Climate and Post-Modern Science
I have written before of my believe that climate has become the first post-modern science. This time, I will yield the floor to Garth Paltridge to make the same point:
But the real worry with climate research is that it is on the very edge of what is called postmodern science. This is a counterpart of the relativist world of postmodern art and design. It is a much more dangerous beast, whose results are valid only in the context of society’s beliefs and where the very existence of scientific truth can be denied. Postmodern science envisages a sort of political nirvana in which scientific theory and results can be consciously and legitimately manipulated to suit either the dictates of political correctness or the policies of the government of the day.
There is little doubt that some players in the climate game – not a lot, but enough to have severely damaged the reputation of climate scientists in general – have stepped across the boundary into postmodern science. The Climategate scandal of 2009, wherein thousands of emails were leaked from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England, showed that certain senior members of the research community were, and presumably still are, quite capable of deliberately selecting data in order to overstate the evidence for dangerous climate change. The emails showed as well that these senior members were quite happy to discuss ways and means of controlling the research journals so as to deny publication of any material that goes against the orthodox dogma. The ways and means included the sacking of recalcitrant editors.
Whatever the reason, it is indeed vastly more difficult to publish results in climate research journals if they run against the tide of politically correct opinion. Which is why most of the sceptic literature on the subject has been forced onto the web, and particularly onto web-logs devoted to the sceptic view of things. Which, in turn, is why the more fanatical of the believers in anthropogenic global warming insist that only peer-reviewed literature should be accepted as an indication of the real state of affairs. They argue that the sceptic web-logs should never be taken seriously by “real” scientists, and certainly should never be quoted. Which is a great pity. Some of the sceptics are extremely productive as far as critical analysis of climate science is concerned. Names like Judith Curry (chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta), Steve McIntyre (a Canadian geologist-statistician) and blogger Willis Eschenbach come to mind. These three in particular provide a balance and maturity in public discussion that puts many players in the global warming movement to shame, and as a consequence their outreach to the scientifically inclined general public is highly effective. Their output, together with that of other sceptics on the web, is fast becoming a practical and stringent substitute for peer review.
Update: The IPCC does not seem to be on a path to building the credibility of climate science. In their last report, the IPCC was rightly criticized for using "grey" literature as a source for their findings, against their own rules. Grey literature encompasses about anything that is not published peer-reviewed literature, including, from the last report, sources that were essentially press releases from advocacy groups like the IPCC. They even use a travel brochure as a source.
This time, to avoid this criticism, the IPCC is ... changing their rules to allow such grey literature citations. I am pretty sure that this was NOT passed in order to get more material from Steve McIntyre's blog. In related news, the IPCC also changed the makeup of its scientific panel, putting geographical and gender diversity over scientific qualifications as a criteria. The quota for African climate scientists will, for example, be higher than that of North America. See the whole story here.
Though this was all presented with pious words, my guess is that it was felt by the political leaders of the IPCC in the UN that the last report was not socialist or totalitarian enough and that more of such content was necessary. We'll see.
A non-AGW related example of the celebrity-or-silence thing is Paul Ehrlich vs. Julian Simon.
Ehrlich has never been even vaguely right on any public prediction he's ever made.
Simon's been shown right time and again.
Ehrlich gets a MacArthur Prize. Julian Simon gets resoundingly ignored and forgotten.
But everything Ehrlich does calls for lots and lots of government action. Simon was a libertarian through and through.
Steve D: Think about periods of time in the past when the global temperatures were much warmer, and CO2 and water vapor levels much higher. It’s hard to imagine in these cases how the warming/increased vapor-CO2 cycle did not just spiral out of control baking the planet Earth and destroying all life. This suggests there is some type of negative feedback mechanism we don’t yet understand.
There are all sorts of negative feedbacks. For instance, a lot of CO2 is absorbed by the oceans (increasing its acidity). Also, CO2 is slowly removed by geological weathering. Increased evaporation leads to more low clouds in the atmosphere and increases the Earth's albedo. And, of course, increased temperature increases the emission of infrared radiation.
Steve D: I still don’t quite get how climatologists insist that increase water vapor cannot be the cause of present GW, but that their models predict increased water vapor will increase it.
Water vapor IS a contributor to global warming, amplifying the signal from other greenhouse gases.
Steve D: In fact while the theory that water vapor will trap more heat is interesting, water vapor levels should increase to some degree or another, no matter what the cause of global warming – and that would lead to accelerated warming, again no matter what the cause.
There would be some amplification even if the heating were due to increased solar irradiance. However, solar irradiance does not explain the current warming trend.
Steve D: You said earlier that the atmosphere was already saturated with water vapor? An increase in temperature may slightly increase the saturation point and this will get filled up quickly by more water?
You introduced the term saturated saying, "Then ask yourself if the water vapor in the earth’s atmosphere is saturated in its ability to act as a GH gas." Saturated, in this sense, means opaque in the relevant absorption spectra, not the maximum moisture that the atmosphere can hold.
The *lower* atmosphere is opaque in the relevant spectra associated with water vapor, but the *upper* atmosphere is much drier. Increasing the vapor content of the lower atmosphere will have no effect on the greenhouse effect, but increasing the vapor content of the upper atmosphere will increase the greenhouse effect.
[b]IGotBupkis[/b]: [i]They don’t even get heard on the nightly news when they sign a petition en masse. [/i]
Heh. How many named Steve?
>>> Climatology is an observational NOT an experimental science. It has not yet reached the point where it can make accurate predictions.</i.
So you acknowledge, openly, that it's not fucking SCIENCE
The Schwartzberg Test:
"The validity of a science is its ability to predict."
Climatology ranks slightly ahead of astrology as a science, but not much...
Science is about EXPERIMENT and REPRODUCIBILITY. If you can't test it, if you can't perform an experiment regarding it, if you can't make predictions regarding those experiments -- then it ain't SCIENCE
That this needs to be explained to anyone who has taken high school physics is ridiculous.
That it needs to be explained to anyone claiming to have an opinion worthy of expression regarding "science" is ludicrous.
>>> There would be some amplification even if the heating were due to increased solar irradiance. However, solar irradiance does not explain the current warming trend.
*sigh*. so not true. On a number of points including the LACK of a warming trend.
Not even going to bother to post proof, waste of time, easily found on half a dozen skeptic sites if you actually looked for it, but nawwww...
>>> Increasing the vapor content of the lower atmosphere will have no effect on the greenhouse effect, but increasing the vapor content of the upper atmosphere will increase the greenhouse effect.
This claim is just patently stupid. More moisture in the lower atmosphere increases cloud cover. Increased cloud cover increases the earth's albedo, thereby lowering the amount of ENERGY reaching the surface. And if you're about to claim that the upper atmo CO2 reflects it back down, trapping it in between, then that calls into question your earlier claim that there was no "signature" zone that should be heating up if this garbage had any validity at all.
Moreover, it's damned obvious that the earth's oceans should be notably heating up -- they're an enormous HEAT SINK, but they AREN'T.
Freaking a, man, AGW twits can't answer even the most basic questions about what should, predictably, happen, and get the answers right. I get really tired of posting the same damned replies repudiating idiot claims and then having the same stupid claims come up again from some other AGW idiot who can't find out jack or shit for themselves.
There are BASIC QUESTION about AGW that should be answerable IF it had any validity. They don't get answered, and the data is constantly getting "futz"ed with by Mann, Hanson, and their ilk trying to twist the existing data to meet their foregone and increasingly ludicrously wrong claims.
The latest is the fact that there are studies showing that the "Medieval Warm Period" was active in South America, and wasn't "localized to Europe" as the AGW twits have been trying to claim, having ABSOLUTELY failed at getting it buried under the rug by flat-out denying it existed despite all the historical evidence to the contrary.
We're getting really, really tired of having to teach you the same basic remedial SCIENCE class to you people over and over and over and having you keep turning in tests with WAY less than 25% correct answers. We're also tired of you trying to obfuscate the ACTUAL facts by cherry-picking data, like claiming that the temperatures in the Antarctic are rising when it's only that on the Ross Shelf which are rising at all, and the other EIGHTY PERCENT of the continent has undergone notable cooling. Or concerning yourself with
a) Arctic ice sheets
b) Glacial extent
which only takes into account the last 20-30 odd years, ignoring the openly available historical evidence available about, say, where they both were in 1900.
>>> Why should it be accelerating?
Indeed.
Except that the models claim it is...?
Except that one of the primary Chicken Little claims is that this is a positive feedback loop and it's going to zoom out of control?
I'm not even going to argue over the solar irradiation model that answers the questions about climate by noting the effects of solar wind and radiation on cloud cover and bunch of other climatological factors. I'm not qualified to argue pro-or-con, but it's clearly an excellent alternative explanation that, I gather, much better fits the known facts than AGW claims do.
IGotBupkis: So you acknowledge, openly, that it’s not fucking SCIENCE
Sure it's science, just like astronomy is a science, but doesn't usually involved controlled experiments. Theories are proposed, hypotheses are tested, empirical implications are deduced, and observations are made to test those predictions.
IGotBupkis: That this needs to be explained to anyone who has taken high school physics is ridiculous.
Well, Steve D is a biochemist, so he probably had to take some physics along the way, not to mention, as a biochemist, having some familiarity with the scientific method.
IGotBupkis: Not even going to bother to post proof, waste of time, easily found on half a dozen skeptic sites if you actually looked for it, but nawwww…
Heh. You will post hundreds of words, but won't bother to post the actual evidence. A scientific citation would be helpful.
IGotBupkis: More moisture in the lower atmosphere increases cloud cover. Increased cloud cover increases the earth’s albedo, thereby lowering the amount of ENERGY reaching the surface.
You don't read very carefully. Our comment concerned the greenhouse effect.
IGotBupkis: And if you’re about to claim that the upper atmo CO2 reflects it back down, trapping it in between, then that calls into question your earlier claim that there was no “signature” zone that should be heating up if this garbage had any validity at all.
Not sure what you're saying here. It's a basic physical principle of the greenhouse effect that the lower atmosphere will warm while the upper atmosphere will cool. Without the greenhouse effect, the mean temperature of the Earth's surface would be a frigid −18°C rather than a balmy 14°C.
IGotBupkis: Moreover, it’s damned obvious that the earth’s oceans should be notably heating up — they’re an enormous HEAT SINK, but they AREN’T.
Global Ocean Heat Content
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
Zachriel: Why should it be accelerating?
IGotBupkis: Except that the models claim it is…?
Model predictions depend on human activities, don't they? CO2 is increasing in an approximately linear fashion. Perhaps you are confused because the line is steeper than what we can determine concerning other, historical climate changes.
IGotBupkis: They don’t even get heard on the nightly news when they sign a petition en masse.
By the way, how many were named Steve?
‘Well, Steve D is a biochemist, so he probably had to take some physics along the way, not to mention, as a biochemist, having some familiarity with the scientific method.’
Of course climatology is a science. I never argued otherwise. It’s the accuracy of the present predictions which is in question here (2-5%; even assuming that’s correct it’s not very good yet). It bothers me when in one sentence AGW is said to be unfalsifiable and in the next, falsified. One does not expect scientific hypotheses to be correct all the time and predictions are not usually correct right off the bat. From what I can see, even in the hardcore experimental sciences, hypotheses are incorrect more often than not. And I can tell you from experience that publishing something which contradicts something already in the literature even when you have reams of data and an airtight logical case is unsettling. So there are a lot of ‘so called’ truths out there which are wrong.
I don’t agree with IGotBupkis’s definition of the scientific method, either. It’s too narrow. You should have used the word COMPARISON rather than EXPERIMENT. At its most fundamental level science is about comparison. Scientists observe objects, phenomenon or processes which differ in some respect and try to explain these differences by isolating the variables which cause them. (Or they can do it the other way around; look for the variable first and observe its effects.)
An experiment is merely a highly controlled and advantageous method for making observations. It gives the scientist a great deal of flexibility on how to approach his field. Sciences which can easily perform experiments have an advantage – sciences which because of their nature can’t (like climatology) have to look for a work around.
So for example my Ph.D research consisted of depriving plants of phosphorous to look at certain metabolic responses which allowed them to survive. The basic experiment was to grow two sets of plants (or plant cells) side-by-side in every respect equal EXCEPT the level of phosphorus in their media.
What if I couldn’t do that experiment? What if I had to rely on observation only, like climatology? Then I would have been forced to look for plants already naturally growing in different levels of phosphorus; and then try to uncover all the other factors which could be interfering and affect the outcome. Then, I would have to somehow filter them out to isolate the effect of phosphorous. I guarantee that would have been a lot more work (and I would have needed a lot more funding…
Don’t look at me. I never even heard of that petition.
Steve D says:
"This increased water vapor causes more warming which increases the saturation point further, allowing more water into the atmosphere – seems like runaway global warming to me since I can’t see any process stopping it."
Steve, your facts are wrong. Global atmospheric water vapor [relative humidity] has been steadily decreasing for more than half a century:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_4ify7vDXrDs/SFvKsbaDcAI/AAAAAAAAC00/rXH2TzvwcZA/s1600-h/_0_0_a_mi_GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mb.jpg
Your conclusion was predicated on increasing water vapor. Therefore, you arrived at the wrong conclusion. And that is why there is no evidence of runaway global warming.
Steve D says:
"...when I look at the charts carefully, there does seem to be a hint of an upsurge near the present on some of them."
Look closer:
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
Recent global temperatures are trending down.
Zachariel says:
"There’s nothing wrong with using a zero baseline."
Of course there is, when the chart is showing a long term trend. By using a zero baseline chart over long time frames, the zero baseline chart creates a fictitious artifact that falsely shows accelerating recent temperatures. That fictitious artifact vanishes when a trend chart is used:
Again, the long term trend:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/offset:14/plot/gistemp/compress:12/offset:13.885/detrend:-0.02/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:-0.42/detrend:-0.23/offset:14/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:14.1/detrend:-0.23/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:17/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2010/trend/offset:14/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:9
The rising temperature trend over the past century and a half has remained constant. If "carbon" caused global warming, then the trend would show a hockey stick-like acceleration. But as we see from empirical observations, the ≈40% rise in CO2 has caused no upturn in the natural rise in temperatures since the LIA.
Inescapable conclusion: CO2 causes no measurable global warming.
Here is a similar Wood For Trees chart showing that there is no recent temperature acceleration:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1840/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:0.15/detrend:-0.16/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:-0.4/detrend:-0.18/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:1.5/plot/hadcrut3vnh/scale:0.00001/offset:-1.5
Note the green line, which actually the long term trend. The trend is actually moderating -- becoming smaller.
If the rise in CO2 caused global warming, then recent temperatures would be rising above the long term parameters. They are not.
Conclusion: the rise in CO2 is not causing any measurable global warming. The temperature trend is the same for CO2 at 0.00028 of the atmosphere, and for 0.00039 of the atmosphere. There is no indication that CO2 makes any difference.
Here is another chart, from 1880 - 2010. Note that the mild rise in global temperatures remains within their long-term parameters:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/alternativeinterpretationofgmtfig2.png?w=640&h=429
To falsify the climate Null Hypothesis requires that temperatures must decisively break out of past parameters. That has not happened, thus falsifying the alternate AGW hypothesis.
Dr. Kevin Trenberth has railed against the Null Hypothesis -- a corollary of the Scientific Method. Trenberth knows that the Null Hypothesis is a huge obstacle to his AGW conjecture. Therefore, he wants the onus of the Null Hypothesis to be put on scientific skeptics. But that turns the Scientific Method on its head, requiring, in effect, that skeptics must prove a negative.
Trenberth is tacitly admitting defeat by being unable to falsify the Null Hypothesis. He is unable to falsify the Null because global temperatures are not accelerating, as would be required by the evidence-free AGW conjecture.
We see in this Wood For Trees graph that while CO2 continues to rise, for more than fifteen years now global temperatures have been unaffected. There is no correlation:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.83/normalise
It is quite apparent that CO2 does not have the claimed effect on temperature.
The troposphere is not warming as required by the AGW conjecture:
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg
As [harmless, beneficial] CO2 rises, temperatures remain uncorrelated.
Monthly temperatures have remained flat while CO2 has risen sharply:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0168e55964fe970c-pi
If the AGW conjecture was valid, temperatures would rise along with CO2. In fact, much of the rise in CO2 is due to the fact that CO2 FOLLOWS temperature. Effect cannot precede cause. CO2 rises following temperature rises.
Ocean cooling is recorded by the 3,361 ARGO ocean buoy system, which agrees with global cooling as recorded by satellites:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ALL_SINCE_2002.jpg
The 30 years following 1912 have exactly the same slope as the 30 years following 1982:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1912.33/to:1942.33/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1982.25/to:2013/trend
But in 1912, CO2 was only about 290 ppmv, while in the 30 years beginning in 1982, CO2 was about 390 ppmv. Since the slopes are the same, CO2 ipso facto cannot be a significant cause of warming.
Here is a chart by Phil Jones himself:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
Note that the same rising trends occurred, beginning around 1850. Three times the same rising trend occurred. But CO2 levels were radically different during each rising trend, thus deconstructing the CO2=AGW conjecture.
Finally, to show global temperatures in a long-term perspective, see here:
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/GISP2_3300ya.png
These charts show the CO2=AGW conjecture to be baseless nonsense. During almost all of the Holocene, CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperatures, no matter who is making that claim. There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature over 99% of that time period. The very short term tracking of temperature and CO2 is entirely coincidental, as is shown unequivocally in the charts above.
The biosphere is starved of beneficial CO2:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SoxiDu0taDI/AAAAAAAABFI/Z2yuZCWtzvc/s1600/Geocarb%2BIII-Mine-03.jpg
Optimal CO2 levels are at least double current levels, and if CO2 were to rise 300%, no harm would result.
The outrageous and unscientific demonization of "carbon" is based on the fact that CO2 emissions can be taxed. The pseudo-science of catastrophic AGW is motivated by the $7 - $8 BILLION in grants handed out every year by the federal government to 'study climate change'.
That grant money is not paid out to those who honestly state that CO2 is not harmful. Instead, climate alarmists are paid to sound a false alarm.
Do not listen to those self-serving scientific charlatans, because their 'Post Normal Science' is not science at all, it is anti-science.
Click on my name to go to the site that has won the internet's "Best Science" site twice running. All points of view are encouraged, with no censorship. That is the only way to sift the truth from true belief. Readers can read both sides, and then make up their own minds.
Finally, here is a chart, using an honest y-axis, which shows that nothing unusual is occurring:
http://butnowyouknow.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/globa-mean-temp.gif?w=469&h=427
At times during the past 15,000 years, global temperatures have declined and risen by more than TEN DEGREES, within a DECADE! That makes the natural rise of only 0.8ºC over the past century and a half one of the best and most stable climates for the biosphere, and for the human race, in the entire Holocene.
Rather than hand-wringing over a fabricated "carbon" scare, we should be celebrating our good fortune.
‘Steve, your facts are wrong…Your conclusion was predicated on increasing water vapor. Therefore, you arrived at the wrong conclusion.’
Everett, you misunderstood me. I intended my conclusion to be wrong since I conjured the facts out of thin air. I was attempting a hypothetical argument designed to show why the increasing water vapor argument makes no sense. If you look at your CO2 chart from 170 million years ago, the water vapor levels must have been much higher than today and that should have led to out of control global warming if the water vapor argument was correct. But it didn’t. Why? The same argument could be used for the medieval warm period.
Also, shouldn’t the decreasing humidity actually lead to global cooling?
‘Recent global temperatures are trending down.’
Sure, but I was speaking specifically about the charts you showed with the local temperature data. They definitely don’t show a trend downwards, even recently. However, there may be another explanation for that.
‘Inescapable conclusion: CO2 causes no measurable global warming.’
That assumes that the temperature should have continued upwards at the same rate and along the same long term trend for the last century and a half had the CO2 not been added to the atmosphere. There is no way to know that for sure unless you do the experiment which can’t be done because we only have one Earth. My point is that it is possible that one hundred and fifty years ago, the rising temperature might have leveled off if not for the added CO2. In that case some or all of the increased temperature could have been caused by CO2. (That would explain the cooling of the stratosphere AND the upwards trend in surface temperature)
‘Finally, to show global temperatures in a long-term perspective, see here’
One argument I’ve often made is that even if CAWG theory is correct, all of the supposed consequences of it in the news today such as the melting of the glaciers are not. According to your graph, temperatures are lower today than in the dark ages, so if the polar caps are melting today, shouldn’t they have already disappeared during the medieval warm period?’
Your graph is not a happy one. It suggests that our long warm interglacial period (mankind’s golden age) may finally be coming to an end. That tick at the end might be a ray of hope? Maybe we should wait on that celebration of our good fortune to see if that upward trend continues.
‘The troposphere is not warming as required by the AGW conjecture’
Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that the key diagnostic feature that CO2 is causing a greenhouse effect is the cooling of the stratosphere. If some other factor was nullifying the temperature increase in the troposphere and counteracting a real effect of CO2, might you not (depending on what that factor was) see both a cooling of the stratosphere and no change at all in the troposphere, at least over a short time period?
This looks very much like Zachriel’s chart but you both come to different conclusions. There is no troposphere warming since about 2001 but looking at the entire chart, there does seem to be an overall trend upwards, yet it’s small.
‘The biosphere is starved of beneficial CO2’
You can blame the plants for that. The consume CO2 and they are gradually getting better at it. What I can tell you as a plant biochemist is that plants are definitely starved for CO2, especially at high temperatures. As victims of their own success, they are designed to grow at much higher levels of CO2 both absolutely and relative to O2. Their optimal level of CO2 is on average about three times what it is today. They have evolved all sorts of complicated convoluted ways to adapt to low CO2 but if it gets any lower we could be in a heap of trouble.
The real question is how the Earth avoids uncontrollable cooling or heating like other planets, over billions of years, so from that perspective, yes we are very fortunate and so are the bacteria!
Dr. Everett V. Scott: Global atmospheric water vapor [relative humidity] ...
Yikes, but no. Relative humidity is not the same as the atmospheric content of water vapor.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: Global atmospheric water vapor [relative humidity] has been steadily decreasing for more than half a century
The reanalysis of NCEP/NCAR data shown in your chart is not suitable for determining long-range trends, especially at higher altitudes. More recent reanalyses include satellite radiance data and do not show the decline.
Dessler & Davis, Trends in tropospheric humidity from reanalysis systems, Journal of Geophysical Research 2010.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: Look closer:
Seriously? You expect to see a long-term trend in short-term data (2009-2012)?
Zachriel: There’s nothing wrong with using a zero baseline.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: Of course there is, when the chart is showing a long term trend.
A zero baseline is not a trend line, nor does it imply one.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: If “carbon” caused global warming, then the trend would show a hockey stick-like acceleration.
A hockey stick is not an exponential function, but one with a bend. You expect the trend to follow CO2, plus lag, plus forcings, plus a multitude of other factors.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: Conclusion: the rise in CO2 is not causing any measurable global warming.
As CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then it should cause greenhouse warming. The question is how much; but even with no additional forcing, it would be measurable.
Dr. Everett V. Scott, you have repeatedly ignored our argument: The surface and troposphere are warming, while the stratosphere is cooling, the signature of increased greenhouse warming.
http://www.zachriel.com/images/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
This is my last comment here. I spent 15 minutes composing, and this site unexpectedly disappeared my comment. So for any further discussion, please follow me by clicking on my name.
To re-do my comment, here is a much shortened version:
Steve D, my apologies. I did not realize you were conjuring. My misteak.
Zachriel, I used R.H., which most folks use. Yes, it refers to the partial presure of water and not specifically to how much H2O the atmosphere holds. But the two are related, and atmospheric water vapor has been declining at all altitudes for many decades. So has specific humidity [I posted a specific humidity chart from 1948 - now, which shows the same decline, but it was lost with my post].
The tropo hot spot, the "fingerprint of global warming" was quietly abandoned in favor of the latest stratosphere talking point, because the "hot spot" turned out to be imaginary:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif
Next, I added the 2009 - 2012 chart to fill in where the longer term chart stopped. I did it to show that global temps continue to decline. See?
Next, I fully agree with you that a zero baseline chart is not a trend chart. That was my entire point: a zero baseline chart creates a fictitious artifact; a hockey stick. The hockey stick shape is necessary to falsify the Null Hypothesis. But since that has failed, as is verified by the trend charts I posted [and Trenberth specifically admits the Null Hypothesis has not been falsified], then the Alternative Hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is in deep scientific trouble. If the climate Null Hypothesis is not falsified, then temperatures have not broken out of their past parameters, and therefore nothing unusual is occurring.
Finally, to be more clear than I was, the anthropogenic component [if any] of [natural] global warming is not measurable, per the scientific method. So it is a conjecture. There is no agreement on the climate sensitivity number, specifically because there is no testable, measureable evidence showing that X amount of human CO2 emissions = Y degrees of temperature change. It is all conjecture. It may well be true. But where is the testable evidence? So far, there is none. There is only the Null Hypothesis, which confirms that temperatures are completely within their past parameters – from well before CO2 began to rise.
I am clicking 'submit comment' now, with my fingers crossed.
Everett: Too bad you lost your comments. I type my comments in another word processing program and then copy and paste them into the comment box to prevent just that. But if that’s not possible, I would be happy to continue the conversation elsewhere. I find this sort of discussion fascinating.
‘the anthropogenic component [if any] of [natural] global warming is not measurable, per the scientific method. So it is a conjecture.’
Do you mean “is not measurable with the technology we have today or is not measurable in principle? The first makes it hypothesis not yet testable, the second refers to a conjecture. There is a big difference. Also a hypothesis can be tested indirectly or by proxy although that is not as compelling.
‘The surface and troposphere are warming, while the stratosphere is cooling,’
‘The tropo hot spot, the “fingerprint of global warming” was quietly abandoned in favor of the latest stratosphere talking point, because the “hot spot” turned out to be imaginary:’
The key point, I think is the stratosphere cooling chart and always has been, regardless of how long it has been recognized or stressed. Everything else Zachriel’s written and presented is essentially padding as he admits. There could be other explanations for that stuff. But the stratosphere cooling, if it is happening, suggests to me that something is holding the heat close to the earth. I don’t know whether its water vapor, or CO2 or something else.
As far as global warming itself is concerned, it surprises me that everyone seems to consider that this would be a catastrophe. I disagree. The average temperature of the earth is well below the optimal temperature for both plants AND animals, and the present CO2 levels are close to bottoming out below which there would be serious effects on plant growth, crop productivity and a host of other processes.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: I used R.H., which most folks use.
Actually, you misspoke when you equated the terms.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: Yes, it refers to the partial presure of water and not specifically to how much H2O the atmosphere holds.
Yes, and the greenhouse effect depends on the latter.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: But the two are related, and atmospheric water vapor has been declining at all altitudes for many decades.
Again, you ignored our comments, including the citation we provided. The data you are relying upon is not suitable for determining long term trends.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: The tropo hot spot, the “fingerprint of global warming” ...
The tropical tropospheric hotspot is not a signature of global warming, but a consequent of tropical surface warming and the lapse rate. The data is reasonably consistent with model projections.
Santer et al., Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, International Journal of Climatology 2008.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: There is no agreement on the climate sensitivity number, specifically because there is no testable, measureable evidence showing that X amount of human CO2 emissions = Y degrees of temperature change.
That is incorrect. Current consensus estimates are 2-5°C per doubling of CO2, with ≈3°C the most probable, though there are still significant uncertainties on the upper limit.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: But the stratosphere cooling, ...
Finally!
Dr. Everett V. Scott: But the stratosphere cooling, if it is happening, suggests to me that something is holding the heat close to the earth. I don’t know whether its water vapor, or CO2 or something else.
So, now we are in reasonable agreement that something is holding the heat close to the Earth's surface. Turns out that this is called the greenhouse effect, a natural phenomena enhanced by artificial changes to the atmosphere. Indeed, we can directly calculate the amount of greenhouse warming due to CO2 and other trace gases. So greenhouse warming of some degree is inevitable. As for how much additional water vapor will make its way into the atmosphere, we have a number of ways to estimate this climate sensitivity.
Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: The average temperature of the earth is well below the optimal temperature for both plants AND animals, and the present CO2 levels are close to bottoming out below which there would be serious effects on plant growth, crop productivity and a host of other processes.
Global warming will have a variety of effects, including rising sea levels and drying of continental interiors. Changes in agricultural patterns, desertification, and coastal flooding will dislocate millions of people, and that will create political friction and instability. Humans will certainly adapt, though there will be needless human suffering and a permanent loss of vital resources and natural inheritance.
Sorry, but the last few attributions in the previous comment should be to Steve D. The comments largely stand, except for our remark about Dr. Everett V. Scott finally responding to the observation of stratospheric cooling.
(An edit feature would be convenient.)
zachriel says:
"Current consensus estimates are 2-5°C per doubling of CO2, with ≈3°C the most probable, though there are still significant uncertainties on the upper limit."
What?! That is preposterous nonsense. Baseless conjecture. Empirical observations show conclusively that those numbers are a fantasy. Planet Earth thoroughly disagrees with that ridiculous post-normal science conjecture, and citing a mythical "consensus" is using the usual anti-science wordplay, because zachriel lacks testable, verifiable science. Thus, he falls back on the "consensus" fallacy. As I have shown [and zachriel is unable to refute], the large majority of scientists and engineers state in writing that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
When zachriel's always-wrong, model-based pal reviewed predictions are eliminated, we are left with the unequivocal fact that the rise in harmless, beneficial CO2 is not causing the predicted warming. As a matter of fact, CO2 is causing no measurable global warming at all. None. Any putative warming from CO2 is so small it is unmeasurable, and thus can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.
So who should we believe? Zachriel, who cites debunked nonsense papers that have no relation to reality? Or Planet Earth?
Honest scientists accept what Planet Earth is clearly telling us:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TEMPSvsCO2.jpg
Dr. Everett V. Scott: What?! That is preposterous nonsense. Baseless conjecture.
We've cited a number of studies, using different methodologies. In reply, you ignore the citations, and wave your hands.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: As I have shown [and zachriel is unable to refute], the large majority of scientists and engineers state in writing that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
Must have missed that citation. How many are named Steve?
Dr. Everett V. Scott: As a matter of fact, CO2 is causing no measurable global warming at all.
It would be very odd if it caused no measurable global warming as it is a greenhouse gas. How do you account for that?
‘Global warming will have a variety of effects,’
You mean like the large areas of Canada and Russia previously unfarmable because of short growing seasons that will now be opened up to agriculture? Or do you mean the rise in growth and productivity of many plant species or the increase in nitrogen fixation by nitrogen fixing bacteria, thus lowering our requirement for fertilizer? Why do you assume all changes have to be bad? Why is it, that today’s global temperature has to be ideal? Maybe it is, but I’d still like to know why.
‘political friction and instability’
Nah, we’ll still fight over religion and ideology as we always have. But at least AGW will give us another excuse.
'Current consensus estimates are 2-5°C per doubling of CO2, with ≈3°C the most probable, though there are still significant uncertainties on the upper limit'
‘That is preposterous nonsense.’
Not baseless conjecture; rather a hypothesis waiting to be tested and it will be tested by the Earth in a very few years. Long before 2100 the signs of AGW, assuming its really occurring, will be unmistakable. The things everyone is saying are happening (but aren’t yet) will happen, soon. What are the signs today?
It would be very odd if it caused no measurable global warming as it is a greenhouse gas.
I agree. The only possible reasons are 1) if we assume that we are mistaken about it being a greenhouse gas (highly unlikely) or 2) another factor, equal and opposite is counteracting its effect (no way to tell this).
‘Indeed, we can directly calculate the amount of greenhouse warming due to CO2 and other trace gases.’
The papers I’ve read which try to do this hold a lot of assumptions. Also s I’ve repeated several times even taking the 2-5%increase at face value, this is still a very broad estimate – if the young science of climatology has any of their factors wrong the range of error may actually be greater. Even as it is, the lower level seems rather beneficent while the upper level is catastrophic.
All of this also assumes that the level of CO2 will continue to increase at the rate it is today and that feedbacks will not become greater as the CO2 level increase. You might expect that.
'Current consensus estimates are 2-5°C per doubling of CO2, with ≈3°C the most probable, though there are still significant uncertainties on the upper limit'
‘That is preposterous nonsense.’
Not baseless conjecture; rather a hypothesis waiting to be tested and it will be tested by the Earth in a very few years. Long before 2100 the signs of AGW, assuming its really occurring, will be unmistakable. The things everyone is saying are happening (but aren’t) will happen. What are the signs today?
‘Indeed, we can directly calculate the amount of greenhouse warming due to CO2 and other trace gases.’
The papers I’ve read which try to do this hold a lot of assumptions. Also s I’ve repeated several times even taking the 2-5%increase at face value, this is still a very broad estimate – if the young science of climatology has any of their factors wrong the range of error may actually be greater. Even as it is, the lower level seems rather beneficent while the upper level is catastrophic.
All of this also assumes that the level of CO2 will continue to increase at the rate it is today and that feedbacks will not become greater as the CO2 level increase. You might expect that.
Steve D: You mean like the large areas of Canada and Russia previously unfarmable because of short growing seasons that will now be opened up to agriculture?
Yes, there will be winners, though the overall amount of arable land is expected to decrease due to drying in continental interiors.
Steve D: Why do you assume all changes have to be bad?
Who made that assumption? However, it will lead to human dislocation and widespread extinctions.
Steve D: Why is it, that today’s global temperature has to be ideal?
Generally, stability or slow change is preferable. It allows humans and other organisms to adapt.
‘there will be needless human suffering’
Since if it is caused by increased CO2, then we can’t stop global warming anyway ‘needless’ is not really the correct word to use here. I would use the word ‘inevitable’.
'expected to decrease due to drying in continental interiors.'
Expected? Well, increased temperature usually leads to more precipitation overall. I would suggest that some places will get more rain and some places will get less as has happened all down through history. Huge areas of the Great Plains are not farmable today unless irrigated. It’s also interesting that most great advances in human civilization coincided with increased global temperature.
However, it will lead to human dislocation and widespread extinctions.
That's just an assumption and probably an unwarranted one at least if you are arguing for more than we’ve already had. For every habitat that closes another one opens. As far as humans are concerned even if the change is relatively rapid, (say over 100 years), this still give us a LOT of time to adapt. Honestly, all this seems like the plot of a bad science fiction movie.
'Generally, stability or slow change is preferable.'
Though I agree, I question when in history we've ever had this. I strongly suspect that with or without CO2 we would not have stability for any extended period of time.
Steve D: Since if it is caused by increased CO2, then we can’t stop global warming anyway ‘needless’ is not really the correct word to use here.
Needless, as it is human-caused, and as there are plausible solutions that can still allow for robust development.
Steve D: Well, increased temperature usually leads to more precipitation overall. I would suggest that some places will get more rain and some places will get less as has happened all down through history.
That's right. Paleoclimatology shed much light. The rule-of-thumb is that dry places will become drier, wet places will become wetter. Overall precipitation is projected to increase.
Steve D: It’s also interesting that most great advances in human civilization coincided with increased global temperature.
And the decline of others. Meanwhile, the Renaissance, Hellenism, Tang, Islam, Holy Roman Empire, all rose during cooler periods.
When the world was less crowded, people could migrate, often over generations, to newly developing societies. And, of course, people suffered and died during the upheavals that inevitably accompanied the rise and fall of civilizations. That is certainly one vision of the future, though not an inevitable one.
Science allows us to foresee certain events, and quite possibly avoid them. The problem isn't scientific or technical, but political — the tragedy of the commons.
Zachriel the True Believer emits ever more globaloney nonsense: the Renaissance was not a rising new civilization, it was simply a continuation of the existing civilization. The same is true of all the others he mentioned; every one of them.
Those silly comments are getting way off-topic. This is supposed to be a discussion about "Post Normal Science"; anti-science, which is not science at all, but Sociology cloaked in a fake science veneer. Click on my name, and do a search for "Ravetz". Learn how ridiculous and unscientific PNS really is.
Comments above saying that precipitation is "projected" to do anything at all are nothing but conjecture; an opinion, with no testable data. They are conjectures that cannot make accurate predictions. Pseudo-science for the credulous, refuted by direct observation.
My own conclusions are based on testable, verifiable, empirical evidence. Real world evidence shows conclusively that the rise in CO2 has not caused any unusual global warming. Verifiable observations show that the long term rising temperature trend since the LIA has not accelerated, despite a large rise in harmless, beneficial CO2, thus falsifying the conjecture that rising CO2 will cause runaway global warming. Obviously, it has not.
When real world observations falsifiy a conjecture or hypothesis, the scientific method requires that the conjecture or hypothesis must be rejected, or altered sufficiently to account for the fact that its conclusions have been falsified through observation. But with the CO2=CAGW conjecture, that is never done. Thus, the True Believers in that falsified conjecture have willingly jettisoned the scientific method, and entered the realm of PNS. They have become the equivalent of Scientologists, proselytizing their new anti-science religion. They are the new Jehovah's Witnesses, repeatedly predicting the end of the world. But when the world does not end on the predicted date, they simply move the goal posts, and re-predict. As Leon Festinger showed, their failed predictions only make their belief system stronger.
Wake me when pal-reviewed, grant trolling papers can make verifiable, consistent predictions, without using weasel words like 'could', 'might', 'projected', 'robust', 'expected', and 'may'. Because they have never yet been able to make consistent, accurate predictions. The world's most expensive GCM computer models have failed to predict the past 15 years of flat to declining global temperatures. Every one of them failed miserably. It is past time to admit what everyone knows: the CO2=CAGW conjecture has been repeatedly falsified. Therefore, it is wrong.
CO2 may have a small effect. But based on verified empirical observations, any effect is simply too minuscule to measure. But the True Believer crowd cannot accept that apostasy, therefore they fall back on their pseudo-science religion of Post Normal 'Science'.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: CO2 may have a small effect. But based on verified empirical observations, any effect is simply too minuscule to measure.
That would be very odd as we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with a measurable effect. How do you explain the discrepancy?
The warming troposphere coupled with the cooling stratosphere seems to be direct evidence of an increasing greenhouse effect. How do you explain that?
Dr. Everett V. Scott: Those silly comments are getting way off-topic. This is supposed to be a discussion about “Post Normal Science”; anti-science, which is not science at all, but Sociology cloaked in a fake science veneer.
If you were speaking generally, then perhaps we would be off-topic, but you specifically claimed that climate science was 'post-normal science'. We have shown that there is significant evidence supporting climate science, but we would be happy to read your replies to the questions in our previous comment.
zachriel,
Since you are asking for a specific reply, I will point out that as a scientific skeptic [the only honest kind of scientist], I do not have the onus of "explaining" discrepancies or anything else, but only of pointing them out. I question assertions based on verifiable evidence. Understand that skeptics have nothing to prove. The AGW conjecture must withstand all attacks if it is to be accepted as valid. But as we routinely see, it does not.
And please use 'evidence' properly. In science, 'evidence' is testable data. It is not peer reviewed papers or computer models. And there is no evidence showing that the small fraction of CO2 that is human-emitted causes any measurable global temperature rise. It may have an effect too small to be measurable, but where is the testable evidence? Answer: there isn't any. AGW is an evidence-free conjecture.
Dr. Everett Scott: Understand that skeptics have nothing to prove.
But you made an empirical claim, that "CO2 may have a small effect. But based on verified empirical observations, any effect is simply too minuscule to measure."
Dr. Everett Scott: And there is no evidence showing that the small fraction of CO2 that is human-emitted causes any measurable global temperature rise.
You just repeated your claim. So we ask again, That would be very odd as we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with a measurable effect. How do you explain the discrepancy?
Dr. Everett Scott: AGW is an evidence-free conjecture.
And again, we will point to evidence. The warming troposphere coupled with the cooling stratosphere seems to be direct evidence of an increasing greenhouse effect. How do you explain that?
zachriel,
You're losing the debate. I made a statement, which you can falsify by simply providing direct, empirical, testable evidence, per the scientific method, showing that human CO2 emissions are raising global temperatures. Quantify the effect by showing that X human emissions cause Y rise in temperature. If you can do that, you will be the first, and on the short list for the Nobel prize.
Here is another testable hypothesis that is falsifiable per the scientific method:
"At current and projected levels, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere."
Have at it. It is another hypothesis that has never been falsified. Give it your best shot — and remember: per the scientific method. Testable and verifiable data only, no computer models or appeals to authority. Good luck.
Next, you say, "CO2 is a greenhouse gas with a measurable effect."
We are discussing human CO2 emissions, so try to provide data from verifiable empirical measurements, showing exactly how much global warming results from each molecule of human CO2 emissions. Once again, you will be the first, if you can show the answer to that per the scientific method [and note that if there was a verifiable answer, the question of climate sensitivity would be definitively answered, instead of being incessantly debated from 0.00ºC, to 0.5ºC, to ±1ºC, to the UN/IPCC's ridiculous 3º+].
Finally, it has been shown via direct empirical measurements from radiosonde balloons and satellites that the models of tropospheric warming are exaggerated [ie:wrong] by some 400%:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/mckitrick-models-observations-rss-msu-uah-radiosondes-flat.jpg
The models are wrong, therefore the AGW conjecture is falsified. But I'm sure that will not alter your logic-proof religious belief system. Based on the scientific method, you have already lost the debate. That's what happens when you mix pseudo-science with cognitive dissonance. The Jehovah's Witnesses are still predicting the end of the world, and you are still predicting runaway global warming. Same-same.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: Next, you say, “CO2 is a greenhouse gas with a measurable effect.” We are discussing human CO2 emissions, so try to provide data from verifiable empirical measurements, showing exactly how much global warming results from each molecule of human CO2 emissions.
Turns out that anthropogenic CO2 is also a greenhouse gas. Are you arguing otherwise?
The radiative forcing for a given gas is determined by measuring the amount of energy absorbed by the greenhouse gas, over a given pathlength and density, then integrated for the atmospheric column.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: The models are wrong, therefore the AGW conjecture is falsified.
Well, no. It would show that the particular model is wrong (in this case, your strawman model), but not anthropogenic warming in general.
Dr. Everett V. Scott: I made a statement, ...
You made a claim and have repeatedly refused to support it.
'Needless, as it is human-caused, and as there are plausible solutions that can still allow for robust development.
Well I guess I have to agree with that. There is one. It's called nuclear energy!
‘cooling stratosphere seems to be direct evidence of an increasing greenhouse effect.’
That seems a reasonable statement. It says nothing of the magnitude of the effect, though, especially compared to other factors.
'an increasing greenhouse effect'
Actually come to think of it, the stratosphere cooling you showed was evidence of a greenhouse effect, but doesn't speak to whether it is increasing, decreasing or remaining constant.
Steve D: Actually come to think of it, the stratosphere cooling you showed was evidence of a greenhouse effect, but doesn’t speak to whether it is increasing, decreasing or remaining constant.
A cooler than expected stratosphere accompanied by a warmer than expected troposphere is an indication of the greenhouse effect. A cooling stratosphere accompanied by a warming troposphere is an indication of an increasing greenhouse effect.
zachriel,
You have lost the debate, so I'll give you the last word as a consolation prize. Incurable cognitive dissonance is impossible to debate. Therefore I'll move on, with this final reminder: I am a scientific skeptic [the only honest kind of scientist]. As a skeptic of CO2=AGW [and the even more preposterous CO2=CAGW conjecture], I have nothing to prove.
The burden is completely on those pushing the unproven conjecture that CO2=AGW: Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. – 'The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof'. Climate alarmists demand that the Scientific Method must be turned on its head, so that skeptics must prove a negative. That is not science, that is alarmist anti-science. It is to science as astrology is to astronomy. Pseudo-science to real science.
As to the conjecture that CO2 produced by human combustion of fossil fuels is causing “unprecedented” global warming: the onus lies on those who say so. As to the conjecture that there has been an alarming late 20th century spike in global temperatures: the onus lies on those who say so. I have shown conclusively upthread that the long term temperature trend remains within its long term parameters. There is no alarming spike in temperatures; that is a fictional artifact of a zero baseline chart. The long-term temperature trend remains unchanged over the last several hundred years, with no acceleration, despite a large increase in [harmless, beneficial] CO2. Only the alarmist crowd erroneously believes otherwise, in the face of verifiable evidence.
CO2=CAGW is simply a baseless scare story. There is zero real world evidence supporting it. Michael Mann and the rest of the money grubbing climate charlatans hide out from any open, public debate of the issue for only one reason: they cannot support their claims. Every public, moderated debate they have engaged in, they have lost. Now, they will no longer debate.
Honest scientists know that if you truly believe in your ideas, you will not be afraid to defend them. Mann is afraid to publicly defend his false conjectures. He hides out in his ivory tower, and he will never appear anywhere unless the venue is tightly scripted, with all questions pre-approved. Astonishingly, Mann was allowed to attend pre-"investigation" meetings at UoP, where he was allowed to help formulate the questions he was to be asked! The same school that protected the child molester Sandusky protected Mann, and for the same reason: they both brought the university lots of money.
Mann is a complete fraud, followed by True Believer acolytes who are incapable of falsifying the simple, testable hypothesis that CO2, at current and projected concentrations, is harmless and beneficial to the biosphere. There is no downside; more CO2 is better. That hypothesis has never been falsified. And as MIT's Prof Richard Lindzen comments:
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
As for models, they cannot predict anything. Even the UN/IPCC admits to that fact:
“In climate research and modeling we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Models are not evidence; they are programmed opinion. GIGO: Garbage In, Gospel Out. Take away the always-inaccurate models, and what we are left with is real world evidence: nothing outside of past parameters is occurring. The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified, showing that everything currently observed has happened before.
We are fortunate to be living in a truly "Goldilocks climate". Not too cold, not too hot, but just right. The entirely natural and extremely minor fluctuation in global temperature, from 288.0K to 288.8K over a century and a half, is unusual in its lack of change, showing that the 40% rise in harmless, beneficial CO2 has made no observable difference. Prior to the industrial revolution, global temperatures have changed by tens of degrees on very short, decadal time scales – naturally. CO2 had nothing to do with those huge temperature swings, and there is no evidence that CO2 has anything to do with the mild, 0.8ºC rise over the past 150 years.
The explanation for all the red faced, spittle-flecked, wild eyed claims of climate doom and disruption is very easy to explain:
"Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple."
- Kary Mullis, Winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry
When honest scientists look at empirical, testable facts, it becomes clear that the whole lunatic CAGW scare is baseless nonsense. It is motivated by the $7 – $8 BILLION that is shoveled into "climate studies" every year by the federal government. That is an enormous amount of money, and it produces enormous corruption, and scare stories – all of them imaginary. Because no one is going to get a grant for telling the truth: that nothing unusual is happening. The ones who get paid are the purveyors of climate alarmism. And it is a false alarm. They are lying for easy money.
If CO2 has any effect, it is too small to measure. Further, rises in CO2 always follow rises in temperature on all time scales, from months to hundreds of millennia. As the ocean naturally continues to recover from the LIA, CO2 outgases the same way that CO2 outgases from a warming Coke. It is that simple.
CO2=CAGW is the scam of the century. That is why the alarmist crowd is terrified of publicly debating it, and why countries like China are always given a free pass – if they are mentioned at all. "Runaway global warming" is being debunked by the planet itself: Fifteen years of flat to declining global temperatures, as measured directly by several different satellites and daily radiosonde balloons verify the lack of global warming. And as harmless, beneficial CO2 continues to rise, the earth is measurably greening.
Wake me when that fictional runaway global warming appears. Because I know a scam when I see one, and CO2=CAGW is a real scam, pushed by credulous religious fools following self-serving grant hogs with both front feet in the public trough, who ignore the Scientific Method in order to line their pockets at the expense of already hard-bitten taxpayers. Elmer Gantry would be jealous.
'A cooler than expected stratosphere accompanied by a warmer than expected troposphere is an indication of the greenhouse effect. A cooling stratosphere accompanied by a warming troposphere is an indication of an increasing greenhouse effect.'
Agreed. But there is no indication from your data that this phenomenon is in anyway abnormal or accelerating. Even if aerosols are masking the effect of stratospheric cooling, that makes it impossible for us to determine the level of the effect without out making certain unverified assumptions about the aerosol effect, which once again leads us back to the area of speculation. You have at least two phenomena working against each other BTW, (aerosols and CO2) making it tremendously difficult to tease them apart. In reality there are a lot more than just these two phenomena, increasing the complexity of the system exponentially. The issues are both the number of related phenomenon and their complex interactions. (So for example of this from biology, I cite cases where two genes with a positive effect on a physiological trait, working together have an unexpected negative effect on that trait and so on. The complexity is at such a level that predictions from models are mostly useless – and biology is a much older science than climatology)
More basically the question is not just how the phenomenon force climate change but how they affect each other.
The theory of AGW is internally consistent, That’s a start. But that’s only one of many criteria for the theoretical side of science. There are many problems at every level the most obvious being that a large number of assumptions which are made, and their interactions each increasing the overall error beyond the point of usefulness.
I keep going back to the 2-5 degrees range you continue to tout. Because that’s already huge as stated, and I suspect actually much narrower than it really would be, if you seriously considered every variable.
‘The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies.
Maybe in the movies, but this is not really the way science works in practice. Because when you deny something you are in fact affirming that one of the alternate possibilities must be true. (A positive statement) In reality it’s more of a balance. For example, consider the case where three people (A, B and C) live on an island and there is no possibility of anyone leaving or reaching the island. One of these three (let’s say C) is brutally murdered by human hands, this means that there are only two possibilities for the murderer. If I say A did it, and you say I don’t believe that, you are stating affirmatively that you believe B was the murderer. So your negative statement requires proof as much as my positive statement.
In the case of climate change you have the right to be skeptical but if you deny this completely you are still required to offer an alternative explanation for why the stratospheric cooling or at least challenge that data.
The data taken together do not seem to indicate an alarming upsurge in global temperature but they do indicate some degree of AGW.
‘There is no downside; more CO2 is better.’
Or not, who knows? Our mitochondria might disagree someday.
‘As for models, they cannot predict anything. Even the UN/IPCC admits to that fact’
Personally, I take everything the IPCC says with a grain of salt, even when they argue against themselves.
‘Goldilocks climate’
Maybe, but the average temperature of the earth is too low to support most crops. Warmer does seem better to me, provided it doesn’t happen too quickly, doesn’t melt the poles completely, etc.
‘Because no one is going to get a grant for telling the truth: that nothing unusual is happening.’
Honestly, it’s difficult to even publish a paper in science, saying that nothing unusual is happening. That’s a problem with all of science, I think. Negative or neutral results are BORING.
‘Wake me when that fictional runaway global warming appears.’
Well, we should find out in a few years for sure, like I said. If true, the recent (15 year) stable global temperatures should begin to rise precipitously by 2025 at the very latest. So, set your alarm clock!
Dr. Everett V. Scott: I have nothing to prove.
That's right. The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is found in scientific journals. We touched on one line of evidence, which you have ignored. You are only responsible for supporting your own claims, which you have refused to do.