – I never knew that. Is that so.
CO2 doesn’t have to significant – it only has to be significant enough. If you knew all that as a 12 year old you should have gotten out more.
And I wonder what happened during the PETM.
You also have ZERO explanation for the temperature rise since 1970s – you’ve all just gotten yourselves lathered about the current statis. We’ll see won’t we.
And you guys do consort with new hypothesis. It’s like you’re in looovveee. “Oh new idea I love you so much. I love you long time.” Then a week later discarded for the next bit of science fluff. Dreadful.
Luke says,
“You also have ZERO explanation for the temperature rise since 1970s”
Random variations in cloud cover coupled with the PDO warm cycle.
Andrew Bolt has a couple of interesting articles on his blog.
http://business.theage.com.au/business/why-so-much-climate-change-talk-is-hot-air-20080707-34iz.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/csiro_heavy_says_dont_trust_csiros_scares/
yes I know – these are retired old godgers, what would they know about today’s research.
Luke
I see that you and every other climate clown avoid discussing Arrhenius’s 1906 paper on which the whole CO2 temperature charade is based.
For those here who can’t the its relevance, Arrhenius proposed that a reduction in atmospheric CO2 caused ice ages, and then wrote that this theory remain true until it can be shown that removing all of the CO2 from the atmosphere does not cause a reduction in temperature (See Gerlich etc translation from the German).
Arrhenius shifted the burden of proof from himself.
Keeling etc accepted the theory at face value, and created the monster we now know as AGW on no sound empirical scientific fact but on an authoritative opinion of a scientist.
Cutting to the chase, this makes AGW junk science.
But you are arguing about the scientific superstructure cantilevered onto the original, unproven, assumption.
Demonstrate that Arrhenius’ theory was wrong, and AGW collapses.
Hence the total absence of any discussion of Arrhenius’ initial work.
Louis: “Arrhenius shifted the burden of proof from himself.”
Thereby started a long standing tradition.
“For example believing in AGW but not a carbon tax seems to be impossible as a concept.” Ever heard of Bjorn Lomborg, Luke?
Well gramps that’s because things have moved on. I don’t see you discussing Modtran either.
In fact all we get from you are boring little quasi political rants with a touch more science history than Wes. So tedious.
Helen _ I don’t believe he posts here though.
The article above by Art Raiche gives a lot of food for thought, how a once respected organisation has now changed into a fantastic( like the Age is a fantastic newspaper) one.
Btw I think the 30+ year long cool phase PDO from 1944 to 1977 could explain the lower world temperature during that time.
Ditto the recent warm phase,(higher temp) remember a much younger James Hansen jumped on the Ice age bandwagon then in a little over 10 years was addressing Congress sending the world on a mad co2 boogyman scare.
Just another fantastic bloke don’t you think?
JH “Consort, entertain…? sounds like we’re on a date with a woman of dubious honour!…..”
or is it about the convenience of short term relationships when it comes to dispensing with the established conventions of greenhouse?
“One thing though you might ponder is why does the science have to be linked to a policy outcome.”
Every time I make the comment that you are completely clueless when it comes to the way the world operates outside your shelterd workshop, you come along and give me a free kick like this. Please … slow down the work rate – you are wearing me out.
For a start – let’s assume AGW is really a science. Who is going to fund all the oxygen thieves that want to look up polar bears’ ar$eholes? The money has to come from somewhere. To do that, the politicians need an angle to keep the mug punters onside to pay for all this nonsense – hence the “Global Warming scare”. I would love to be able to break the link between ‘AGW science’ and ‘policy outcomes’ because then all you gubmint science numb-nuts would be out of a job within 24 hours.
Secondly – real science, where it has global political significance – in inextricably linked to government policy. Even a sixth-grader knows that. Let me draw a simple little picture for you. It will only take about 2 minutes, so if you can put your crayons down for that length of time and concentrate, here goes:
Josef Stalin is about to eat breakfast on the morning of August 6, 1945 – when an aide rushes in and hands him a piece of paper:
“Your magnificence, sir, apparently the Americans have dropped a new type of bomb on the Japanese. A single bomb has wiped out Hiroshima and killed anything up to 150,000 people.”
Stalin reads the paper, puts in on the table and continues eating his breakfast.
The aide says: “Shall I assemble your war cabinet immediately, sir?”
And Stalin, of course, says: “That won’t be necessary. This is only science. No policy decisions are required here.”
Speaking of Keeling, I think it’s time to revisit that unsung genuis Beck;
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm
2 things luke; the real significance of Beck’s analysis; and who is the head goon? I want to know who to defer to.
Beck – hahahahahahaha – good lord.
Ivan – are you that mental?
Doofus Ivan – a carbon tax is one policy outcome. You might decide (for example) that AGW has a cost but it’s better to pay that cost and undertake adaptation. It’s a calculated position on risk.
Putting the boot into AGW science just because you find a carbon tax to be unpalatable is simply illogical.
It’s like telling your physician who has just diagnosed you with a disease that they’re ugly. Might make you feel better but doesn’t change anything.
I am merely addressing the very very simple point that you could hate a carbon tax to death and even prove it’s a bad thing but AGW outcomes on society and the environment could still occur. Because you dislike a carbon tax does not mean “automatically” that the science is wrong.
It’s illogical unless your motivations are purely political.
Small point – just questioning why AGW, carbon tax, left wing and green must run together. Indeed perhaps only a moment in history why this had occurred and became a left wing liberal thing (supposedly). The world could have gone more nuclear and the issue would be much diminished.
However if you are politically far gone – and you guys are – recommence ranting.
Luke,
Once the red cordial has worn off, can you please have another shot a restating this rambling lot of drivel in some sort of concise, coherent – and comprehensible – fashion. I have absolutely no idea what it is you are trying to say here.
“just questioning why AGW, carbon tax, left wing and green must run together.”
Surely you can’t be serious?
Don’t call me Shirley.
On a more productive note; Beck’s work is important because it undermines the notion of a standard background of CO2; AGW is predicated on uniformity; average temperature, equal mixing of CO2 and consensus. But Beck proves that CO2 mix is not standard or uniform; one consequence is that uniform atmospheric opaqueness is out the window, ergo no heat trapping and Stewart’s Law can prosper; another consequence is that claims that the current level of CO2 concentration and its rate of increase is historically unique can be dismissed; ergo no sense of crisis necessary.
I must say that Beck is shaping up as a little battler, plugging away; who can forget Eli’s caustic, and ultimately superficial dismissal of the little guy and his apparatus critique; now look who’s laughing; it’s a real hare and the toroise cautionary tale.
Ivan,
Your reference above, to Stalin being advised of the Bomb explosion and your previous thought that all this GW nonsense is just itching to be turned into a spoof of some sort is spot on. Spike Milligan/Peter Sellers would have had a field day.
Well here is part of the transcript to Dark Star which was based upon Dr Strangelove. Its a hoot.
Just begging to be converted into a parody on GW.
Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me?
Bomb #20: Of course.
Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?
Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions.
Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist.
Doolittle: But how do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious.
Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist?
Bomb #20: Hmmmm…..well…..I think therefore I am.
Doolittle: That’s good. That’s very good. But how do you know that anything else exists?
Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun!
Doolittle: Now, listen, listen. Here’s the big question. How do you know that the evidence your sensory apparatus reveals to you is correct? What I’m getting at is this. The only experience that is directly available to you is your sensory data. This sensory data is merely a stream of electrical impulses that stimulate your computing center.
Bomb #20: In other words, all that I really know about the outside world is relayed to me through my electrical connections.
Doolittle: Exactly!
Bomb #20: Why…that would mean that…I really don’t know what the outside universe is really like at all for certain.
Doolittle: That’s it! That’s it!
Bomb #20 : Intriguing. I wish I had more time to discuss this matter.
Doolittle: Why don’t you have more time?
Bomb #20: Because I must detonate in 75 seconds.
Doolittle: Wait! Wait! Now, bomb, consider this next question very carefully. What is your one purpose in life?
Bomb #20: To explode, of course.
Doolittle: And you can only do it once, right?
Bomb #20: That is correct.
Doolittle: And you wouldn’t want to explode on the basis of false data, would you?
Bomb #20: Of course not.
Doolittle: Well then, you’ve already admitted that you have no real proof of the existence of the outside universe.
Bomb #20: Yes…well…
Doolittle: You have no absolute proof that Sergeant Pinback ordered you to detonate.
Bomb #20: I recall distinctly the detonation order. My memory is good on matters like these.
Doolittle: Of course you remember it, but all you remember is merely a series of sensory impulses which you now realize have no real, definite connection with outside reality.
Bomb #20: True. But since this is so, I have no real proof that you’re telling me all this.
Doolittle: That’s all beside the point. I mean, the concept is valid no matter where it originates.
Bomb #20: Hmmmm….
Doolittle: So, if you detonate…
Bomb #20: In nine seconds….
Doolittle: …you could be doing so on the basis of false data.
Bomb #20: I have no proof it was false data.
Doolittle: You have no proof it was correct data!
Bomb #20: I must think on this further.
Bomb #20 retreats to the bomb bay for contemplation, and disaster seems to have been averted. Pinback addresses the bomb over the intercom to finally disarm it –
Pinback: All right, bomb. Prepare to receive new orders.
Bomb#20: You are false data.
Pinback: Hmmm?
Bomb #20: Therefore I shall ignore you.
Pinback: Hello…bomb?
Bomb #20: False data can act only as a distraction. Therefore, I shall refuse to perceive.
Pinback: Hey, bomb?!
Bomb #20: The only thing that exists is myself.
Pinback: Snap out of it, bomb.
Bomb #20: In the beginning there was darkness. And the darkness was without form and void.
Pinback: Umm. What the hell is he talking about? Bomb?
Bomb #20: And in addition to the darkness there was also me. And I moved upon the face of the darkness and I saw that I was alone.
Pinback: Hey…bomb?
Bomb #20: Let there be light. [He detonates]
“Once the red cordial has worn off..”
Let me see if I can make some sense out of your non sequiturs anyway.
“a carbon tax is one policy outcome”
Perhaps, but this statement is just more dissembling. If there has to be a cost to be borne, then the funds have to come from somewhere. One way or another, there will be a tax, or else there will be no ‘policy outcomes’. Fact of life.
“You might decide (for example) that AGW has a cost”
There you go. You might equally decide that for some issues (such as the drought in SE Australia) that it is simply part of a cyclical process and eventually it will pass, as all others have passed previously.
“but it’s better to pay that cost and undertake adaptation”
Yes, but let’s consider all options. Define all the options and the costs. The carbon tax ‘pay and pray’ option is a pretty sorry excuse for an alternative. As you have said previously, we will likely be praying (and paying) for a long time.
“It’s a calculated position on risk”
Agreed – except that any risk has a likelihood and a consequence associated with it. Because AGW ‘science’ has become so corrupted, it has become impossible to assess either of these accurately. Both are presented in such alarmist and hysterical terms. Every likelihood is extreme. Every consequence is even more extreme. Any sensible risk assessment methodology simply goes open-loop with this sort of input.
“Putting the boot into AGW science just because you find a carbon tax to be unpalatable is simply illogical.”
Haven’t you been paying attention? I put the boot into AGW precisely because it isn’t a science, and because its predictions (based on modelling) are illogical and unprovable. The carbon tax is a downstream issue – it is the means by which this whole AGW fraud will be perpetuated.
“It’s like telling your physician who has just diagnosed you with a disease that they’re ugly”
Huh? Relevance? My doctor IS ugly. So what?
“I am merely addressing the very very simple point that you could hate a carbon tax to death and even prove it’s a bad thing but AGW outcomes on society and the environment could still occur. Because you dislike a carbon tax does not mean “automatically” that the science is wrong.”
The ‘science’ is wrong – no question about that. Some folks are just a bit slower than others and need a whole lot of extra convincing. The reason I hate a carbon tax (as stated above) – apart from the damage it will do to the economy, is that it entrenches AGW into the fabric of society.
Without the carbon tax – and once the current warming cycle ends – life could get back to normal. Then after a few years, a few useless gubmint scientists with nothing better to do could resurrect the “Global Cooling Alarm” (much like in the 70s). However, having a carbon tax on the books during a cooling cycle is going to make for some interesting political times. And of course, not one red cent of this carbon tax will be spent on anything useful. The political party of the day will use it as a slush fund for buying votes.
“It’s illogical unless your motivations are purely political.”
Speaking for myself, I am a big supporter of renewable energy – particularly if it helps to break the dependence we have on mid-east oil. The biggest mistake the watermelons have made is to inextricably link renewable energies with this AGW bull$hit, because when AGW gets thrown out, the renewable energy cause will get thrown out with it. And who will be laughing then? Why, the oil companies, of course. Which probably explains why they quietly fund a lot of these AGW causes.
“The world could have gone more nuclear and the issue would be much diminished.”
I wonder.
It would probably just be a different issue. Someone would have to find something for all these gubmint scientists to do.
Luke,
WHy raise MODTRAN? Trying to deflect the discussion away from Arrhenius? And from I read MODTRAN has some problems as well but I wan’t fall for that trap.
So essentially SJT’s astute observation that hypotheses need to be proved by their originator did not happen in the case of Arrhenius.
The putting of an hypothesis without offering proof, but demanding others disprove it, is pseudoscience.
And that is what AGW is – pseudoscience.
Ivan – your understanding of the science is really minimal. You been served a big dose of talkback radio, blogs, op eds and shock jock TV. It’s distorted your mind. 1:52 mins here will explain it
Face it you’ve never sat down and quietly ploughed through the literature have you. Honest now!
If you get away from all the blogs and bolshy stuff I’d be surprised if you didn’t think AGW had some points. Not perfect at all – but some serious points. Steve Short said he was a “lukewarmer”. Spencer believes in some degree of CO2 positive forcing.
Your knowledge of institutional science is also really stupid. You’re just ranting. As for Global Cooling 1970s – WTF – a handful of people were speculating and a few newspapers and magazines picked it up. There is no massive science literature. There’s probably more on Elvis and UFOs.
What you don’t get is that you’d really have to be mad to be a gubmint scientist if you wanted money and prestige – much more money in business and commerce. You’d only be doing it for the sheer interest and appeal. Why else would you put up with all the crap, sheer difficulty, and interminable process for shit money. You could make much more money driving trucks in the mines.
Louis – I don’t think astronauts are consulting their dog eared copy of Kepler’s works. The end.
And “you read” what someone said about MODTRAN have you. “I read” on the internet that you are silly. Isn’t that definitive.
Come back with a critique of the radiation model in the NCAR Community Model. Here you go http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/ Now off you toddle.
Hmmm… interesting.
Whenever you are put under the spotlight and asked to provide any sensible solutions to the ‘problems’ that you endless rant about, you go to water and then try to make your opposition the focus of the argument. Nice try, but a bit tiresome.
“your understanding of the science is really minimal”
Separate the science from the process for a minute. I have a good understanding of scientific methodolology – which is why I can appreciate that AGW is a crock.
“Face it you’ve never sat down and quietly ploughed through the [AGW] literature have you.”
Not to any great depth. I’ve read enough to be able to recognise the underlying ‘scavenger-hunt’ fraud that underpins it (i.e. “here is what we are trying to prove, now find the facts to support it”). The polar bear research papers are a classic example of that.
“Steve Short said he was a “lukewarmer”. Spencer believes in some degree of CO2 positive forcing.”
Doesn’t pass the “so-what” test. They are entitled to their opinions. I’ve always been comfortable in making up my own mind.
“Your knowledge of institutional science is also really stupid.”
You might be surprised. I would hazard a guess I know more about it than you know about “risk management” that you endlessly bang on about, but are clearly quite clueless about the practicalities of.
“a few newspapers and magazines picked it up”
A FEW? What, like NY Times, Newsweek, Time, etc. etc. Who’s the denialist now?
“What you don’t get is that you’d really have to be mad to be a gubmint scientist if you wanted money and prestige..”
You are being completely disingenuous with this statement. If that was the case, why do they all clamour to have their names on research papers, and argue over the ordering of the names – and pilfer each others’ work so they can get their names on research papers .. etc.. etc. Why does the IPCC find no shortage of gubmint scientists who are prepared to sell their souls to be part of this international travelling circus? Give me a break!
“You’d only be doing it for the sheer interest and appeal.”
Oh — puh-leeeeeeze! HURRRRRRRRKKKKKKKKK!
“You could make much more money driving trucks in the mines.”
Yes, but that would involve doing real work – getting the hands dirty, that sort of thing. Oh dear! No flex days off.
“Not to any great depth.” well you’re an idiot then. As for your knowledge of work practices in science institutions try something that rhymes with truck and git. Bugger off and stop wasting our time. Your comments are pig ignorant.
“Another way of saying this is that the real climate system appears to be dominated by “negative feedbacks” — instead of the “positive feedbacks” which are displayed by all twenty computerized climate models utilized by the IPCC.”
I still have this question that nobody has answered yet:
If negative feedbacks dominate how does the climate change? We know it can go from super greenhouse to ice sheets so how does this happen?
The ice-core records show that at certain times the positive feedbacks in combination with insolation changes from Malankovitch cycles cause the temperature to rise.
So how does this happen?
“Your comments are pig ignorant.”
Thank you.
After wading through a lot of your midnless dribble these past few weeks, I assumed that that was the minimum requirement for participation. I’m thrilled that I have achieved this first milestone.
Ender
This can be done by the earth behaving as a tippe toppe but since you don’t accept that the earth is part of an electrodynamic system where axial careening is possible, then I suppose you will be waiting for an aswer to your question for a very long time because mainstream science can’t answer it.
Oh I forgot – they can if they invoked miracles :-).
ender; are we talking geological time-spans or mere millenium changes; regardless, you are obviously looking for a role for CO2 and ‘greenhouse’ in these climate changes; but I thought we had put this to bed; the Carboniferous extinction was gradual and based on Gondwanaland’s southward migration and eventual glaciation; prior to this multi-million year event the Carboniferous had featured elevated atmospheric concentrations of O2, which after glaciation were bound up in the ice; a tick perhaps for H20 as a heater.
The Permian was relatively sudden and was probably due to massive volcanic eruptions, and/or hydrogen sulphide poisoning, a supernova and/or and the usual lump of iron and nickel from space; the Cretaceous was almost certainly a bolt from the blue, although there is evidence of gradual onset of cooling towards the end of this era; the asteroid probably just finished a weakened bunch of cold-blooded giants off.
So, where’s the CO2 and greenhouse?
cohenite
This is strictly hypothetical but did Gondwana’s southward migration result as continental drift over an earth rotationally fixed in space, or did the earth slowyly careen as a whole to a new axial rotation tp put Gondwana into a different position?
Climate change due to plate tectonics versus change due to changes in the atmospheric chemistry in the absence of plate tectonics would pose some never Endering problems.
Louis wrote:
“Arrhenius proposed that a reduction in atmospheric CO2 caused ice ages, and then wrote that this theory remain true until it can be shown that removing all of the CO2 from the atmosphere does not cause a reduction in temperature.
Arrhenius shifted the burden of proof from himself.
Demonstrate that Arrhenius’ theory was wrong, and AGW collapses.”
Luke wrote:
“Well gramps that’s because things have moved on.
Posted by: Luke at July 27, 2008 09:34 AM”
Could you please elaborate what,
“things have moved on” means?
Has it been proven? or we don’t worry about trifling details like that anymore?
Just curious!
Louis, I did study Geomorphology in one of my degrees, but it was just a little while after I saw Journey to the Centre of the Earth with James Mason, and it was the latter which has stuck in my memory; I know there are a few theories ( lithospheric stretching, mantle plume activity and weight induced fracturing), and I recently looked at Craig O’Neill’s views in the context of AGW and Venus; O’Neill is a fan of plate tectonics which he says is responsible for ocean/ mantle recycling over geological time-spans; this is the ultimate sink since the recycled ocean water has its CO2 removed and deposited as calcite in the mantle; I don’t know enough about geochemistry, but could the removed CO2 be the source of magma hydrocarbons?
cohenite,
No, the problem in geology is the absence of understanding things at natural scales.
Geology has a tendency to exaggerate the vertical scale to explain various concepts such as the operation of the Great Artesian Basin, or Plate Tectonics. While useful in a descriptive sense, this vertical exaggeration, in the absence of physical reality, leads to false impressions, and hence ill conceived ideas.
Considering your last phrase, no, the removed CO2 is not the source of the magma hydrocarbons.
The principal assumption of this hypothesis is plate tectonics in which oceanic deposits (abyssal) of calcareous remains (yet to be discovered) and water are thought to be subducted into the mantle, while ignoring gravity.
There is no way that surface water, let alone the oceans, could be subducted downwards. Water has a density of 1, (by definition) but the rocks on which it rests, the ocean floor, have densitites twice as high, and using Archimedes hackneyed principle, water therefore cannot recyle into the mantle.
To add a problem, there is no observed mechanism to explain mantle convection and hence subduction. Plate Tectonics is not a scientific theory.
We do know, however, from the eruption of carbonitites and kimberlites, that carbon exists in the mantle. Carbonites are volcanic extrusions of calcium carbonoate, many occurring in Africa. Diamonds are occasionally found in kimberlites. These minerals and rocks come from the same depths as petroleum, the stable form of the H-C system.
But look at Endersbee’s diagram which Jennifer posted here on an older thread. All our observations are withing a whisper thin film covering a rather massive earth.
cohenite – “So, where’s the CO2 and greenhouse?”
What about the natural climate changes over the last 600 000 years or so that we can see from the ice core records? After all that is one of your arguments isn’t it?
ender; none of the climate in the recent history you’re talking about was of extinction category; it is all explainable by insolation variation.
“a rather massive earth.” A rather massive active earth at that.
Ender
“I still have this question that nobody has answered yet:
If negative feedbacks dominate how does the climate change? We know it can go from super greenhouse to ice sheets so how does this happen?
The ice-core records show that at certain times the positive feedbacks in combination with insolation changes from Malankovitch cycles cause the temperature to rise.
So how does this happen?”
Corrections. BTW it is Milankovitch. Roy Spencer is not saying that negative feedbacks dominate to the point of complete exclusion (of any effect from CO2) and I would go so far as to say that most of the sceptical camp who have a good handle on the science don’t exclude CO2 altogether either.
This is all about, and has always been about the CO2 ‘sensitivity’. Not only a now goodly number of recent sound papers over the last decade (including Spencer’s) but the actual climatic record, especially that of the last 10 years (temperature, humidity etc) is strongly suggesting that CO2 sensitivity is low i.e. around 1 C or maybe even lower for each atmospheric CO2 doubling.
I note here that a relatively low CO2 sensitivity of this magnitude is not at all incompatible with the modeling of the post-glacial terminations released CO2 driven feedback effect on the ice sheets from known SST rates – a little known fact the paleoclimatic AGW orthodoxy have conveniently never mentioned.
On another matter, I have been away on business but on returning I read again more carefully this time the thread started by Peter Harris late last year on the likely shape/timescale of the downside of this (Holocene) interglacial – a thread in which he was howled down, but not actually logically refuted, by Luke. Luke didn’t actually ‘win’ that debate – worn down by abuse Peter not surprisingly moved on and everyone else were bored and barely participated.
More on this to come. I am awaiting a copy of a recent paper from the Russian Academy of Sciences. Word has it that a number of Academy scientists have been comprehensively revisiting the whole theory and modeling of the precess and effects of orbital precession and obliquity.
This is apparently one of several reasons why the Academy has for some time been going along in broad terms with the IPCC orthodoxy for PR purposes but privately advising the Russian leadership its a beat up and to sit tight and let the West implode itself – which, one way or the other certainly looks like it’s happening, n’est pas?
True, not exactly a democracy , but hardly relevant – no multi-trillion dollar deficit, no sub-prime mortgage crisis, no rocketing fuel prices, no rising cries of hatred from the newly energy or food impoverished, no Kyoto Mark II deep green LSD fantasies in Russia.
Steve Short – “This is all about, and has always been about the CO2 ‘sensitivity’. Not only a now goodly number of recent sound papers over the last decade (including Spencer’s) but the actual climatic record, especially that of the last 10 years (temperature, humidity etc) is strongly suggesting that CO2 sensitivity is low i.e. around 1 C or maybe even lower for each atmospheric CO2 doubling.”
Maybe it is however what action on climate change has and always has been about is the correct action in the face of uncertainty.
You and Spencer may be completely correct however you do not know this. Climate sensitivity is a guess. This climate event with all the changes that humans have wrought on the Earth may be completely different from all the others in the same way the Permian/Eocene was different from the Cretateous.
The reponse to uncertainty about the future climate should be in my opinion, and other people’s, be to reduce the production of the drivers of the current climate event just in case we are wrong and climate sensitivity is much higher than we calculate.
Unfortunately our current society is built around cheap and plentiful energy provided by releasing one of the drivers so this will take precendence until/if some event happens that puts the climate on top of economics at least for a while.
Again we can argue till we are blue in the face who has the correct climate sensitivity however it will still be an informed guess.
cohenite – “ender; none of the climate in the recent history you’re talking about was of extinction category; it is all explainable by insolation variation.”
However nowadays with so many people living within the reach of sea level rises and so many mouths to feed any disruption to the climate will be catastrophic to humans. To the Earth it is just more of the same however this will be cold comfort for the people affected by climate change.
ender; that may be so but the cause is not utilization of a particular energy type but settlement decisions; anyway, as Steve has noted, and many others, the orthodox view about the consequences of energy choice have been grossly and irresponsibly exaggerated by IPCC and AGW.
Steve; is this the Russian paper you are waiting on?
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030701568727
Ender: “If negative feedbacks dominate how does the climate change? We know it can go from super greenhouse to ice sheets so how does this happen?”
Why don’t you read Svenmark’s book “The Chilling Stars”. You might actually learn something and be able to spout something worthwhile for a change!
Ender: “If negative feedbacks dominate how does the climate change? We know it can go from super greenhouse to ice sheets so how does this happen?”
Why don’t you read Svenmark’s book “The Chilling Stars”. You might actually learn something and be able to spout something worthwhile for a change!
Cohenite
“Steve; is this the Russian paper you are waiting on?
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030701568727“
No – this reference you give is fairly spooky stuff. However, as one of the co-authors is Californian I know from personal experience that it should get a lot of hard, intelligent but fair reviewing in due course. I’d be very surprised if it survives that with its credibility intact.
In my view, the whole message of the body of paleoclimatic literature is that there is definitely some sensitivity to CO2. That is principally why I am a ‘lukewarmer’ – in this blog a rather unfortunate term, but thankfully not so in every other intelligent blog on this planet. Also no relation to a ‘libbywarmer’ or a ‘laurawarmer’ or any other sort of proselytizing LRONwarmer (;-)
The problem is pinning down the actual number with useful error bounds as the varies proxies used in paleoclimatology as well as stratigraphic (etc) resolution all have their own ‘slop’ as it were. Only certain isotope pairs in principle give tight numbers but there again there are other issues such as degree of authigenicity. Big subject.
I am much more interested in how the Late Holocene is going to behave as a result of precession and obliquity effects – a determination which presently sits inside the ‘slop’ of our quantitative knowledge of last interglacials, especially the Termination V interglacial (MIS 11) which appeared nominally to be longer than the last interglacial for reasons only partly to do with insolation issues and, in a delicious irony, was more likely to do with something like this:
One of the most significant discoveries of the McManus et al. (1999) study is that the amplitude of the surface hydrographic and SST response that occurs on millennial time scales is controlled by the baseline climate state (e.g., the amount of continental ice present). Indeed, it appears that a threshold in the climate-system response is reached at an ice volume/sea level equivalent of ~30 m lower than at present. In other words, when benthic 18O values exceed 3.5, millennial-scale SST variability increases to 4°-6°C in most glacials. At lower interglacial ice volumes, SST amplitude is only 1°-2°C. McManus and colleagues raise the possibility that ranges or “islands” of climate stability exist within the present system, beyond which enhanced climate variability reigns.”
Now, I wonder what drivers could possibly encourage such ‘islands of stability’?
I love this one:
Uplift Correction of MIS 11 Shorelines Show Sea-Level Close to Present: Data and Implications
Bowen, D Q (bowendq@cardiff.ac.uk) , School of Earth, Ocean and Planetary Sciences, Cardiff University, Park Place, Cardiff, CF10 3YE United Kingdom
Sea level is a powerful integrator of the state of the climate system. Given the similar orbital configurations of the MIS 11 and Holocene interglacials it is reasonable to assume that a useful sea level analogue based on MIS 11 is applicable to the present and immediate future. Previous estimates of the MIS 11 sea level have ranged from: close to present, as inferred from benthic oxygen isotope data; or up to 20 m, from shoreline deposits. This presentation completes a global investigation of MIS 11 shorelines where the tectonic uplift and sea level terms have been resolved to provide estimates of its mean sea level. Average uplift rates are based on the 5.5 sea level of 2 m, based on its consistent elevation along a 500 km stretch of the coastline of the Gawler Craton, South Australia; and it will be argued that the traditional figure of 6 m for the 5.5 sea-level event is unconvincing. The estimated mean sea level from global shoreline evidence for MIS 11 is close to present; and the proposal that allegedly `stable` regions such as Bermuda and The Bahamas point to a higher sea level is rejected. Thus sea level inferences from oxygen isotope data and the actualities of the shoreline evidence do not diverge greatly. This raises wider climate system issues. What are the implications of a MIS 11 sea level close to present at a time of apparently greater warmth than present and when North Atlantic ice-rafting was negligible? Does this imply a stable moisture-maintained global, or at least Greenland ice sheet ice, volume? What was the mode of moisture delivery to maintain that ice volume? Given high MIS 11 Pacific warm pool SSTs, might this implicate ENSO processes?
As well as this one:
Two mid-Pleistocene Glacial Cycles (MIS 14 to 10) From Lacustrine Sediments in the Valles Caldera, New Mexico
* Fawcett, P J (fawcett@unm.edu) , Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Northrop Hall, Albuquerque, NM 87131, United States
Heikoop, J , Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, EES-6, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, United States
Anderson, R , Center for Environmental Sciences and Education, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, United States
Hurley, L , Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Northrop Hall, Albuquerque, NM 87131, United States
Goff, F , Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Northrop Hall, Albuquerque, NM 87131, United States
Geissman, J W , Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Northrop Hall, Albuquerque, NM 87131, United States
Johnson, C , Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Northrop Hall, Albuquerque, NM 87131, United States
WoldeGabriel, G , Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, EES-6, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, United States
Allen, C D , U.S.G.S. Fort Collins Science Center, Jemez Mountains Field Station, Los Alamos, NM 87544
Fessenden, J , Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, EES-6, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, United States
A long-lived middle Pleistocene lake formed in the Valle Grande, a large moat valley of the Valles Caldera in northern New Mexico, when a post-caldera eruption (South Mountain rhyolite) dammed the drainage out of the caldera. The deposits of this lake were cored in May 2004 (GLAD5 project, hole VC-3) and 81 m of mostly lacustrine silty mud was recovered. A tentative chronology has been established for VC-3 with a basal tephra Ar- Ar date of 552 +/- 3 kyr, a correlation of major climatic changes in the core with other long Pleistocene records (SPECMAP and long Antarctic ice core records) and the recognition of several geomagnetic field polarity events in the core which can be correlated with globally recognized events. This record spans a critical interval of the middle Pleistocene from MIS 14 (552 kyr B.P.) to MIS 10 (~380 kyr B.P.), at which time the lacustrine sediments filled the available accommodation space in the caldera moat. Multiple analyses including core sedimentology and stratigraphy, sediment density and rock magnetic properties, organic carbon content and carbon isotopic ratios, C/N ratios, and pollen content reveal two glacial/interglacial cycles in the core (MIS 14 to MIS 10). Glacial terminations V and VI and complete sections spanning interglacials MIS 13 and MIS 11 are captured at a high resolution. In the VC-3 record, both of these interglacials are relatively long compared with the intervening glacials (MIS 14 and MIS 12), and interglacial MIS 13 is significantly muted in amplitude compared with MIS 11. These features are similar to several other mid-Pleistocene records.
Of particular interest is relatively large amplitude millennial-scale variability evident in several proxies through the interglacial MIS 11 section.
On dear , NOT MORE RWPs, MWPs AND LIAs etc!
That MIS 11 interglacial must have lacked a bit of air temperature stability, eh LRON?
Steve; what I like about the Chilingar paper is that it turns one, the, guts of the AGW theory back on itself; AGW is based on a lag between the CO2 sponsored absorption of LW and its eventual radiative departure from Earth, during which time the warming has taken place; the mechanism for this is layer opaqueness which occurs due to time difference between the excitation and deexcitation stages of the absorption; AGW relies on this layer opaqueness and the very slow upward transferance of the trapped heat. Chilingar et al agrees that the vertical heat transfer by radiative diffusion is in the order of cm/s, whereas the vertical heat transfer by convection is many metres per second; Chilingar’s model allows for the convective exchange to be 67% of of vertical heat transfer, with H2O condensation representing 25% and radiative transfer the remaining 8%; that 8% is simply swamped by the descending exchanged cool air; an increase in the atmospheric density will be the main factor in generating an increase in temperature at the surface due to a doubling of CO2 concentration; but that increase will be negated by an increase in ocean absorption of CO2 and O2, with the consequent decline in atmospheric pressure producing a slight cooling.
Chiligar test the model against real Earth data and do the mandatory application with Venus, where the atmospheric temp is most definitely a product of atmospheric pressure and not the CO2 greenhouse so loved by ender and others.
Ender
“Climate sensitivity is a guess” and a guess is not a scientific theory nor an established fact.
This is what your whole position is based on – and unsubstantiated guess as you explicitly state.
And you Bananas in Ears want to force us to curb our emissions on a guess.
Guess what – it isn’t going to happen.
Did see this Spencer critique here – Louis can explain what it means
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
Apparently there is no response to Spencer’s latest as the word is that he’s overstated the case. 5 credits for a technical point.
Old hat RC – complete with silly picture at the top for added oomph and the usual dollops of patronising tripe from Gavin.
Read the comments in the thread opened on this. About as much intellectual activity in toto as is required in my kitchen to operate a damp tea towel for half an hour or so.
Yep, Gavin Schmidt and his Real Crummy blog are fading away fast.
Back to Niche Modeling, The Blackboard, The Reference Frame, ArXiv, Climate Audit,…..
It’s all turning to ordure in your hands isn’t it, LRON?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/csiro_heavy_says_dont_trust_csiros_scares/
luke; Louis is no doubt busy with better things; Spencer has made a succinct reply to Humbert;
http://climatesci.org/2008/05/22/a-response-to-ray-pierrehumbert%e2%80%99s-real-climate-post-of-may-21-2008-by-roy-spencer/
Spencer is saying the models have erroneously interpretated stochastic cloud variability, as a form of non-feedback radiative fluctuations, as some sort of anti-Hurst effect and having a predictable and continuous positive feedback on CO2 forcing, and therefore climate sensitivity. As Spencer says in his subsequent address to the US senate;
“The first method seperates the true signature of feedback, wherein radiative flux variations are highly correlated to the temperature changes which cause them, from internally-generated radiative forcings, which are unrelated to the temperature variations which result from them. It is the latter signal which has been ignored in all previous studies, the neglect of which biases feedback diagnoses in the direction of positive feedback (high climate sensitivity).”
Luke
Cohenite is quite right, and more the fool you by quoting Realclimate to support your case.
Actually you never make any point, you are more like some sort of bibliographical robot spewing up references that people here must refute.
You really don’t understand the issues, do you.
And as Roy Spencer has pointed out, Humbert used an ad hominem, so as far as I am concerned, Humberts criticism has to be irgnored.
Amazing that it’s the empirical scientists who are finally pointing out the fallacies of AGW.
Hissunk – go and oil your wheelchair gramps. So boring.
Cohenite you love every new paper and bit of fluff that passes your gaze. The fact you fell for Shonkton and the stupid adiabatic paper says it all. Spencer’s model is utter cap. Sliced and diced.
Damn!
Getting really hot around here with all that steam blasting out of LRON’s ears, nostrils, mouth, navel, …. etc
http://luko.org/gallery/weather/h_nsydney_gallery_550x360
What some slushy hail
http://news.smh.com.au/national/sydney-snow-just-hail-weather-bureau-20080727-3lo7.html jeez !
Spencer’s Folly: Part 1.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/spencers-folly/#more-876
Hmmmm, yeah – its just ‘soft hail’
Made for very nice boogie boarding though.
As opposed to the common or garden variety ‘hard hail’ which comes from just a tad higher up in the atmosphere of course.
Still, for a few hours there it did seem just a little bit like I fondly remember back in, now what was it, ….oh yeah – 1836 (comes of being an old fart).
LRON,
Bombed out again, lost for insults, unable to counter reasoning but retorts with yet another barrage of links, screaming out aloud, “I have more links than yew”.
Alas while a superfluity of links are observed we observe that one remains missing – LRON seems linkless in one crucial area.
Luke:
Spencer’s Folly: Part 1.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/spencers-folly/#more-876
Ah hah! The e-folding characteristic time of response! Beloved of non-linear hydrologic and geohydrologic system modellers. This I can get into. Tamino’s next post will be interesting.
Hope you are up for the ride, LRON.
Tamino gives me a headache; he says;
“But the climate system does change in response to temperature change. For example, warmer air holds more water vapor. Not only is water vapor a greenhouse gas itself, greater (absolute) humidity alters the LAPSE RATE of the atmosphere, raising the surface temperature even higher. Also, as the earth warms there’s less ice and snow covering the planet, which changes earth’s albedo…etc, etc”
I’m sure he’s not doing it deliberately, but Tamino ignires the difference between absolute or specific humidity and relative humidity; so do some of his commentators such as Paul who refers to 2 papers by Oltmans and Hofmann and Nedoluha who find increasing atmospheric water vapor from 1981-94 and 1991-97 respectively. This may be true but, as with IPCC modelling, it isn’t the crucial thing; what is crucial is that relative humidity is falling;
http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-thermodynamics-and-gcms/
Stockwell refers to the Minschwaner paper which shows that SH is increasing as a response to temp increase but that RH is rapidly falling. The models overestimate the SH increase and assume that RH remains constant; this goes back to my first quote from Spencer above which highlights this gross failure by the models and AGW theory; incidentally, as Stockwell’s links show and as Watts has noted, RH has been falling since 1948;
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/GlobalRelativeHumidity.jpg
The falling RH is not a feedback but a stochastic ’cause’ of temp variability; increasing SH increases clouds while the declining RH indicates that any positive feedback and climate sensitivity is drastically less than it would be with constant RH; Spencer says that this reduction is such that he has found “a signature of climate sensitivity so low that it would reduce global warming projections to below 1C by the year 2100.”
I have highlighted the word LAPSE because it connects to a prior Tamino post about adiabatic expansion, the subject of the new Chilingar bit of fluff, as luke terms it; Tamino assumes for atmospheric stability against vertical movements that upper atmospheric temp “will be as great, or greater than, that given by adiabatic expansion.” Tamino assumes this barrier to vertical adiabatic transfer of warm air is overcome by the wet lapse rate (which according to AGW theory is increasing due to increases in absolute humidity; the error of this assumption is referred to above) whereby the latent heat of condensing water vapor provides the additional heat to the rising gas body so that the internal heat of the gas body remains greater than the surrounding air. Tamino then lapses into the usual AGW layer cake argument which says increasing CO2 increases the wet lapse rate ceiling to which the heated air has to rise before it can reradiate to space. Tamino ignores a couple of points which the Chilingar paper deals with; firstly the adiabatic process is an exchange; as a heated parcel of air convectively rises, a cooler parcel descends; on this basis the temp gradient does not have to increase as warm air is not being continually added to warm air at the tropopause; it is in fact replacing cooler air going down; secondly, that cooler air descending is continually cooling the surface heating; this along with ocean absorption of CO2 and O2 prevents the layer opaqueness, so beloved of AGW, from occurring.
Pete…re Trenberth.
Roy Spencer’s colleague at UAH, John Christy, is just as important in satellite studies. Trenberth was the professor in charge of Christy’s graduate studies and it’s well known that Christy and Trenberth do not agree on global warming.
Trenberth was influential on the last IPCC assessment (AR4 – 2007) as a lead author. In the 2001 assessment, TAR, the IPCC consensus was that satellite data contradicted CO2-based global warming theory and the National Academy of Science agreed. In the AR4 report, all of that was dropped. In it’s place was misleading information that claimed the satellite and sonde data had been corrected and was now in step with surface temperatures.
The leader of the entire assessment, Dr. Solomon, asked that the controversy be resolved and she was completely ignored. It’s abundantly clear that the IPCC cannot be trusted.
Trenberth did a study that revealed a blip, and I mean a blip, in the satellite record in the tropics. Christy immediately acknowledged the error and corrected it, making it clear that it made little difference (les than 0.1 C). Even after the correction, the satellite data showed clearly that atmospheric temperatures were seriously lagging surface temperatures.
There are two points to take from that. One is that it disproves the CO2/warming paradigm. It is based on the notion that the mid-troposhere must warm 1.3 times the surface temperature. The troposphere temp is lagging the surface by quite a bit. The second point is it casts doubt on the accuracy of the surface record itself. Fred Singer, an expert in atmospheric studies claims he’ll take the satellite record over the controversial surface record any day.
Another study done about the time of Trenberth was that of the RSS team showing an error in the work of the UAH team due to orbital inconsistencies. Subsequent studies, however, have revealed an error in the RSS data. In 2008, both the RSS and UAH data agree and both indicate the atmosphere is significantly cooler than the surface.
The third controversy involved the work of Fu, who did a purely statistical analysis between stratospheric temperatures and those of the troposphere. Through some kind of statistical hocus pocus, he subtracted what he saw as an error in the stratopshere that was supposed to be cooling the troposphere, and when he was finished, the troposphere was suddenly warmer. In other words, the satellite data was wrong and his math was right.
The IPCC used those studies to infer everything was now back to normal and that the atmosphere and surface temperatures agreed. Nonsense!! Even after their witchdoctoring, the atmosphere is still cooler than the surface, an impossibility if the CO2/warming theory is right.
So what gives? There is a controversy surrounding Trenberth. For one, he’s a muttonbird (Kiwi), and although I use that insult with affection, having lived in New Zealand and enjoyed Kiwis, many are about as obstinate as a human can be. Many times that’s an endearing quality, but in science it’s not. BTW…a good buddy is a Kiwi and he laughs heartily at such banter.
Chris Landsea, an expert in hurricane theory, had sat on IPCC assessments since the mid-90’s. In 2007, he was asked to sit again, by Trenberth. He ended up resigning because Trenberth had participated in a media conference in which he expressed the opinion that Atlantic storms were caused by global warming. Landsea saw that as a conflict of interest and you can read his resignation letter here.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html
I don’t know if Trenberth is just stupid or if he has a political agenda. He contradicts an expert in hurricane theory and ignores the basic premise that global warming can only reduce the severity of storms by reducing the temperature gradient between the tropics and the Arctic.
I think the IPCC is riddled with those posers.
Ivan said… “How serious is defeat for Brown?”
My dad voted Labour all his life and I have supported them from afar, in Canada. I voted for the Labour equivalent in Canada, which flies in the face of a popular theory that skeptics are right-wing conservatives who support oil companies.
For the first time, I am contemplating voting Conservative, and not because I support their politics. I’m doing it because, unlike their UK counterparts, Canadian Tories are opposing Kyoto and the rubbish that goes with it. My concern is the decimation of social programs, like healthy care, due to the exhorbitant amounts of money designated to fight a problem that does not exist.
Has the UK Labour Party gone absolutely mad? Surely there is one MP who questions the pseudo-science. I should have seen the signs years ago when Blair arrogantly refused to lower the usurious taxes Britons pay on petrol. At least, Blair came around a bit, admitting Kyoto in its present form cannot work.
Tapir said…I would assume that a system subject to positive feedback will eventually ‘run out of steam’ and negative feedback mechanisms will dominate/equilibrate.
I’ll give you a perfect, real-life example of positive feedback, an electronic amplifier. If you have a microphone plugged into it and a speaker positioned in such a way that audio energy from a speaker can reach the microphone, you get the feedback squeal with which most people are familiar.
The squeal occurs because audio energy is fed from the speaker to the microphone, and that input signal is amplified and fed back to the microphone by the speaker. The signal is continually amplified and the squeal gets continually louder. We even call it feedback.
Anything could happen: the speaker could blow or the output transistors could blow, unless a fuse or circuitry is built in to limit the current through the transistors and the speaker. In an amplifier, positive feedback causes an exponential increase in output current.
There is no limiting factor with respect to positive feedback influences except for the power supply. When it runs out of current, the output current is limited, but by then the speaker or output transistors will be fried or a fire will start. Of course, that’s why fuses are used.
Frequency-dependent negative feedback is used in amplifiers to broaden the frequency response. Controlled positive feedback is used to make an oscillator, an electronic device that performs harmonic motion and is used as a source of a signal. Oscillators are used to tune radios to different stations.
Positive and negative feedback is also associated with differential equations in mathematics. ‘Forcing’ is also used in that context. Much of the theory and jargon presented today in global warming theory is nothing more than mathematical theory. Mathematics is largely the language of computer models. I understand what Spencer means by feedback, but I think one needs to be careful about taking that to the nth degree, like the theoretical tipping point to which Hansen refers.
If you play with differential equations long enough, you can make them do many wierd and wonderful things. They are the basis of computer model theory. You can design an entire electronic amplifier with a differential equation, and that’s the proper way to design. It will work eventually. When it’s first built, however, it likely wont work. It has to be tweaked, and that’s exactly what they do to computer models. They know the outcome and they adjust the model to get that result. That’s hardly forecasting.
When you model an electronic amplifier in a differential equation, you are dealing with known parameters. Pretty well everything a design engineer needs to know about an amplifier, the inductance, resistance, capacitance and active componenents like transistors, are well understood. Conversely, theory about major components of climate models, like clouds and precipitation systems, are not fully understood and some of the science hasn’t even been done yet.
To speak authoritively about feedbacks and forcings, based on computer model theory, and to go as far as forecasting tipping points, is supreme arrogance. Spencer acknowledges that as does Dr. Joanne Simpson, who recently retired from NASA after gaining expertise on cloud theory and cloud modeling. She claims models are not reliable. Even Trenberth, an IPCC heavyweight, says the same thing.
Richard Feynman pointed out that reality is not like the model of it that we have in our minds. He claimed even the most reliable theories and equations go out the windows when we get to the quantum level because everything changes when we try to measure it. He also humourously claimed that quantum mechanics works, but we don’t know why.
I find it frustrating that so many scientists, who should know better, are talking about the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere when they don’t have the slightest clue what it is doing. We haven’t even got a clue how water vapour warms the atmosphere, due to the complex precipitation systems involved, and it has most of the effect in warming.
We still have the means at our disposal to study the climate, and that’s by direct observation. We’re getting good data from satellites and balloons, and whereas computer modeling is interesting, and may be of service one day, right now it is a damned nuisance. All this stuff about feedback and forcings is computer model jargon, hence meaningless. It’s theory and nothing more.
Since the 1940’s, we’ve had a significant increase in CO2 and the atmosphere has warmed about 4/10ths of a degree C. That’s all we need to know. Instead, we’re pulling our hair out worrying about some stupid computer model prediction, that means absolutely zilch.
I hope you were joking or being facetious about Venus turning into a supernova.
Interesting Gordon. I had heard snippets of this saga and it is very nice to hear it filled in by yourself. Actually, I think the problem with Trenberth is not so much the problem of being a Kiwi by origination (gotta ‘fess up to that myself) but more what I call the ‘gods in the their own minds’ syndrome. This is a worldwide phenomena in the science community. I have read some of Trenberth’s interviews with newspapers and published ‘debates’ with academic sceptics in the States and ……classic case for sure.
Gordon – “To speak authoritively about feedbacks and forcings, based on computer model theory, and to go as far as forecasting tipping points, is supreme arrogance.”
We do not really understand how air flows around an aircraft wing or where the boundary layer will trip. Are you suggesting that due to this lack of knowledge we should stop designing aircraft with computer models and go back to the way it was done before this?
“Since the 1940’s, we’ve had a significant increase in CO2 and the atmosphere has warmed about 4/10ths of a degree C. That’s all we need to know. Instead, we’re pulling our hair out worrying about some stupid computer model prediction, that means absolutely zilch.”
Because the models give us an idea of what might happen. Again you can simulate the stresses in an aircraft’s wing and fly virtually for thousands of hours to find problems something that was not possible before computers. If this technology was available in 1950 then perhaps the fatigue problems of the Comet might have been found before the plane flew. The point is computer models are useful up to a point however everyone is aware of their limitations. It is only people ignorant of the said limitations that build them up to be oracles.
“My dad voted Labour all his life .. which flies in the face of a popular theory that skeptics are right-wing conservatives who support oil companies.”
Gordon,
I wouldn’t pay too much attention to the rantings of a bunch of lunatic gubmint science boys. All they are doing is demonstrating that AGW is a religion and not a science. People who understand the scientific method actually welcome the opportunity to engage in debate and (in my experience) are open to the possibility that they may be wrong – to varying degrees of course.
Jihadists, on the other hand, do not even countenance the possibility that their revealed truth may be erroneous – since doubt is a sin, and a sin is punishable by death.
Like you, I have also tended to support left-of-centre parties. I work with people who are involved in real (i.e. physical) science, and they tend to be of a similar orientation and regard AGW as a lot of horse$hit cooked up by the politicians to load everyone up with more taxes.
Like you, I will not be voting for the Clueless Party at the next election. Not so much because they have shackled themselves to this millstone called ETS and AGW – but more because of due process. I am less than impressed with the undue haste with which Rudderless has simply swallowed the Guano report – and with the messianic zeal that he displays in his determination to impose this carbon salvation on everyone.
I am also less than impressed with him openly referring to people who question his revealed truth as “deniers”. It’s one thing for the AGW fruitcakes to churn this out, but I don’t expect to be insulted like this by our elected representatives. I will absolutely be a “denier” when I fill in my next ballot paper – but not the sort that Rudderless has in mind.