Anthony Watts recently posted an interesting observation: The seasonally adjusted CO2 concentration measured at Manau Loa dropped two months in a row. He illustrated this with a graphic available at NOAA which shows a two month drop in the seasonally adjusted values of CO2. Needless to say, “some”, have jumped all over this complaining that:
Yet some are making a big deal out of a single month’s drop in seasonally adjusted CO2 concentration, one which turns out not to be at all unusual. Some have made a big deal of the fact that CO2 concentration is rising linearly while emissions are increasing — when in fact the rise is most certainly not linear.
“Some” have suggested this? Who? I may need a category for post starting with “Erhmm…”.
I previously noted that a blogger who has taken on the form of a Bulldog “rebutted” my falsification of the IPCC AR4 prediction of 2 C/century warming for the early decades of 2000. How? by performing a entirely irrelevant data comparison between IPCC TAR predictions of lesser warming during the decades beginning in 1990 (a different time frame). Needless to say, I couldn’t fail to notice that this blogger’s most recent “rebuttal” post rebuts something no-one appears to have suggested.
Yes, today, on April 8th, figures, curvefits, fancy filters show that the one month drop in CO2, while fairly large, is not sufficiently large to be “remarkable”.
Why would anyone rebut the non-existent claim about the one month drop, without citing anyone who has suggested any such thing? Well, not citing or linking is a good way to prevent readers from discovering there is no such claim. It is rather well known that rebutting the unmade claim that is vaguely similar to something made by a widely read blogger is generally easier than addressing arguments anyone actually made. In this case, the “one month” claim might seem vaguely related to the contents of an article Anthony Watts actually posted, which simply shows some data which happens to include a two month drop in the detrended (i.e. seasonally adjusted) values.
It turns out the two month drop in the detrended values represents a record drop. See the circled points in the figure below?
So, I bet you are wondering how I know Anthony, posted only because the two month drop struck him? Well, because responding in comments on April 4th — well before the “rebuttal” appeared, Anthony said:
I looked at 2004 also, but this seems a little bit different. 2004 has one month of drop, this has two, with a larger effect on the running mean. Though, part of that could be an endpoint effect of the data.
I don’t know what other people think, but I consider something that happens onces ever 150 times is fairly remarkable– that is, worthy of making a remark as Anthony did.
Does a two month drop this large mean the relentless climb in CO2 has leveled off? Does it mean much about climate change? Who knows? I think most would suggest it’s premature to declare the rate of rise ended. As Anthony Watts observed:
It will be interesting to see in the coming months what happens globally,. . .
Yes. It will be interesting.
Records do get broken, and unusual, even remarkable things happen. This ties for the record drop set back in the 60’s. The current drop may be due to the cool seas associated with La Nina, in which case, CO2 will rise when the next El Nino occurs. Or, the current drop may be instrument error; NOAA’s web page tells us that we should wait for post-calibration before taking recent data as gospel.
In any case, we are still emitting carbon at a significant clip; so the CO2 will likely resume rising as it has in the past. If so, this will simply be a blip.
The event is nevertheless worthy of remarking. I’m sure we’ll all be watching for next month’s data and also checking the data after NOAA runs its normal post-calibrations..
References
1. Data from NOAA. My chart is created by subtracting two month lagged values of CO2 in the “detrended” column, which represents seasonally adjusted values.
Erhmm……CO2 levels did not drop at Mauna Loa (they continue to climb): Anthony was careful to note that. It was the rate of increase of CO2 levels that dropped (from that expected from previous years’ data…
How not to post on a blog?
Arch Stanton– the detrended values dropped. NOAA does the detrending themselves. I’ll clarify that, as I was using sloppy terminology. 🙂
Here’s a plot of the NOOA values, showing both the seasonally adjusted and actual values:
The full values have an annual cyclic variation, NOOA subtracts the cyclicity to better detect the underlying trend. It is the seasonally adjusted values that dropped.
Thank you for correcting that.
Arch–
Thanks for pointing it out and you’re welcome!
Lucia,
“a blogger who has taken on the form of a Bulldog”
That’s priceless!!
What I found interesting was that while Mona Loa dropped the global monthly mean chart did not show the same drop. Mona Loa has been spoken of as a “gold standard” for CO2 and this difference brings that into question (i.e. some local effects influence Mona Loa).
BarryW,
Yes, that was interesting. Obviously, this is going to cause a lot of speculation and remarking for a while. As more data comes in, we’ll have a better basis for filtering which speculative notions are more plausible.
I don’t know the instrument history with regard to updates after post calibration. So, I can’t guess whether or not my thought “might be mis-calibration” is plausible. But, when you get an outlyer like this and it is an outlyer, any experimentalist worth her salt would admit the measurement is remarkable, remark on it, and check the calibration.
Still, in a little while we’ll know whether it’s good data, and whether or not the dip holds.
Watts says:
Wherein he provides a link to Roy Spencer suggesting that the CO2 rise could be natural–i.e., from the oceans. So it appears Watts wants to use this blip in the data to argue that the CO2 rise is natural? Or at least suggest it? This is worthy of ridicule from all sides, one would hope.
Boris April 8th says:
“Wherein he provides a link to Roy Spencer suggesting that the CO2 rise could be natural–i.e., from the oceans. So it appears Watts wants to use this blip in the data to argue that the CO2 rise is natural? Or at least suggest it? This is worthy of ridicule from all sides, one would hope.”
He said that the drop “supports the notion of the ocean’s importance in CO2 trends“. That is hardly a claim that the CO2 rise is entirely natural.
I don’t understand why warmers are so fixed on absolutist arguments (i.e. *all* the temperature/CO2 rise *must* be due to humans and anyone who suggests that *some* of the temperature/CO2 may be due to natural causes is treated as a blasphemer).
Boris–
I’ve read your comment several times, and it appears you suggest Watts should be ridiculed for an argument he didn’t make, but which you suggest one might think he made based on a link to a very long article. Surely that’s not what you wish us to think you are saying. Could you please clarify?
Lucia, It’s funny. I have said many nasty things to Tammy. He let them all through
SAVE ONE. it went something like this. First he lost to a miner ( McIntyre), then he lost to a girl ( Lucia)
and now he’s whining about the weather guy.
Oh, someone sent me a private email to read the discussion over there. Evidently, Tamino thinks I’m crowing about the dip.
I suspect it doesn’t register with him that my criticism is: He is arguing a strawman for no good reason!
Why did in the heck did Tamino suggest that “some” are suggesting a one month dip is remarkable and then “disprove” that? No one has suggested that. For what it’s worth, Anthony’s remarks about the whole thing were rather mild. He showed the result is limited to the local measurements and not the global ones, and Anthony says wait and see. So, why did Tamino build his own strawman to knock down? And why did he resort to a similar strawman ploy earlier? Will he do it again?
Of course, the irony is that if you examine the two month trend, it is a record. Who’d a thunk? But there you go. I wouldn’t have looked at that if Tamino hadn’t made up the fake argument to serve as a foil to his ‘counter’ argument!
More substantively, I said in my article and in comments:
Yep. With regard to the dip: It’s big. Might be instrument error.
Ain’t that crowing about a dip. 🙂
Seems like you might be building a strawman of your own Lucia. Watt’s original post makes no mention of a two month drop in the seasonally adjusted values. His later comment falls a long way short of showing that ” Anthony, posted only because the two month drop struck him?” and merely says that he had looked at the 2004 drop. If Watt was truly trying to highlight the significance of a two month drop wouldn’t he have – erhmm – mentioned it in his orignal post?
He is saying that the blip supports Roy Spencer’s argument. Remember, this is an argument that he posted and defended on his blog. He also had another unfortunate post on the subject, so it’s an argument he’s kicked around quite a lot.
He is incubating the mistaken notion (shared apparently by Raven) that all or some of the CO2 rise could be natural. This is certainly worthy of ridicule.
Kevin–
Watts was discussing a drop generically in his post. However, he was specifically asked, and said he only thought it remarkable because of the two month period. The one month drop was clearly not enough for him to post.
Boris–
I don’t see how you can claim Watts is telling us that all the CO2 rise is natural. The most I read in what he says is that the ocean is involved in CO2 uptake and release. That happens to be a fact, and is not controversial.
Yes, if this blip deepends or is sustained, that will tend to suggest the ocean’s influence is more important that thought before. That is speculation, but scientists speculate all the time. And speculation will always be either “it’s more important than we thought” or “it’s less important than we thought.”
If you have an argument with Raven’s idea that some of the rise could be due to the ocean, argue with her. In the process, you might learn why she thinks it and explain why she is wrong. (Heck, you might even convince her.)
I have no idea how much her “some” might be, or what the basis of her opinion is. But whatever Raven’s opinions may be, they are hardly a reason to ridicule Watts’. And if you wish to convince people you can support your own opinions, it would be better to explain why you hold them rather than suggesting the ‘path to truth’ is to attribute to them claims they do not make and then hold them up to ridicule for saying things they did not say.
Lucia,
You completely ignore Watts’ connection of the blip to Roy Spencer’s guest post. You are correct that if Watts was simply saying “the ocean is important wrt to atmospheric CO2” it would be wholly uncontroversial. However, he is using to push a bogus argument, to sow doubt where there is none.
Boris says:
Temperatures go up – so do CO2 levels in the atmosphere. This is a fact that is well established in the historical record and hardly controversial. More importantly, the planet seems to be consistently absorbing about 1/2 of whatever humans emit and it is not clear to anyone why the planet seems to respond to human emissions in such a consistent way. When someone explains that then you might have a point. Until then, speculating that natural processes might be responsible for a portion of the CO2 levels is perfectly reasonable.
No, Raven. It’s absurd. You propose that because the ocean and biosphere are absorbing half of the anthropogenic CO2 that some of the atmospheric CO2 could be natural. That defies logic. There’s a big difference between understanding exactly how sinks work and understanding where the carbon is coming from.
Boris–
I’m not ignoring the link. Watts wrote a post remarking on a recent drop in CO2. His remarks were not “oh, look at this one month drop”. But, for some reason, Tamino decided to rebut that claim, attributing it to “some”. Joe’s post at Icecap, also do not make a big deal out of a one month drop.
Lately, Tamino appears to be doing little more than trying to find holes in Anthony’s post. In my opinion, the majority of his posts fall far from the mark because he either posts a counter argument to something no-one claimed or does something almost entirely irrelevant. Generally, the posts aren’t worth reading (which may explain why Alexa.com indicates his readership has always been low). Discussing why the are wrong involves describing statistical concepts that, while simple and well understood, will elude many readers.
But, in this particularly case it’s somewhat worth commenting on because even those who don’t understand statistics do understand that
a) attributing a fake claim to someone (or just the nearly anonymous “some”) and
b) then showing the fake claim no-one ever advanced is incorrect
is a silly rhetorical trick. In this case, it was done so transparently even those who dropped out of school in 8th grade can see the ploy.
It is odd that you wish to try to divert the conversation in this post to theorizing what Anthony might have meant by posting a link to Roy Spender in that article, or permitting Roy Spenxer to guest post. And after advancing yourtheory of what Anthony might mean (but never said) you want to explain why what he didn’t say would be wrong!
I don’t know why I should even address this diversion. But, for what it’s worth, this is my opinion on Anthony’s blog: Anthony blogs regularly. He invites guest posters. I assume, like any good radio or talk show host, he invites people who have interesting ideas. This does not mean he is always in 100% agreement with them. There may be overlap, but we should judge that overlap by what Anthony actually says.
Presumably if Watts believes or says what you insist he must believe, you could find examples, show us Anthony said them and rebut what Anthony actually said. Otherwise, as far as I can tell, with regard to the scientific issues, your gripe is with Roy Spencer.
My advice to you: If you have a scientific gripe with Roy, get a blog. Write a post. Explain: 1) What Roy said (use quotes and links). 2) Explain why it’s wrong.
But coming here and suggesting that the appropriate method of rebutting some notion Roy may have is to ridicule Anthony is not going to convince anyone that you have any special insight into the truth.
Clearly ocean temps have some influence, but it can’t be very much in the short term. SSTs have been heading flat or down over several years when aggregation of CO2 continued. I don’t think Watts meant much more than that there seem to be some influence, and Lucia is right about the strawman (SOME influence is what the IPCC tells us as well).
More interesting would be to dig further, e.g. do we have data over rainfall and cloudiness to see if that correlates with local fluctuations of CO2 in well placed spots such a Mauna Loa?
I suppose people allow guest posts on their blog because they disagree with them?
At the the very least can we agree that Watts is spreading the junk theories of Spencer to a wide audience without ever mentioning that the theories are junk or linking to rebuttals? This is the core issue with “skeptics” like Watts who will throw anything at the wall hoping something will stick. How can you defend this?
I’m not diverting, BTW. Your claim that Watts was simply “making a remark” is not accurate since he connects the drop to Spencer’s argument.
Boris–
You pose the apparently rhetorical question:
But, I already said:
Presumably, Anthony agrees with some things Roy says. However, you seem insist he must be in 100% agreement, and then want to “rebutt” things he never says. As I suggested, to figure out the overlap in Anthony’s ideas and those of his guest posters:
So what if he connects the remark to Roy Spencer’s post? Anthony also uses words in the paragraph containing the link. Those words were:
So, in terms of overlap– Anthony would appear to accept the idea that the oceans are important. Spencer’s guest post is rather brief. Why it bothers you that Anthony might agree that the oceans matter (a point that is not controversial) and also speculate that current blip would support that notion the oceans have enough of an impact to cause a blip mystified me.
I think you should drop all your “guilt by association” arguments, realize that, if you are correct (and you likely are) the blip will reverse in a month or two.
If the blip reverses– which I expect — the statement that the oceans are important will still true. People believed that before the blip, and they will believe that after. But, if it’s reversed, people interpret the resumption of the CO2 climb as fairly strong counter evidence to Roy’s idea that the PDO matters a lot. Rather, people may conclude that the influence of the ocean is enough to create “blips” at the time of the PDO switch but that, afterwards, the climb resumes.
I should think, in this circumstance, you would be happy the blip is brought to people’s attention. That way, when it reverses– as you insist it must– you will be able to point out that the CO2 continued to increase despite the PDO switch!
Do you agree that Watts is spreading false theories like Spencer’s?
Boris says:
“No, Raven. It’s absurd. You propose that because the ocean and biosphere are absorbing half of the anthropogenic CO2 that some of the atmospheric CO2 could be natural. That defies logic. There’s a big difference between understanding exactly how sinks work and understanding where the carbon is coming from.”
The sinks are not passive and are responding to the amount of human CO2 put in the air. This implies that a very complex feedback mechanism is at work and we cannot exclude the possibility that CO2 would continue to rise even if humans stopped emitting CO2. A control system which manages the level of water in a tank would respond to extra water added to the system by increasing the outflow. If the incoming water flow was halted the control system with reduce the outflow accordingly resulting in the same system behavoir.
You could argue that such a mechanism is unlikely, however, you are not arguing that. You are trying to argue that the idea is so absurd that it should not even be discussed. IMV, such an attitude is a recipe for ignorance and is worthy of ridicule.
You know what, before you call someone ignorant, get your arguments straight. You said:
It isn’t reasonable at all given even a partial understanding of the evidence. Changing the subject to water tanks or what would happen if humans stopped emitting doesn’t make this argument–your argument–any less ignorant.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160
Lucia assumes her admin form and says: Boris. Counter arguments like “your argument is ignorant” are not permitted.
Boris:
Boris: What is the point of a question like that? Frankly, it has no answer because I don’t even precisely what either “yes” or “no” would mean.
By “spreading a theory” do you mean mentioning a theory exists? And which false theory are are worried about? And what would be wrong with mentioning a theory exists?
As far as I can see, Anthony mentioned that Roy Spencer has a theory about CO2 and ocean surface temperature. He let Roy describe the theory here.
Comments were open, and readers who think it is true or false have an opportunity to express their opinion. Bloggers may also respond with posts. (I have no idea if anyone did.)
If you believe that theory is false, I should think you could say so and explain what’s wrong with it rather than attacking Anthony for posting it insisting other attack him.
If you think the theory is false, you might thank Anthony for posting it and permitting Roy to explain it as best he can. That gives you the opportunity to explain what’s wrong with the theory– preferably using evidence, math, scientific principles and logic. That’s actually the way science ( and history, philosophy and etc. work.)
But, evidently, your argument is Anthony should be vilified for posting something. (Likely this theory). Your comments tend display these traits:
You don’t specifically state the theory you consider false,
you don’t provide any counter evidence to that theory,
You ask vague rhetorical questions about our opinions regarding these unspecific theories and
You suggest mocking and ridicule as the correct response to things you don’t like.
I think your approach is fine if you want to sit in echo chambers or preach to choirs. But, otherwise, it’s pretty pointless. At a certain point, you will find people just ignore you.
Boris says:
I gave you a concrete example of a system that behaves in a way that explains the current observations wrt CO2 yet would result in a natural increase in CO2 no matter what humans do. The example was salient and supported my original claim that a certain portion of the CO2 increase could be due to natural processes.
Your absolute refusal to consider the *possibility* that the natural system could be contributing to the increase in CO2 is quite disturbing.
Your throw around the word ignorant a lot, however, it is pretty obvious that you feel that ignorance is an admirable state of being provided that ignorance leds one to support the warmer’s version of reality.Taking on admin form: I guess I wasn’t quick enough discouraging arguments about which side or who is more ignorant. I’m going to go off and add “ignorant” to my spam filter!
Raven,
Given the evidence, your supposition is impossible. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the evidence. I gave you a link. Follow it and learn.
Lucia,
You linked to Roy Spencer’s theory and you still don’t know what I’m talking about? It’s the theory I’ve mentioned several times, that the recent CO2 could be coming from the oceans.
Watts spreads false theories. Tons of them, including Spencer’s theory that some or all CO2 could be coming from the oceans. Including his laughable analysis of solar correlation to temperature (did you miss Hanson’s Bulldog’s post on that one?) Watts has made it his mission to spread misinformation, to leave dubious posts uncorrected, and to engage in analysis so shoddy it should be an embarrassment to the skeptics.
I don’t know what else to say. Apparently you think Watts is providing some service by spreading false theories and we should be thanking him for doing so. I disagree. People who spread false theories should be pilloried by those on both sides, whether the theories are about global warming, HIV and AIDS, childhood vaccinations or evolution.
They do not need defending, as you have done here.
Boris:
Are you confirming that I have identified the theory? My point is: You don’t link them or describe them. Then you insist I answer questions about this paper which you will not name or link. (FWIW, this link is not the post Anthony linked in the article I discussed in my blog post! So, you really truly, are being vague. Anthony linked to a much briefer article that included a few graphics . )
Did I read Tamino’s post? I rarely read Tamino’s post in detail; when I do I skim. Based on his low traffic rankings at Alexa.com it appear that few others do either.
I think posting theories with all their warts is a good thing. This permits those who think they are incorrect to link, quote and post specific rebuttals. If the rebuttals are sound, and clearly aimed at the incorrect theory, that improves everyone’s understanding.
If you think otherwise, we simply disagree.
Boris,
I found Roy Spencer’s musings on the topic and Ferdinand Engelbeen’s responses far more informative than anything posted on realclimate.
For what its worth I suspect that human emissions are the primary source of the CO2 increase in the atomosphere. However, I will not consider the science settled until there is some reasonable explaination for the feedback mechanisms that suck up 1/2 of the human emissions.
I find your attempts to smear Anthony because of this issue to be particularily odious and completely unjustified given the incomplete knowledge of the CO2 cycle that we have today.
Please. Watts spreads dozens of false theories and conducts poor and misleading analysis, all of which would lead one to suspect that AGW is untrue. His blog is a vehicle for misinformation on climate studies.
Lucia,
Perhaps you should read tamino’s post on Watts’ solar cycle nonsense:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-3/
Boris says:
Gee. I would say that description applies more to realclimate which has:
1) Repeately defended the indefensible MBH98
2) Completely misrepesented the Douglass and Christy analysis of the tropospheric trends
3) Bizarrely claimed that the milkway is a two armed galaxy and used that strawman to attack Dr. Shaviv and CR theory.
And those are just the most recent examples of misinformation from realclimate.
Tamino is not much better.
Unlike realclimate and Tamino, Anthony actually responds to critics and has promised another post on the solar-climate link that addresses the issues raised. He even offered a critic a chance to make a guest post on his blog which was ungraciously turned down. Personally, I did not find the solar analysis compelling but I don’t see any reason to get exercised about it. I thought the dicussion the post provoked was more interesting than the original piece.
It seems to me that unknown to them, Tamino, Boris, RC etc are the skeptics best allies. Please do not censor or remove them from any posts. Also I predict NASA GISS data will also turn out to be of great support to the skeptics LOL
Whatever it is Mr. Watts believes in, I find this characterization of his site to be rather untrue.
The Surface Stations exercise, for one thing, will end up being one of the most valuble contributions to science we’ve seen in awhile.
Boris: I skimmed the post you recommend; my impression of that post hasn’t changed. I don’t feel any need to say more.
Look as far as the solar connection goes:
I think Basil is unlikely to find a strong connection with the 11 year solar cycle primarily because I think weather variability would be large even if there were no variations in solar energy, no volcanism or anything. The volcanic eruptions also result in big jolts.
I think Basil and Anthony aren’t going to find what they are looking for, or if they do, it’s going to be difficult to prove and the connection will explain only a small amount of variability. I don’t think they have proved the connection yet.
That’s my entire opinion on the solar connection matter. I also think that’s about all the criticism required of their work so far.
But having criticized them, I also have to say: as far as I’m concerned they are free to do it. They are free to ask people for help, opinions information. The web exists, and I applaud them for communicating with their growing collection of friends. Also, if I am finding their musings interesting. Basil does have a habit of naming techiques, which lets me look them up and do some reading. I find this beneficial even if I think some of their speculations will pann out.
And yes: I am all for letting them post. I’m for openness, freedom of speech and all that. For that matter, I’m glad the US Supreme Court ruled that Nazi’s could march in Skokie, I think Americans should be permitted to burn flags, express all their political views and beliefs freely.
So, despite your recent escalation to word bombs like “HIV and AIDS, childhood vaccinations or evolution”, I heartily endorse Anthony and Basil’s decision to post their ideas about solar cycles on Anthony’s blog. I endorse Anthony’s decision to let people air theories.
Hey, if Tamino wants to turn his blog into a blog about “What I think of Watts’s posts”, he can do that too!
But stop trying to force me to waste my time reading that stuff. Surely, if there is somethign valuable in a post, you can summarize the main points in your own words!
Posting with warts. shouldnt there be a compound W for bloggers.
The only errors that dont get corrected are the ones published by the team.
Even non scientists on the team get a pass.
GORE: the residents of Tuvla are evacuating.
GAVIN: errr, this is a perhaps a mistake in verb tense
I said Watts should be ridiculed and exposed, not silenced. I think defending Watts or having a partnership of sorts with him (as Steve McIntyre does) is not good for one’s scientific reputation.
Boris:
Do as you wish. But don’t expect others to join you or admire your desire to ridicule. And if someone worries about their own scientific reputation will be harmed because they don’t join you in ridiculing others, I will respond with the title of Feynmans book:”What Do You Care What Other People Think?”
Now for assorted quotes:
From “What Do You Care What Other People Think? (1988)” by Feynman.
Feynman, from a lecture “What is and What Should be the Role of Scientific Culture in Modern Society”, given at the Galileo Symposium in Italy, 1964.
Feynman
Feynman, from The Pleasure of Finding Things Out (1999)
I prefer to avoid ridiculing those who express doubt, ask questions, or who sometimes doubt experts.
There are 20 points below the -95% level. You mention the 1968 2-month drop on the figure. What happened to the CO2 concentration after all of those other large drops? How many 3-month drops are there? 4-month? etc. The long-term CO2 concentration is increasing. The long-term rate of change of CO2 concentration is increasing. The next time there is a large 2-month increase in CO2 concentration is there going to be a post at Watts Up about it? Or here?
I don’t care if they join in the ridicule. It’s the defending and partnering that will harm you. Like Roger Pielke Sr. allowing Christopher Monckton to post on his blog. I lost a great deal of respect for him with that move.
Feynman is right about doubt from a scientific point of view. But from a policy point of view, doubt is often used to stall needed action. You can see how scientific uncertainty is used today with regards to climate sensitivity. Some believe that because we don’t have sensitivity nailed down perfectly, that this means there is a great amount of uncertainty about the result itself. This is a dangerous way to proceed.
Atmoz–
Interesting questions, and easy enough to answer:
After the drop in 1968, the concentration went up. The average change is positive– as evident in the figure. I think everyone knows this– otherwise, the drop wouldn’t be any sort of news, right? I posted the long term trend in the third comment when others asked.;)
I haven’t looked at the two month and three month drops, though if it interests someone they may.
I can’t predict what Anthony will blog about in the future.
I can’t necessarily predict what I will blog about in the future. 🙂
Ordinarily, this type of drop would result in no post by me. I was motivated to post when I read Tamino’s strawman “rebutting” an argument he attributes to “some” who supposedly were all giddy over a one month drop. No one made such an argument. And it just so happens that had Tamino addressed tthe discussion actually taking place over at Anthony’s — in the post and the comments– he would have created the graph showing the drop in question just happened to be a record.
People often remark on records, and so in that sense, it’s remarkable. Remarkable may not be meaningful, but I think people have a perfect right to discuss this.
Will I discuss a similar drop should it happen in the future? I’m not sure. I would normally need to see a larger drop– or be asked by a question by my readers– before I would remark the drop.
As you will see in the post and comments, I have suggested this remarkable drop could be instrument error. The notes in NOAA’s online form say this:
I also previously suggested that waving this away as unremarkable is unwise precisely because it may be instrument error. Generally speaking it is wise to acknowledge outliers, and double check algorithms and instruments. Who knows, maybe a spider is nesting in the instrument? ( I’m not making being flippant here. Spiders get cleaned out of instruments in the field at the DOE ARM SGP all the time. Grass, weeds or debris blow into instruments on met towers. Refusing to acknowledge that any data point might be an outlier results in people collecting unreliable data for a long, long time. )
So, I think Tamino’s waving this away as an “unremarkable” shows a foolish lack of insight into field measurements. And that’s why I commented on his knee jerk tendency to refuse to acknowledge the existence of outlyers.
I will be surprised if the seasonally adjusted CO2 level continues to drop. But we’ll know that soon enough, won’t we?
So….now I’ll ask you to predict your future blog posts. Will you be telling us more about using color in graphs? 🙂 (For what it’s worth, I liked your post showing standard deviations in color, and think that idea could be helpful in many cases. I’m not sure it solves all the problems of graphical presentation of data. I might use lighter colors because I think it is good to permit the reader to see the data points. But, the bands are better than three little green bars. )
Boris:
I disagree that acknowledging doubt about climate sensitivity will slow policy action. I believe the quite the opposite. I think demonstrating willingness to listen to these discussions and responding will speed policy action. I thought letting the Supreme Court’s decision to let Nazi’s march in Skokie would work out too. And guess what? It did. The Illinois Nazi party fizzled when they finally had their demonstration (in Marquette Park.)
Not acknowledging. Misrepresenting. See the diff?
Boris–
With regard to the discussion of the negative effects on policy, I see no difference. In my opinion, permitting all to state their cases and support them as best they can is the most efficient path to good policy decisions. It is also the best path to prevent mis-representation from overcoming truth.
That’s why I endorsed the Supreme Court decision to let the Nazis march in Skokie, Illinois.
Do you see the difference now? Perhaps not. I’m simply saying that if you align yourself with a negative influence–and I believe I have shown Watts to be a negative influence on discerning the truth in climate studies–then you risk being marginalized and ridiculed as well. It’s not quite the same as defending the Nazi’s right to march. It would be more similar to someone saying, “The Nazis should have a right to march; their views might be valid, you know.”
(Forgive the Nazi example. I’m not that comfortable using it and I don’t want to equate GW skeptics with Nazis. I was merely extending your example.)
Boris,
You are embarrassing yourself and the cause you claim to speak for.
There is uncertainty in the science. We don’t understand climate very well at all. It is quite possible that everything you believe to be true is false.
The uncertainty does not go away if you pretend it does not exist.
I am with Roger Sr.: humans do influence climate but this obsession with CO2 does more harm than good because it diverts attention from more pressing problems.
Scientists are the last group of professionals that can command the respect of the public by virtue of their profession. Doctors, policemen, journalists, teachers, et. al. have all lost the respect they once commanded due to the actions of a few individuals. AGW promoting scientists risk losing that respect whenever they use rhetoric to shout down alternate views.
You expressed a concern that policy changes might be delayed because people like Anthony allow certain views to be aired. If Anthony does have that power then that simply demonstrates how tenous the AGW scientific position is. If AGW science was certain enough to justify the policy intervations demanded then Anthony could change nothing. The correct course of action would be too obvious to everyone.
One way or another humans will muddle through. You had better hope that the climate models are dead wrong because CO2 is not going to come down until after the human population peaks. If you think that will cause the planet to warm past a few tipping points then I suggest you explore your real estate options in Northern Canada. I am sure the polar bears will love to have you as a neighbor.
Lucia,
I was there in Skokie.
I would give you all an F in exigesis of Watts post.
But the funniest thing is this. More ink and more attention is spent on Watts than Hansen
retarded notion that we have to go to 350PPM
Now why is that? Call in claude shannon. I’ll explain later
Raven,
If you are not convinced by the multiple lines of evidence that the recent CO2 rise is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, then I seriously wonder if any scientific evidence will ever convince you of anything. In view of this, I don’t think you can objectively analyze areas of the science where there is genuine uncertainty.
Steve, I grew up on the North Shore in Chicago. I lived in Chicago when the Nazis finally demonstrated in Marquette park. The party gained popularity and got media attention during the entire period when they were censored. Guess what: Censorship is the source of power for those who wish to sow the seeds of FUD.
After the dang Nazi’s finally “won” the right to speak, people heard what the NAZI’s had to say. No formal rebuttal was required. The American NAZI party died instantly. Dead as a doornail.
You like movies. Here’s one:
Boris,
The argument on realclimate is based on the *assumption* that temperatures would have stayed constant if humans had not started emitting CO2. If one makes that assumption then I agree that the only possible conclusion is that humans are responsible for 100% of the CO2 increase.
However, I do not feel that it is reasonable to assume that 100% of the temperature increase is a result of human activity. If there is a natural component to the temperature increase then there must be a natural component to the CO2 increase. We don’t know the true natural component to the temperature rise which means mean we don’t know the true natural component of the CO2 increase. However, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that some of the CO2 increase is not the fault of humans.
As I said in my first post, the all or nothing nature of the warmer arguments actually undermines them by making people suspicious. You would convince more people if you simply accepted the premise that a portion or the temperature/CO2 increase is natural because you would not need to waste time arguing absolutist positions that are not supported by the science. You could then focus on arguing that the remaining human induced increase is still a problem.
Boris, After reading your posts, you are making up what you want to argue about out of thin air, its tiring, boring and inconsequential to what I and others are here to read about. I wish blogs had an ignore user function like Vbulletin forums for this very reason.
Boris said:
Yet part of the introduction to that article says:
Perhaps instead of saying how you lost respect for Roger, you could take the trouble to write your rebuttal for Roger’s blog and ask him to post it. Like many others, I don’t think that just saying “it’s ridiculous” or “it’s wrong” will make people change their mind – if there is plenty of evidence to refute this argument, then collate it and ask Roger to post it! If you can’t or won’t do this, then you are just as guilty of spreading “rubbish science” (if that’s what you think it is) as Monckton. IMO, Pielke Snr is interested in discussing reproducable studies and facts, and will entertain speculation when it suits his purposes – and it certainly seems to me that he is entertaining speculation on this particular issue, perhaps in an effort to obtain more data from those who have it, but don’t know he wants it.
The point being: don’t assume that your take on anyone else’s motives is the only possible one – people often make what they know to be contentious statements in order to encourage discussion and to “bait” people into clearly stating their position. Perhaps that is what Roger is doing – or perhaps not.
Raven– I’m also often surprised by the absolutists positions. Why does the immediate response to showing the temperature trend has been low and it’s an event that should happen less than 5% of the time if the IPCC claims were true have to be that that can’t possible be true? Why can’t it be: “Oh. Yeah. The PDO only switches about once every 20 or 30 years. We just went from a warm to a cold phase. Since that happens about 5% of the time, it could cause an outlier of that sort.”?
Heck, maybe someone could even reveal how much temperature of a drop in GMST one expects during and after a PDO shift. Maybe they could reveal how much variability is expected for a switch in the AMO. The link suggests that has a 60-80 year cycles (the graphic shows shorter oscillations). So, what happens if they both shift at the same time?
These sorts of things could be communicated in quantitative language– but evidently… Maybe the knowledge must remain tacit?
Statistical outliers happen. Sometimes, they even happen for reasons we understand. But pointing to graphs were every down turn is due to a volcanic eruption? Or saying “It’s ENSO!” (when clearly, given known recent variability, that can’t explain the whole 8 years!)
If the switch is due to “weather”, it may be the PDO. or any very long cycle that people think might have an appreciable effect on GMST. I said so long ago But, I guess saying shifts on oscillations with really, really long periods can cause outlyers is not in the script? Beats me!
Please allow Boris, Atmoz, Tamino etc to have free reign to expound their views freely in any climate blog. Without them, us skeptics (me only, as this site is actually a “believer” site?) would not have a chance. They are doing the work for us. LOL
It reminds one of previous episodes in politics, rather than science. Boris’ posts here are a locus classicus for the genre, but many of Tamino’s posters do the same thing. In no other scientific controversy I know of did one side invent these strange derogatory terms for people who differed from them on the merits of the hypothesis in question. ‘Deniers’ and so on. I don’t know of any other in which personal attacks were regularly substituted for discussion of the science as if they were equally relevant to the hypothesis. We do not find this in particle physics, do we?
So we find someone saying on Tamino that they think, now that Pielke has given space to Monckton, that Pielke must be a ‘denialist’. We have people wondering about whether Pielke is secretly a ‘denialist’ but concealing it under a facade of reasonableness. We have people posting links which are apparently to Monckton’s ebay site, if it really is his, under the impression that this must be in some way relevant to a post which discusses among other things the changing role of feedback and direct forcing as components in the IPCC forecasts over time.
Those of us who know history are aware of several cultural episodes which were marked by this kind of thing. The Dreyfus case in France was still alive until quite recently. You would still find old families where his guilt was an article of faith. It was a required belief that the papers had not been forged. In the Communist movement, you found a similar level of personal abuse and a vocabulary of ‘right wing deviationists’ and so on. In the McCarthy episode, we had the whole vocabulary of ‘fellow travellers’ and guilt by association.
So you notice that Pielke is dammed by association with Monckton, though nothing in M’s post is specifically criticized. You yourself Lucia have incurred suspicions of being a secret denialist. Well, you defended Pielke’s giving space to Monckton, did you not? You posted some charts which misled the masses into thinking that the IPCC may have made some iffy predictions. Anthony Watts even before his recent statistical embarrassments was dammned because he took photos of surface stations which showed they were not up to the standards of the agency running them. This could only give rise to skepticism and denialism. Steve McIntyre is of course beyond the pale, he suggested MBH98 was erroneous. Even if it were, it is time to move on. And, horror, he seems to be associated with Watts. We also find personal attacks of a totally irrelevant sort on dissenters, as when Spencer’s scientific work is ridiculed because of his religious beliefs.
The tactic that invariably surfaced both in the Communist Party and in McCarthyism was the one which Boris has just invoked: the accusation that the crime is misleading the gullible masses. The religious parallel was the leading of the souls of the ignorant to damnation. The truly wicked did this, by weakening their faith. So Boris condemns Watts for misleading others. He is damaging the cause. The underlying tactic is of course to assume that the thesis is beyond doubt, when that is exactly the point at issue.
Another tactic which figured largely in the McCarthy method was to associate ideas which were irrelevant with the ones you were condemning. So we find in the present case hysterical tirades about Exxon, the Tobacco industry, Creationism, Evolution, Intelligent Design – and a bunch of other irrelevant stuff. You will regularly find people on Tamino’s blog lapsing into these rants with no apparent realization that they are simply irrelevant to the science of AGW. In McCarthyism this was used to label any social policies to the left of Ayn Rand as ‘communist’ or ‘socialist’. On the left we had the similar concept of the ‘right wing deviationist’ or ‘capitalist roader’.
I have reluctantly come to the conclusion after spending part of the winter with Tamino that this is not a superficial phenomenon of a fanatical minority. It is a disturbingly large part of the approach of what can only be called a movement. Now, it does not mean that they are wrong on the science. But it is deeply worrying. Hypotheses that are easy to prove scientifically rarely get or need this kind of support.
The real issue with it all is that AGW may be correct. We may urgently need to act. But as long as it has such a large proportion of friends like these, that is going to be far harder to persuade the general public of. This is really dangerous. In rather the same way, McCarthy succeeded in discrediting all anti-Communism for a couple of decades. It was probably the main reason why it took liberals so long to acknowledge the true nature of the former Soviet Union. The last thing his supporters had in mind, but it was the direct result of their actions and posturings. Its the same here. Boris is doing far more to turn people away from accepting AGW than anything Watts or CA does. No, not what he has in mind either.
Lucia, Raven, Vincent and Fred:
I think you misunderstand. Watts is spreading back of an envelope calculations that people not mathematically challenge rip to pieces. This is made perfectly clear to Watts. As for the solar imprint post, he posts an update after a few hundred comments have been made, saying that something is not as accurate as it should be and promise to look into it. That will never happen. We have seen this before, where he promised a part three that never comes. In the mean time, hundreds of people have read the post, commenting something along the lines “I can’t follow the math, but this looks impressing”. And Watts knows this. Once it’s published, it will stick. I will redraw my position on Watts the day he posts a follow up that is not just wrong or misleading.
Fred (Comment 1630): Here is an example of one of these phenomena. Last week the “Canberra Times’ published a much abridged summary of a ‘sceptical’ address (‘A cool view of global warming’) given by Professor Don Aitkin to the Australian Planning Institute, of which he is an honorary Fellow. Professor Aitkin is an historian and political scientist who was for 11 years the Vice Chancellor and President of the University of Canberra. He was the Foundation Chair of the Australian Research Council and is also a former Chair of the Australian Research Grants Committee, and is currently Chair of the Australian Mathematics Trust and of the Australian National Olympiad Council – and he has for the past seven years been a member of the Multi-disciplinary Assessment Committee of the Canada Council for Innovation.
On the day after Don’s address was published, the Canberra Times published a letter to its Editor from a prominent local intellectual who is the co-author of the book ‘In search of sustainability’, which is published by CSIRO Publishing (CSIRO is Australia’s leading publicly-funded scientific research institution). Here’s the first sentence of the letter:
‘Professor Don Aitkin would have made an excellent lobbyist for the tobacco industry, which spent many years obfuscating the clear evidence of links between smoking and cancer …’
fred,
Your screed is interesting on a number of levels. Since some skeptics hide behind the name “skeptic,” I find it reasonable to call them what thy are–denialists. Take, for example, Raven. She is still on about “part of the rise CO2 rise could be natural,” which is an absurd position given the evidence. She does not engage the evidence at all. She simply says it doesn’t convince her. Well, who cares? Who cares if someone doesn’t think HIV causes AIDS an won’t engage the science? Society should still act in a way that the evidence suggests, and not someone’s half-baked idea of what the evidence says.
Then, you say:
So, you bring up your own irrelevancy (How exactly is McCarthy related to the science?) to attack people using irrelevancies.
However, the people who compare denialists to tobacco scientists are doing the same thing you do, comparing the tactics used. Even some of the same scientists participated in tobacco denial and global warming denial. I refuse to use the term “skeptic” for such people, because they are only skeptical of arguments they don’t like.
Max,
Way to provide evidence that I’m “making things up.” Anthony Watts statistical analysis is what I’d call “making things up.” Are you here to defend poor analysis and crackpot theories or not?
Ian,
Why are you obscuring the fact that Altkin has no training in climate science? He does have some good credentials, but I wouldn’t let him take out my appendix, would you?
Don’t you think he is obfuscating evidence? Or at the very least, ignoring it?
He apparently believes the same thing that Raven does, that the CO2 rise could be natural. As the evidence shows, this is nonsense. Notice that Raven nor Altkin produce any evidence at all to support their claim. There is no peer reviewed research to support them. This discredits his opinion on climate science the same way that saying the germ theory of disease was wrong would discredit him in medicine.
I’m fairly convinced that rehashing arguments over and over against the Moncktons and Ravens And Altkins of the world is unproductive. It gives the false impression that these people actually have support for their arguments. I’m sure someone will respond to Monckton, but why? Is this going to be the first time in thirty that he is right about something with regard to climate?
This is an absolutely absurd position, Neil. This is exactly what folks like Monckton want, to engage with real scientists and use a whole bunch of complex equations to dazzle the non-mathematical in the audience.
Use inductive reasoning. If Monckton has repeatedly been wrong on climate science before, if he has never published in the peer reviewed literature and is not even trained in science, then what are the chances he is right or has anything of value to say? And why on Earth would anyone let him post on his science blog. It boggles the mind.
You know, Boris, if you have a problem with Monckton, perhaps you should write to Dr. Peilke. He’d likely be happy to have a dialogue with you, and it’s quite the proactive solution. Arguing about it here and demanding some sort of repudiation from Lucia and others seems rather counter-productive. For some reason you seem to demand that people be denounced and ridiculed—pulled right from our method of conducting politics these days, hopefully we’ll move beyond it soon—and it’s pretty sad to see it expand into science.
Lucia, our most gracious host, has provided us with a place for sane and rational debate, without the accusatory tones found on other climate blogs. Your tone is counter-productive to that. It isn’t that we don’t want to listen to you; we just don’t want to listen while you’re stomping your feet and making demands at us.
terry,
Please don’t accuse me of stomping my feet when I am using logic. If you don’t want to respond with logic, then don’t. Lucia defended Watts as making an “interesting observation.” I pointed out that he used his observation to support and draw attention to an argument known to be false. Lucia has still not accepted this, nor does she apparently think it is a big deal. Unfortunate.
Boris says:
Why don’t you look at the evidence:
Temps go up; CO2 goes up. No doubt; no controversy. A portion of the recent temperature rise likely *is* natural which means that would cause the amount of CO2 to rise – just like it has in eons past. This is means that *some* of the recent rise in CO2 concentrations would have happened no matter what humans did. I make no claims regarding the amount of natural rise – just that some of the increase *is* natural. Anthony’s musings simply reminded people of this basic fact which is supported by the evidence.
I did not bother to post the graph before because I had assumed you were a reasonably informed person who understood the causal link between temperature rise and CO2. I guess I was wrong.
You are talking about the 800 year lag?
Boris says:
CO2 increases as temperatures do in the short term too: http://www.stomatalfrequency.com/TellusB.pdf
However, the causal link is not as obvious in the stomatal data.
Boris, I think that AGW the scientific hypothesis has nothing to do with politics or religion or the personalities of the people involved in the debate. I don’t think that what you call ‘denialism’ is particularly dangerous or heinous. It is simply part of the way people debate in our society about everything from cholesterol to Perl to the merits of John Barth as novelist. Your sense of outrage is misplaced.
Many people arguing about most things really do not know what they are talking about. Some of them are sincere, some ill natured. They all express their opinions and feelings, it all settles, and finally we arrive at the truth. You could actually see this happening in the case of tobacco, where before the debate ended, the tobacco companies were doing more harm to their own cause than their opponents. The tobacco case actually shows that you cannot, in our society, suppress debate or the facts for long.
You damage your own cause by your way of debating. Tamino did harm to AGW (and would have done more had he been more widely read) when he remarked back in September in his rant about creationism and flat earthers
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/09/30/snow-job/
“it is the republican party in the U.S. that is the problem.” No it is people trying to make a scientific hypothesis a party political issue that are the problem, and they are mainly a problem for themselves. They are shooting themselves in the foot.
If Monckton’s post is wrong, just write down what about it is wrong, preferably not here but in some thread devoted to it. Personally I find the item about halfway down, showing the movement in the amount of forcing attributed to feedback and to direct GG effects, very striking. I’m not sure what to conclude from it, but its a striking observation. If true. You say Monckton has been proved wrong repeatedly about climate. Maybe, but you give no references. He just disagrees with you, that’s all.
The only societies in which the debating tactics of abuse will work to close down debate are authoritarian and non-democratic ones. In the West, it is counterproductive. Trying it on will only lead to more and more rebuttals from less and less qualified people, which will infuriate you more and more. This is because people start to disbelieve the thesis because they distrust the tone. They then start making up bad reasons for what they disbelieve on instinct. We are in such a vicious cycle now. The main reason is this cry of ‘the science is settled’. People are not buying it. Trying to shut them up with abuse and slogans of this sort just convinces them they are right not to be buying it.
I think there’s a good chance they are wrong not to be buying it, but I cannot blame them. Advocacy like this is enough to make anyone into a skeptic.
And yet long enough to turn a profit and kill some folks. I don’t think global warming denialists will be believed for long, but it might be long enough to stall action that is needed. I am optimistic that something can be done soon given that all candidates for prez actually listen to the NAS.
I’m not surprised that you found something in Monckton’s piece striking; it is supposed to be striking rather than correct. Note his lack of specific references. It would take a while to dig through the IPCC report to find out how he’s screwed up or what he’s exaggerating, and I’m sure someone will take the time to do it. But I’m not going to waste my time on it.
I find it amazing that you and others here criticize me for my tone, saying that it will drive people away. But you will not criticize Watts for posting baloney analysis, bogus theories and thinly veiled accusations of scientific fraud which will have the same effect, only more so. Instead you defend him because he has a right to say what he wants. What about responsibility? Doesn’t he have a responsibility to learn? A responsibility to his readers? A responsibility to correct posts that are mind-numbingly wrong and misleading? On an intellectual level, this should disturb every skeptic.
Of course not. He’s just askin’ questions!
Boris says:
Your deliberate blindness is getting quite rediculous. If you want baloney analysis look at any of realclimates posts on CR theory. If you want bogus theories look Mann’s BCP based temperature reconstructions. If you want thinly vieled accusations of scientific fraud then look at realclimate’s reviews of sceptical papers such as the Douglass and Christy paper.
If you really cared about such things you would be making posts on realclimate telling them to clean up their act.
The real issue is you disagree with Anthony’s opinions and you think hurling insults at him will convince people to ignore his opinions and listen to yours. Ironically, your rhetoric actually accomplishes the reverse.
Boris says:
In other words, you blindly trust the IPCC and automatically assume that the IPCC must be right and Moncton must be wrong.
The problem is the IPCC is not an unbiased source of information. It is an advocacy body which uses science as a tool to promote its predetermined conclusion that CO2 is a problem that requires massive interventions on the part of government. More and more people are realizing this which is why many people are more likely to trust Moncton’s interpretation than the those of an IPCC hack. If Moncton is wrong then somebody must engage him in a reasoned scientific discussion.
Well, Raven, the folks at Real Climate actually get their stuff published. Please describe the conspiracy theory that allows the bad ideas at RC to get published and condemns geniuses like Anthony Watts to the blogosphere. Why does the NAS, AGU, Royal Society agree with Real Climate, but not Watts. Is there some conspiracy afoot? I mean, it could not possibly be that Anthony Watts is wrong, so what, pray tell, is going on?
I don’t blindly accept the IPCC, and I’ve said I know from observation that Monckton has no idea what he’s talking about. Google will help you find criticisms of Monckton if you want to read them.
No one wants to criticize Raven’s ravings either. Come on, Lucia, fred, et al. Here’s a “skeptic” making a fool of herself. Are you just going to ignore it?
Actually (although I do, in a way, disagree on how he views the IPCC), Raven has summed you up rather well, Boris.
This is the last I’ll post on this however.
Just tell me to go, Lucia. No IP block needed.
Boris– I’m not blocking your IP. I’m working on a plugin that will slow people down when they post a bajillion comments in a row with no answers. I was inspired by the 4 comments you posted between 7:10 am and 7:30 am this morning.
It will be counting how many comments arrive from the same IP with no one else’s in between, and moderating them. Because you inspired it, I am naming it for you. 🙂
Boris says:
I love them smell of red herring in the morning. I don’t care if the folks at RC have published 1000 papers that does not change the fact that they regularly post “baloney analysis, bogus theories and thinly veiled accusations of scientific fraud”. If you really have an issue with such things then you should be complaining about realclimate with as much vigour as you complain about Anthony.
I don’t know why you started rambling about conspiracy theories. The IPCC has been very public about its objectives and goals. I have a bridge to sell you if you believe that the IPCC would publish a report recommending that governments do nothing because CO2 is not a pressing problem. If you don’t want to acknowledge that the IPCC is an advocacy organization then you should be willing to acknowledge that they are like the prosecuting attorney in a criminal trial. They seek to present the evidence in way that best supports their belief that CO2 is guilty as charged.
Lucia,
No prob. I guess I jumped to a conclusion since the plugin was named after me. Please accept my apology. I’m semi-honored, BTW.
Next time, I’ll post all together. But I did have a lot to respond to.
terry,
Thanks for providing a non-supported opinion and then leaving.
I’ve got to get some work done, so I’ll leave you guys alone. I did ask on CA why Watts has not deleted the misleading graph from his solar cycle post. I’m sure that will be deleted within moments. Well, it is off topic. Maybe I’ll move it to Unthreaded.
Boris,
I used to blog about less controversial things. But it occurs to me that someone might swoop in and just fill the blog with comments. It’s a pain in the neck to wake up in the morning and a whole bunch from one person!
Boris, You say that Don Aitkin apparently believes the CO2 rise is natural and ask me to notice that he doesn’t produces any evidence at all to support the claim.
He doesn’t need to produce any evidence because he hasn’t made such a claim. On the contrary, he says that ‘an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide is agreed’, and that ‘Some of it is due to the burning of fossil fuels, cement making and agriculture.’
I suggest that you read Aitkin’s paper.
A distinction without a difference, Ian. It’s the same lame argument as Raven: “some.”
Further, Aitkin says:
Um, is he talking about CO2 here or lead poisoning? Because the logic applies to both. Surely he’s not suggesting ingesting lead is harmless as well?
Dammit, I’m really going to work some now. 🙂
Aitkin doesn’t deny that a small increase in a small component could have a large effect, Boris. On the contrary, he agrees that it’s possible that the warming has a ‘significant human influence’. Please try and read the paper right through.
Sorry, Ian. It’s a waste of time. Aitkin has no training in climate science and it’s pretty obvious when he asks questions like the one I quoted.
Much as Al Gore does, eh? Adages about geese spring to mind…
Ask Pielke Snr – please don’t vent at me that you are unhappy with a respected climate scientist because he let a non-scientist write a blog entry, as it has nothing to do with me. If you are not a climate scientist yourself, then perhaps Pielke Snr knows better than you do what is valid comment on the subject? If you can’t or won’t “battle” with Monckton, then “battle” with Pielke Snr about why he let it happen – if it’s as bad as you suggest, there must be a reason.
Boris, Perhaps you should advise the Canada Council for Innovation of your concerns about this member of their Multi-disciplinary Assessment Committee. I don’t think that Professor Aitkin is obfuscating evidence or at best ignoring it, but I’m sure the Council would give your contrary views the consideration they deserve. They’ll probably need to know your name though, and your credentials.
Ian,
I skimmed Dr. Aitkin’s presentation. In it, he argues:
There is no citation for this. Since I’m sure you are familiar with the literature, you will know that these numbers are wildly inaccurate. Please tell me why such an esteemed scientist would write a presentation where he makes such a dreadful mistake? Not citing your sources and making up statistics are enough to flunk a first year college student. Are you still suggesting that we listen to Dr. Aitkin?
I would characterize making up phony statistics as obfuscating evidence, how about you?
Boris,
Dr. William Kininmonth. head of the Australian National Climate Centre (1986-98) and principal Australian delegate to the World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology (1982-98), wrote to ‘The Australian’ that ‘Don Aitkin is to be congratulated for his beautifully succinct summary of the climate change debate’ (‘The Australian, 10 April 1998, p. 13). Dr. Kininmonth’s qualifications in climate science are certainly far in advance of those of the gentleman who told ‘The Canberra Times’ that ‘Professor Aitkin would have made an excellent lobbyist for the tobacco industry’. However, if you think that Aitkin has been making up phony statistics I’d urge you to raise your concerns with the Canada Council for Innovation. Do you have a problem in revealing your identity and your credentials to this eminent body?
Oh, dear, Ian, you seem to be hung up on political appointments and astrofturf organizations. If you want to get into an argument of authority, I can give you hundreds of scientists who actual publish research, unlike Drs. K and A, who spout nonsense at every turn. I doubt this will convince you, so I think you are in a great deal of denial.
Now, if you want to talk about Dr. Aitkin’s failure to meet even the standards of a first year composition course, then I’d be very interested. I’m not very interested in changing the subject, but I understand how you might want to, given that facts tend to be so mean in getting the way of your arguments.
Boris–
What do you mean by “wildly inaccurate”?
Standard air is 0.046% CO2 by weight. That’s 4.6 10^-4 gr CO2/ gr air, or 460 PPMw (Parts per Million by weight).
On a 60 F day, when the air is 50% humidity, water is 5491 PPMw http://www.linric.com/webpsy.htm
Taken literally, Dr. Aitkin’s statement is absolutely true.
It may be meaningless in some context, but it is a simple fact that the atmosphere holds a lot of water by both mass and volume. That’s why mechanical and aeronautical engineers need to account for water vapor when designing a variety of devices. The fact that water holds so much air, but it’s variable is also recognized when explaining major climatalogical features– like why it rains a lot in the tropics!
If you have a problem with Dr. Aitkin’s statement, you should be more precise. Tell readers the context and why you think it’s deceptive in some context. (That is, assuming it is deceptive.) But, as a literal statement about the relative mass of water vapor to other GHGs in air, that particular statement is simply true.
Please Boris, Read your own posts, nearly everytime you argue a point, its an arguement in a wayward direction noone is going in, you latch onto Anthony Watts again, again with no proof against him. Ok, great, you have an opinion about Anthony Watts, you don’t like his theories, but having you post tangential drivel is not disproving his theories or teaching the rest us what is right, or wrong with it. You just come across as an angry person with a religious like hate on for someone that doesnt support your beliefs in AGW.. The point of these blogs is to inform and discuss, not have a coronary over.. I read alot more than I post, I suggest you do the same.
How can you say “taken literally” when Aitkin makes no statement about mass? But to play the game your way, I’ll show why this is still deceptive.
1. Aitkin makes no statement that he is talking about mass and it is perfectly reasonable to assume he is talking about contribution to the greenhouse effect. He even uses the word “contributing,” which is a strange way of talking about mass.
2. Mass is not useful is discussing the greenhouse effect. As you know, the shape of the molecules has a much greater effect than mass.
3. There is a common denialist argument that WV makes up 95-98 percent of the greenhouse effect.
4. There is no citation. A citation would help eliminate confusion here.
I see two options:
1. Dr. Aitkin is being intentionally deceptive.
2. Dr. Aitkin has no clue what he’s talking about when it comes to the greenhouse effect.
My judgment is #1, but then I also saw some of Aitkin’s cherry picking and other misleading arguments, so I have more evidence on which to base this decision. You do point out that #2 could be a possibility. And of course, there is no reason why both can’t be true.
Also, notice how one misleading sentence requires a hefty paragraph to debunk. That is the strategy of delay.
I’m informing you that Watts spreads false theories and conducts faulty snalyses. I have provided evidence. It is your choice to ignore this evidence and complain about “tone.” If you do not have the arguments or facts to support your opinion, then that is a real shame.
I’m not sure what is religious or hateful about positing a position and supplying evidence for that position.
I have been reading about AIDS denialism this morning and it is truly depressing stuff. It is sad, but some people are willing to die for their mistaken beliefs. It is even sadder that they influence others to do the same.
Boris:
The most standard methods of describing concentration of species in gases are by mass or volume. By both methods, water makes up a much, much larger fraction of the atmosphere that GHG’s. This is simply true and requires no citation. In English, and many languages, when no modifiers are provided, it is normal to assume someone is using terms according to their most common meaning.
You idiosyncratic ideas about citation policies. Scientists do not make a habit of providing citations for every single word they utter or write. For example, one can mention the gravitational constant for earth providing no citations what-so-ever in any peer reviewed journal article on the planet. (In fact, if you cited someone, the reviewers would likely demand you strip the citation!)
Finally,as I said: If you think something is misleading, you should say so and explain why. But when you try to take short cuts by decreeing simple, truthful statements false, and then using your incorrect declaration as “proof” the person who said it doesn’t know what he is talking about, it is you who delay people from accepting your claims. The reason is: You make incorrect claims, people know this, and so don’t take much else you say very seriously.
So…. if your argument is that Dr. A was or is deceptive make that case. But, for what it’s worth, you haven’t even shown that. And the reason why is, you haven’t done your homework. You haven’t fished up his comment, shown how it was used in context and explained to anyone how it would have been deceptive in the specific context in which it was used. What you are doing is, instead, trying to insist we must believe that the context must have been what you think it must have been!
Boris:
Here’s an advice: You’ll never convince Raven, don’t spend any more time on this. This exact same discussion was undertaken at Watts, where Loquor tried. Link here.
Okay, fine. I’ll explain it. This one’s for the lurkers (hey, y’all):
Wikipedia has a good explanation here.
The uber simplified Cliff Notes:
How GHGs vibrate and rotate is the key to the greenhouse effect. If IR comes in at the right frequency, a molecule will absorb that photon and re-emit it in a random direction. Here’s a cute little animation (it would be cooler with sound effects).
Because each GHG has different vibrational and rotational modes, each gets excited by slightly different frequencies of radiation. Here is Wiki’s chart, but keep in mind the resolution of this graph is quite coarse.
The mass of the different GHGs will tell you nothing about their contribution to the greenhouse effect, for a variety of reasons. One, it does not tell you anything about the vibrational or rotational modes. Two, GHGs in large amounts have diminishing effects. For example, each time we double CO2’s mass in the atmosphere, we get the same increase in temperature. Adding more and more CO2 by mass has less and less of an effect.
If one were a scientist who actually wanted to know how much each GHG contributes to the greenhouse effect, one would have a problem. Effects of pressure and temperature make straightforward mathematical computations of the greenhouse effect quite difficult. In the 1940s, the US government wanted to know about the upper atmosphere and so scientists worked to create radiation codes. The most famous is perhaps MODTRAN but there are lots and lots of others.
But your problems don’t end there. No, since the GHGs interact with one another it is difficult to determine how much each contributes to the greenhouse effect. Because more CO2 means that more H2O will be in the atmosphere and vice versa (notice the uncertainty here is at least partially related to the idea of feedbacks and climate sensitivity). In the late 1970s, Ramanathan and Coatley used radiation codes to estimate the contribution of GHGs to the total greenhouse effect. If one removes CO2 completely, then the Greenhouse effect is reduced by 9%. If one removes all GHGs except CO2, the greenhouse effect is 26% strength. So, radiation codes and early models show that CO2 contributes between 9 and 26 percent of the total greenhouse effect.
(If you want to read more about radiation codes, their history and why we have such confidence in them, read Spencer Weart’s fine resource The Discovery of Global Warming. Weart has all the references there for you, though the older ones require a research library to find. Go ahead, read and see why Gilbert N. Plass is a hero of mine.)
I won’t go into any more detail than this. Even at a minimum, CO2 contributes 9% to the greenhouse effect. The mass of CO2 is far less than 9%–and it’s not even close.
What does this tell me about Aitkin’s argument?
1. Aitkin’s discussion of mass in regards to climate change is irrelevant.
2. Aitkin’s failure to cite Ramanathan and Coatley or any other source on the contribution of GHGs is a stunning omission by someone who is attempting to make a learned presentation on climate change.
3. Discussing GHG percentages by mass is not only useless, it can mislead you to thin that water vapor is more of a contributer and CO2 less of one.
4. Aitkin either is not aware of the literature or is aware of it and chooses not to present it.
5. Given 4, why are we arguing about whether we should listen to Aitkin or not? The answer is clear.
Hope this helps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-_UZSASpw4
Lucia,
No one talks about GHG by mass when discussing the greenhouse effect. This is because mass is irrelevant. either show that mass is relevant or admit that Aitkin is talking about irrelevancies in order to argue against the peer reviewed science.
Onanym says:
Loquor is yet another warmer who thinks hurling insults and invective at people he disagrees with is the correct way to discuss scientific matters. Frankly, I don’t understand why warmers need to insult people who disagree with them especially since it is a tactic that only works when shoring up support among the converted. Anyone who uses those kinds of tactics loses all credibility among truly sceptical thinkers who are interested in scientific facts rather than rhetoric.
Incidentally, I used to accept the AGW science without question. It is people like Boris and Loquor who convinced me that the people pushing AGW are primarily driven my ideology and cannot be trusted to analyze scientific facts in an objective matter.
I appreciate that you admit your position is based on the attitudes of some people on the internet and not actual facts. I think this is a step in a positive direction, actually.
But Boris, don’t you see? If you would back up your claims with facts, that would be a step that could speed action! And you claim delay is your concern.
It’s fine to criticize Raven for being turned off by the actions of those who believe in AGW. And yes, the theory of AGW has good theoretical backing. But denying every bit of doubt, or making spurious statements that in your mind are “the truth”, but are, in point of fact, out and out wrong isn’t helping convince anyone! The way you address Dr. Aitkin’s true statement about the relative concentration of CO2 and water falls under this.
Moreover, it’s pretty hard to convince people that you are straightforward when the reasons you later give to defend your “totally wrong” statement are convoluted, and confusing. And you never take the time to dig up any of Aitkins words to show us that your speculations about the context match the true context in which he said them in the precise circumstances where he said them.
Lucia,
You still don’t get it? There is no proper context for presenting a discussion of GHGs by mass when we are talking about climate change. This is doubly true when Aitkin does not even discuss the contribution to the greenhouse effect of CO2 or any other gas, not even to say that it is wrong. He simply ignores it or is unaware of it. This is why he is also full of it.
Do you really need me to explain why mass is irrelevant to determining the contribution of GHGs to the greenhouse effect?
And it’s not just irrelevant, it’s misleading, since it will lead you to the wrong answer.
Boris: Yes. I mean it when I tell you that to be convincing you need to do your homework and make a case. My blog has lots of lurkers. Do you think you are convincing them with your constant unsupported claims? So do your own dang homework, then post. Otherwise, keep moaning about the fact that, for some mysterious reason, people aren’t convinced.
I had a long comment, Lucia, Your captcha image didn’t appear so it was eaten.
I don’t have time to retype it, so I guess you’ll need to learn on your own. Good luck.
Wow. bang that podium with your shoe dude.
The simple fact is Boris that if you believe in AGW and you want to convince people
to change their behavior you have these choices. 1.) Use words OR 2.) beat them OR 3). bribe them.
Bribing people to accept AGW is probably a waste of money. Since they will take the bribe
and then change their minds back. Beating them, throwing them in jail as some have suggested, that’s
another great plan.
So, you are left with rhetoric. The use of words to convince someone to change his beliefs and then hopefully
his behavior. Now, rhetoric is a science of sorts. Not a well developed science, but people have been
practicing the craft of convincing others with words for thousands of years.
Attacking the audience you want to convince is not a proven method, you flippin MORON!
( that’s a joke get it)
Or rather that is an object lesson. If you beleive in AGW and if you want to convince others to believe it as well
then, you should apply the methods that are known to work. You cant bribe them. dont dare jail them, so you are
left with the option of debating them. Which amusingly enough, undermines the notion that there is no debate.
Oh for the record, I believe that AGW is the best explaination for the observations of warming that we have.
steven,
You can only convince those with an open mind. I know you know that Raven is full of it. Or at least I hope you know that. Perhaps you can use your net cred as a skeptic to lay down some of the knowledge, brother. The sooner we do this, the sooner we can get to discussing the real uncertainties. Not the dumb, fake uncertainties that skeptics spend most of their time talking about (I wonder why :))
It’s almost like you skeptics don’t care that people calling themselves “skeptics” are going around spreading idiotic arguments. Stand up for yourself and your good name, man.
And maybe take your own advice. You, the purveyor of “Piltdown Mann”, should talk about tone and civility and give lessons in rhetoric and ethos. It’s unseemly. Climate Audit is quite a nasty place, rhetoric wise. Even the “vicious little men” at Real Climate don’t behave that way. Shame.
PS–Glad to see my long comment is simply stuck in moderation and not gone forever.
Boris– the comment should be showing now. I don’t know why the spam filter held it up. (I am getting a lot of pingback spam right now.)
Boris
“You can only convince those with an open mind. I know you know that Raven is full of it. Or at least I hope you know that. Perhaps you can use your net cred as a skeptic to lay down some of the knowledge, brother. The sooner we do this, the sooner we can get to discussing the real uncertainties. Not the dumb, fake uncertainties that skeptics spend most of their time talking about (I wonder why :))”
maybe someday I will post on what constitutes an open mind. It really does require training or trauma. Most
people just get along. I try like the devil to avoid two discussions. Discussions of the sun and discussions
of C02. Why? that stuff is pretty settled as far I see. If somebody wants to claim that GHGs dont warm the
the planet, then My thought is this. I have no hope with this audience. they told me the sky is lavendar.
Now I could and sometimes would call them funny names to amuse myself and others, but not now.
“It’s almost like you skeptics don’t care that people calling themselves “skeptics†are going around spreading idiotic arguments. Stand up for yourself and your good name, man.”
Actually, you are starting to get some of the ethos. Some skeptics DONT CARE. perhaps you have not studied the skeptical tradition. In it’s purest form ( opps I’m making a judgement)the sceptic says this: suspend judgement!
Actually what they deploy is a variety of tactics that a person could use to suspend judgment. When the sceptic suspends judgement they can, it has been observed, achieve a state called ataxaria. PEACE. Once side argues A.
One side argues B. The sceptic plays A against B. Other people fight. peace for him. Don King.
Crudely: stop believing and you will achieve peace of mind. When you believe, either warmist or coolist, you
will not find peace. But then.. why seek peace? good sceptic question.
“And maybe take your own advice. You, the purveyor of “Piltdown Mannâ€, should talk about tone and civility and give lessons in rhetoric and ethos. It’s unseemly. Climate Audit is quite a nasty place, rhetoric wise. Even the “vicious little men†at Real Climate don’t behave that way. Shame.”
I am not the purveyor of PILTDOWN MANN. I am the INVENTOR of Piltdown Mann metaphor, Pennstate Mann, Treemometer, AND free the code. Boris, you dont get it. The WARMISTS need to convince the coolists. Coolist dont want to convince YOU. They want YOU to leave them alone. So, I give them sticks! My PILTDOWN metaphor exists for ONE reason. POKE YOU IN THE EYE. for trying to control people. Poke you in the eye for calling them creationists.
The WARMISTS accused non believers of being CREATIONISTS. So, one good metaphor deserves another. hence the PILTDOWN MANN. For me it was art. I supply weapons. I’m an arms dealer. Tropes R us.
There. I beat my shoe on the podium.
i hate tax season. makes me grumpy
stevem-
I’m not so “into” making up labels at all. Except, I think we need one for people who believe global warming, but are sick of reading things that seem to suggest one isn’t state anything even slightly critical of the IPCC, their predictions, the temperature record etc. (Or at least, one may only criticize if we decree there is more warming than predicted, and the temperature record under-diagnoses warming.)
But, more importantly, I saw a blog post that will make you laugh– and one of the comments in the thread links it to dicussion in this thread:
At Volokh.com http://volokh.com/posts/1207882009.shtml Orin Kerr suggests:
Then during discussions of the first amendment we get… a reference to the classic case that proves whether one truly believes in freedom of speech
Boris says:
Shakes head. Boris, an “open mind” according to your definition is someone who never questions any part of the “CO2-is-a-catastrophe” creed. This is evident in every post where you spew vitriol at people instead of analyzing the arguments. I don’t see why you obsessively reject the notion that *some* of the CO2 increase could be natural. The fact that some of the increase might be natural does not mean the part that is anthropogenic is any less a problem. The fact that you insist on arguing for an unproveable absolute (i.e. that not one molecule of CO2 can be attributed to natural causes) completely undermines any positive contribution that you might have.
You also fail to understand that this discussion is really about policy – not science. e.g. will the costs of massive CO2 reduction schemes exceed the costs related to a warmer planet due to CO2? In fact, perfectly reasonable people can have very different opinions regarding the appropriate action even if the science was certain. You should be willing accept that people will have different opinions when it comes to balancing risks and you should be willing to “agree to disagree†when it comes to policy choices. Unfortunately, you have made up your mind about what the “correct†policy choices are and have decided the full power of the state should be used to force those policy choices on people who disagree.
You also realize that we live in a democracy which means you cannot achieve your objective unless you deliberately misrepresent the certainty in the science – claiming certainty where there is none allows you bully uninformed people into supporting your preferred policy choices. That is why you get upset with people like Anthony or Monkton. If it was simply a matter of science then you would not care if they are wrong because the truth will eventually become obvious no matter what.
Ironically, the more you insist that there is no uncertainty in the science the more you sound like a Chinese official calling the Dali Lama a terrorist.
Raven–
I’m not sure we know Boris’s policy preferences. For all the complaints the complaints delayers, for all we know, it could turn out that you two have precisely the same preferences on particular policies. (Or maybe you don’t.)
I happen to be for increasing reliance on nuclear energy. I also like alternative energy, and I like the idea of encouraging facilities to use waste heat (including co-generation) where that makes sense.
Some of this is motivated by my belief that recent warming is likely caused by man, and much is due specifically to CO2. These steps would reduce that. But some of my preferences also relate to recollections of shortages during the ’70s. It’s best not to put all your energy eggs in one basket.
lucia says:
I have no issue with any policy choices that would make sense even if CO2 induced warming turns out to be a non-issue. Nuclear, alternative energy, higher efficiency etc are all hard to argue with. The only issue I have is with policy choices that seek to outlaw current technologies when no pratical alternatives exist (i.e. coal electricity in many places). I also have an issue with the concept of buying carbon
indulgencescredits because I think the opportunities for fraud and pork barrelling vastly outweigh any theorectical effect on CO2.I agree that I may have stereotyped Boris when it comes to his policy preferences. His anxiousness over ‘uncertainty’ leads me to belive that he favours the more draconian policies that come from folks like Hansen. Perhaps he will enlighten us.
Boris said: (April 9th, 2008 at 5:55 pm”
.
So let’s see if I’ve got this right. You say there are multiple lines of evidence (cite, please), that all of the “recent” rise in CO2 (since what date?) can be attributed to man (and that none can be due to natural causes).
Isn’t there a cycle evident in that CO2 data? Are you saying that this seasonal rise and fall in CO2 is because man burns more (or less) fossil fuels throughout the year?
It seems that raven’s main point is there is SOME variability in CO2 levels due to natural causes. True or false?
henry,
No one denies there is variability in CO2. Raven likes to use weasel words like “SOME.” There is a background range to CO2. Denialists always want to argue over irrelevant things to make it seem like human impact is lower than it is. Just Like I’ve shown with Dr. Aitkin.
Imagine Raven sticks a hose in my window and floods my house. I would say Raven caused all the flooding in the house. Raven would say, “No, you were washing clothes at the time, so SOME of the water in your house was from YOU.”
Raven,
In the very sentence you quote I talk about the “real uncertainties” of the science, so you are not even listening anymore.
mosh,
You’ve hit the problem exactly. The desire to be left alone is clouding people’s objectivity wrt the science. Don’t get me wrong, the desire to be a fluffy environmentalist type clouds people’s objectivity too (look at the all the web nonsense on mysterious “toxins” Have you gotten your Kinoki footpads yet?), but the fluffy environmentalists have the evidence on their side when it comes to AGW. Maybe the next environmental scare they won’t
In any case, the libertarian desire for no intrusion leads folks to the wrong conclusion. As far as I know the libertarian philosophy does not have a solution to the tragedy of the commons. SO instead, we have folks attacking the facts instead of the problems with their own world view. Hey, liberals do it too. Look at the 911Truth movement. These people are not dumb (okay, many are dumb), but they hate Bush so much that all objectivity goes out the window.
In any case, whatever convincing needs to be done by the warmists has probably already been done. Given that if Raven wants to vote for a viable candidate for prez, (s)he will have to vote for one who believes in the science, I think you are wrong about who needs to convince whom.
But excuse me for being against dumb arguments and the manipulation of facts. I am against these things in all cases and will occasionally bang my stinky shoe, if y’all don’t mind.
Boris,
The shoe-banging didn’t work so well for Krushchev. The west is still here; the Soviet Union dead and buried.
boris, we agree on some things. taxes are done. i feel better.
If one reads the policy papers of Clinton, Obama and McCain, one will find that they are all for doing something as long as it does not affect the economy or anything else.
Boris,
Surely you must know the 98% number comes from Richard Lindzen. It’s all over the “warmer” blogs.
So why didn’t you just say, the 98% number is from Richard Lindzen and has not been widely accepted? Why launch into an ad hom as the first step?
FWIW, here’s RealClimate’s estimate (by the way, it would have been helpful for you to have tried to present a “right” number):
“The overlaps complicate things, but it’s clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20070624015308/http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
And that’s for tropospheric water vapor and clouds. There is an additional contribution from stratospheric water vapor and clouds (mostly from methane oxidation and jet contrails).
Wouldn’t it have been better to argue the difference between “66% – 85% [+ stratospheric water]” and “about 98%” than to simply launch into a rant about “dreadful mistakes” and flunking freshman?
Boris says:
Great! You finally acknowledge the obvious. It is about time. You could have saved a lot of time if you simply acknowledged that fact to start with and moved on.
Frankly, I have bigger problem with people who make claims of certainty when there is none. The only thing that we really know is that CO2 causes some warming. We don’t know how much warming and we don’t know whether the net consequences of the warming are going to be good, bad or unnoticeable. Anybody who claims more certainty than that is guilty of manipulating facts.
Ironically, that is why most warmer scientists cannot be trusted no matter what their credentials because their objectivity is shot.
Objective scientists are willing to look at all facts and are not afraid of uncertainty.
Objective scientists would have acknowledged that the hockey stick was deeply flawed, accepted the fact that we don’t have enough accurate data to know whether the MWP was warmer today and moved on.
Objective scientists would have acknowledged that the GCR cloud link is an interesting but unproven hypothesis and started to incorporate it into their models to see what effect it might have on their conclusions.
Objective scientists would not be afraid of setting clear criteria that would demonstrate whether their model based predictions have any connection with reality.
I also would not read too much into the willingness of politicians to raise taxes. The US tax rates are too low and need to go up to finance the over spending of recent years. Asute politicians know this and will be more than happy to use the CO2 hysteria to justify taxes that would have been rejected by the public otherwise. No matter who gets in power I can guarantee that actions on GHG with be mostly pork barrel exercises that do nothing to actually reduce GHGs. I can also guarantee that make of these policies will be reversed once the regulation induced electricity shortage causes power bills to skyrocket in 10 years.
John, I assumed that Lucia and others here knew the actual GHG contributions. Bad assumption on my part, I guess. I didn’t recall it was Lindzen who had given the 98% number (Another denialist hero bites the dust, eh?). Shouldn’t it have been Aitkin that told us who made the argument? I’m supposed to read his mind?
Your “not been widely accepted” is some kind of joke, right. It’s not accepted at all.
I’m glad we’ve finally agreed that Aitkin has no clue what he’s talking about when it comes to climate. It’s about time!
I wonder if Ian agrees with us.
Boris
“I’m glad we’ve finally agreed that Aitkin has no clue what he’s talking about when it comes to climate. It’s about time!”
Aren’t you the one that’s always whining about someone paraphrasing you unfairly?
How about this. Boris thinks a chaired professor at MIT is “some kind of joke” and people who repeat what the chaired professor at MIT (in meterology) says “don’t have a clue”. Boris knows much more about climate than the chaired professor in meterology at MIT. It’s just that Boris was too busy to apply for the job 40 years ago or so.
Boris, what is YOUR number for the total impact of water vapor and clouds (tropospheric + stratospheric) on climate forcings and feedbacks? And you know what? “Nobody knows for sure” as an answer wouldn’t be held against you.
Please be specific, so I don’t have to paraphrase you.
John,
Sorry to ascribe to you a position you do not hold. My number for WV’s contirbution is the number quoted at RC, the number that is undisputed in the scientific literature.
Here is a quote from the RC post that you link to:
So, it doesn’t even appear to be an argument that Lindzen is making, but rather a misreading of the 1990 IPCC report. This is laughable John, really. Lindzen doesn’t even HAVE na argument or theory. He’s just misreading the FAR. MIT becomes irrelevant.
So Aitkin is relying on a scientist’s misreading of the IPCC report. It just gets better and better for him.
Boris,
Lindzen is still saying that. Whether he’s right or wrong, I don’t know. But I’m still looking for someone who is on the record for tropospheric + stratospheric water. The RC link (as far as I can tell), doesn’t tackle the total in a quantitative way, other than to say Lindzen didn’t document his number.
Please tell me if I missed something over there.
I think you’re misunderstanding slightly. The total effect for WV is between 36% and 66%, 66% and 85% including clouds. This includes all WV vapor in the atmosphere, trop and strat.
The issue with the stratospheric WV is whether or not it is a forcing or a feedback. This very small amount of extra H2O comes from anthropogenic methane, so it is counted as a climate forcing. (The chart RC links to shows it as a 0.06 Wm`2 from 1750-2000.)
Boris,
OK, thanks. From that table on the RC page, I took “tropo” to mean troposphere, and figured the text referred to troposphere as well.
Boris says:
And also:
So two more questions, then: If we accept the fact (as referenced by you, and taken from RC) that “The total effect for WV is between 36% and 66%, 66% and 85% including clouds.”, then what is the total effect from CO2. In percentages, please.
Second, your statement says that “No one denies there is variability in CO2” Next question is: What causes this variability – man or nature?
When I look at the monthly chart from Mauna Loa (say, starting in 2004, ang going to present) we see that the CO2 average went up about 8PPM. When you see the actual values, there’s a 8PPM or so difference in values (peak-to-peak). It appears that the “natural” variability swings as much in ONE year, than the total rise in average over 4 years. Comments?
Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,†Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1993/92JD02887.shtml puts the effect of water vapour in the troposphere at 95%.
Now 98% is more than 95% but it is in the same ball park.
Boris is the skeptics best friend
Raven,
I don’t see that in the abstract. I’m not sure what percentage contribution H2O is in the trop. 95% sounds high. But could be. At any rate, the 98% was for the entire greenhouse effect (including the dry stratosphere), so this paper does not seem to challenge the canonical numbers.
henry,
CO2 is between 9% to 26% of the greenhouse effect (13% seems to be most likely number). See my comment 1705 for info on the range.
Those wiggles are the biosphere taking carbon from the atmosphere during growth and giving it back via decay.
Rex,
Thanks for sharing that.
Boris says:
I think this is another case where the science is not settled. I have not been able to find a reference that supports the 98% for the entire atmosphere claim so I would be willing to agree that Aiken’s is wrong on that point. That said, a claim of 90% for the entire atmosphere does seem to be within reason even if there are different scientific opinions out there.
Ok, Boris:
From those numbers alone, it appears that WV has a larger effect than CO2 (by at least a factor of 2X). Sound right?
In other words, natural variability is causing a yearly swing greater than a 4 year rise in average. Got it. I believe that’s what Raven has been saying all along, that some of the increase of CO2 is caused by natural means.
I don’t think 90% for WV can be justified. 88% is the absolute max, and the real number is liekly a good deal less because of overlapping.
Yes, WV does have much larger effect than CO2.
Who knows what Raven meant? The yearly carbon cycle doesn’t create a trend over the long term. It’s just not elevant to what’s happening now.
Well, FWIW, if we return to the famous RC link:
“Making some allowance (+/-5%) for the crudeness of my calculation, the maximum supportable number for the importance of water vapour alone is about 60-70% and for water plus clouds 80-90% of the present day greenhouse effect. (Of course, using the same approach, the maximum supportable number for CO2 is 20-30%, and since that adds up to more than 100%, there is a slight problem with such estimates!).”
Has a bit of a “Devil’s Advocate” tone, but does mention 90%.
90% for WV is just as incorrect as saying 26% for CO2. I know you guys would disapprove of someone arguing CO2 is 26% of the greenhouse effect, as would I.
wWoq, this is a long and bitter thread. I wish it would have focused more on the CO2 issue. Here’s what I have to say (hoping I’ll get a thousand replies from Boris.) on the “natural” CO2 issue.
It does appear obvious, and even uncontroversial that the rise in CO2 is entirely of human origin. I didn’t pay much attention to it, maybe apart from the puzzling fact about the 50% uptake and the “missing sink”, until I saw Roy Spencer’s post, and Allan McRae’s work. I found the correlation between CO2 uptake and temperature quite striking and started playing around with the data, and try to think of a physical model that would account for the link. That’s how I came up with the idea (not very original, I admit) that CO2 might have a temperature-dependent concentration, with a given response time to perturbation. But the thing is that, when I plugged that model into the actual data, lo and behold!, I got that incredible match! Now I don’t know about you, but for all the GCM’s in the world, I haven’t seen one that has such a match with reality. My model may be wrong and absurd and ridicule, and not account for human emissions (yet) but you’ve got to admit that it works quite well. Hell, it’s even predictive! Something we don’t often see in climate science! So when the last few months got colder, I thought, well, we should see a decrease in CO2 uptake. Bingo!
But then, being a conscientious scientist (whatever you might think, I do have some credentials, and I have published in peer reviewed journals, and I’m even cited by some…), so I realized I knew zilch about the carbon cycle, and started reading on the subject to see if my hypothesis could make any sense. Not blogs, or IPCC reports (though I’ve read that too), but real papers (has Boris actually read any?). Not one or two, but about two hundreds so far. What I’ve discovered is a fascinating and dynamic field, much overlooked in the whole climate debate because it’s so taken for granted. We hear a lot about solubility of CO2 and how it varies with temperature, but I’ll tell you, that’s not where the answer is. The answer is not in chemistry, it’s in biology.
What I did not find, though, is anything that would make my finding impossible. Puzzling, maybe. Incomplete, for sure. But certainly not out of the question. There are two main reasons for it.
One is that there still is a missing sink. There is a something in the carbon cycle that is presumed to absorb about 50% of human emissions, and that we don’t clearly understand. But if you don’t understand a 50% uptake, then that mechanism could very well absorb 100% of human emissions, instead of the 50% that we “observe”. Then that 50% that we see would be entirely due to the temperature dependence of the CO2 concentration. In other words, we don’t know what the CO2 concentration would be if temperatures had not risen for the past 100 years. What I’ve realized is that all the carbon cycle models are “tuned” to reproduce the rise in CO2, as if it were entirely of human origin! The models are not tuned with parameters known from measurements. So the models discount the “100% natural” origin from the start, and instead assume a “100% human” origin. Whereas I have come up with a model that doesn’t, and that magically fits with observations.
The second reason is that once you’ve acknowledged that CO2 uptake varies with temperature (and that is indeed acknowledged in the literature), then the only logical conclusion is that, if there is a long period of sustained warming, then the CO2 concentration is bound to increase. I find it interesting that many papers look at possible “feedbacks” of temperature on CO2 for the future warming, but don’t use the same reasoning about the past warming. But what is good for the future should of course also explain the past. So if you acknowledge that, the only thing that remains is the question: how much? In fact, it’s mostly a question of response time.
So the “evidence” cited by Boris tells us nothing, apart from the dual observations that CO2 has risen, and that we are emitting CO2 in the atmosphere. The CO2 fertilization effect is for real, and occurs not only for the land biomass, but also in the oceans for certain phytoplankton, and can explain how an emission of CO2, when temperatures are stable, will trigger an increase in the living matter sinks that will absorb it. It turns out that our knowledge (or lack of) the magnitude of the effect doesn’t preclude this. On the other hand, the biological pump in the oceans can also readily explain how CO2 would increase with temperature, and that is also well acknowledged in the literature. Only the magnitude disagrees with my finding, but the uncertainty is again so high that I’m still within a reasonable range. Furthermore, not only the oceans, but also the land biomass will work the same way, because heterotrophic respiration (bacteria eating dead leaves) will also increase with temperature, and emit CO2. It turns out to be very difficult to accurately quantify those biological processes.
So Boris, maybe you want to discuss this, but I will only ask that you base your arguments on peer reviewed papers (no blogs or IPCC report), as I promise to do if you (or anyone else for that matter) take up the challenge. But here is not the place to do this. There is an open thread at Climate Audit’s message board where you can participate in the discussion.
Francois,
I’ll try not to be bitter :).
I don’t have time to dig into your work, but off the top of my head there seems to be a problem with the logic. We can agree that burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere and that, as you say, about half of that is taken up by sinks. The only sinks available are the ocean and the biosphere. And CO2 is increasing in those sinks, just as we expect it would.
There is no doubt that SST affects uptake; in fact this is one concern for the future because as the oceans warm they might not take up so much CO2.
But what are you saying? That temp is the driver and that human CO2 is going somewhere else? If it’s coming from the oceans, why do C12/C13 ratios support a plant source for the CO2? Why does the atmospheric rise coincide so perfectly with the history of burning fossil fuels? More importantly, if the carbon cycle is as sensitive to SST as you claim, then why are preindustrial CO2 levels so steady?*
It makes no sense to me at all. Sorry.
*The MWP, then, would be out the window!
Boris says:
So? CO2 is being added to the system by humans and it ends up in the sinks. That fact has no bering on the question of what would happen to the atmospheric CO2 levels if humans stopped emitting CO2.
I used the example of a control system that controls the level of water in a tank by controlling the outflow. If the amount of water enters the tank increases the control system will increase the outflow. If the water being added to the tank is dyed red then the water in the tank will be red as will the water going out the outflow. The fact that red water appears in the outflow does not, in any way, prove that the level of water would drop if someone stopped adding water.
The fact that the CO2 sinks appear to respond to the amount of human emissions clearly demonstrates that a feedback system is at work. If we don’t know how this system works we cannot make any claims about what the CO2 levels would be if humans did not emit CO2.
They aren’t. Stomatal proxies tell a different story: http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/1/33
Ice cores are the most accurate and direct way of measuring past CO2. Stomatal measurements are subject to the same problem that early chemical measurements were–proximity to sources of CO2. There may be other problems as well. Ice cores are the only method that have captured accurately (to tenths of a ppm) the CO2 concentrations since the beginning of direct measurements in 1958. Ice cores also accurately measure other trace gas concentrations.
So, my question still stands.
Boris,
If you haven’t taken the time to read my (relatively short) paper, how can you criticize it?
You say there is no doubt that temperature affects uptake. Well, then, the logical conclusion is that if there is a long period of sustained warming, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will rise. I even have one paper that says exactly that, as a remark in passing, without attempting to quantify it. But that’s what I’ve done, in a purely phenomenological way. I have used as a starting point a very simple model where the equilibrium CO2 concentration is temperature dependent. At the beginning, I just wanted to see if I could better match the CO2 uptake data. Others like McRae had used a linear relationship between uptake and temperature, but that didn’t have a very physical meaning, in my opinion, whereas the exponential model is probably the most common in the world (and is used in all carbon cycle models, as I found out later).
So I did obtain a better fit with the CO2 uptake curve. But that’s when I realized that simple fact: if temperatures have been rising, then CO2 has been rising. So I took the data for temperatures since 1880, and I used the very same parameters that gave me the best fit for the uptake curve. Understand this, as it is very important: I used the same parameters, without knowing what the result would be. But it turned out that, using those very same parameters, I could get an exact replica of the CO2 growth curve from Mauna Loa. To within 1%. We’re not talking about correlations with r2 of .3 here. This is not statistics, this is curve fitting of a physical model using experimental data.
Boris, you’re an intelligent person. But are you a practicing scientist? If you were one, you would know that when you find something like that, bells start ringing. You don’t get such a perfect link between independent data set with a plausible physical model, without having hit some underlying truth. Or else, there is a fantastic coincidence. But nevertheless, I thought that that simple discovery should at least be published somewhere, preferrably not on a blog message board. The Arxiv preprint site seems to me to be the perfect place for this, as it allows me to now take the time to dig further on the issue, and see if I can make sense of all this.
Now to your criticism. You say that CO2 increases in all the sinks. I know. I’m saying the same thing. But if my model is right, the same thing will happen. Others say we can find the anthropogenic CO2 in all those sinks. Well, of course, since it was emitted in the first place, it’s got to go somewhere. What I’m saying is that, if CO2 increases because of rising temperatures, the end result will be the same as if it increases because of human emissions. Only the cause is different.
Now to the ice cores. You say: “Ice cores are the most accurate and direct way of measuring past CO2.”
Well, I’m sorry, but they are not a “direct” way. They are a proxy, and as such, they are based on a number of assumptions. We don’t know if they are right, because nobody was there to make an independent measurement. You can claim as loud as you like that stomatal index measurements have problems, ice cores have problems too. But the truth is that both methods often give contradictory results. Trusting one more than the other is a choice based on opinion. If you learn a bit of philosophy of science, you will find that there is no answer to that. It’s the “experimenter’s regress”. So I readily admit that, to build a coherent picture in accord with my model, I have to chose stomatal index reconstructions, and not ice core reconstructions. That’s my choice.
But don’t worry too much. This is just for fun, at least for me. Science can be fun, you know. What I find the most fun here, is that everybody takes this CO2 thing so much for granted. Challenging the most taken for granted assumptions is a lot of fun. Climate scientists don’t do it often enough. I’m no climate scientist, I have no more affiliation with any academic institution, I don’t have to boost my CV with ten papers a year, I don’t have to worry about having my papers rejected with stupid reviewers comments. I can just do the most fun thing in the world (to my taste at least): scientific inquiry.
The most frightening thing here is that I could even be right.
Boris says:
Not everyone accepts that claim: http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
Furthermore, the stomatal measurements follow the temperature changes over the last 2000 years – a relationship that would not happen if they were biased by noise due to local factors.
Francois in response to Boris said:
CO2 rising when the temperature rises is a requirement for the positive feedback look Gore alludes to in “An Inconvenient Truth”, and which those at Real Climate assure us exists.
From time to time, I’ve even read the more alarming versions of AGW suggesting that mans additional CO2 causes heating which then triggers additional CO2 release, resulting in yet more heating.
So, it was appear that this general idea that, under natural circumstands, CO2 is released from the oceans when temperatures rise is not controversial.
The only open questions would appear to be of this sort: What are the various mechanisms for the release and sequestration? What is the “normal” rate of rise in CO2 when temperature rises (this would be without the presence of anthropogenic emissions)? How much more release or absorption happens as a result of both man’s CO2 addition and/or naturally occurring oscillations in surface temperatures?
Francois,
Your argument makes no sense to me on logical grounds, so I think it’s fair to criticize it in the way that I have.
If you agree that CO2 is rising in the atmosphere, the ocean and the biosphere, then where is the extra CO2 coming from? What natural source? It can’t be volcanoes because of C12/C13 isotope evidence and volcanoes do not produce CO2 in such large amounts.
Fossil fuel burning explains the extra CO2 in the atmosphere and the sinks. The extra CO2 has the same chemical fingerprint as CO2 from fossil fuels. What’s more, the oxygen content of the atmosphere has decreased in line with he combustion of fossil fuels. The oxygen is leaving to form CO2.
I believe you are flipping cause and effect, especially if you are focusing post 1958, since this is the time that CO2 forcing has become dominant.
Why did the CO2 keep rising unabated during the 1940s to 1970s slight cooling trend? Why can we discern the great depression and the fall of the Soviet Union in the CO2 record?
As for ice cores, once again, they line up better than any other method to the direct atmospheric measurements. They are a proxy–I think a “more direct” proxy, but that’s a judgment call. But they are a much better proxy, and I don’t think it’s even close.
Raven,
I’m well aware of Jaworowski and his nonsense. The CO2 gets squeezed out of the air under all of that ice, huh? And where does it go? Venus? Do you actually buy that?
Boris says:
This point has been explained a number of times but you don’t seem to be listening. Higher temperatures lead to a higher equilibrium point. If humans weren’t emitting CO2 then this CO2 would have to come from other sources. However, humans are emitting CO2 so the CO2 does not need to come from other sources. Think about a water tank with a level regulated by a feedback system – the amount of water will stay the same even if new water is added to the system. This means the level of water in the tank cannot be ‘blamed’ on the water from external source. Similarly, if the carbon cycle would naturally cause the CO2 to levels to rise to 340ppm no matter what then that portion of the CO2 content cannot be attributed to human causes even if the individual molecules can be traced back to fossil fuels.
He explains the mechanism in his paper:
In any case, his claims would not be interesting on their own, however, the stomata data suggests that the variations in CO2 are larger than what the ice cores say. Since we cannot prove that either proxy is correct we cannot assume that one must be wrong and the other must be right.
Boris,
But there are 38,000 GtC in the oceans!!! Human emissions are less than 6GtC per year. There’s plenty of carbon everywhere in the cycle to make the atmospheric concentration rise. How do you think it got so high in the distant past?
Did you know that the biological pump alone is thought to remove about 200 ppm of carbon from the atmosphere? So only a couple of percent change in its efficiency is enough to account for how much CO2 is added to the atmosphere. Do you know by how much bacterial respiration and phytoplankton primary production can vary with temperature? Well, I told you to give me journal references if you want to debate. Sir, you are the one who’s not making any sense.
Oh, and why did it keep rising from 1950-1975? Did you read my paper???? The lifetime is 30 years or more!!! I showed that in that case, even if temperatures were to start dropping today, CO2 would keep rising for another 25 years. That’s figure 6, if you can read that far…
But perhaps you can explain to me why temperatures didn’t rise for 25 years while CO2 was rising? Talk about cause and effect…
But CO2 is RISING in the oceans!
Boris,
Human emissions add carbon to the entire cycle. I certainly don’t deny that! What is discussed here is how that CO2 is distributed between the various parts of the cycle. Just take the scenario where temperatures are not increasing. Then human emissions would all be absorbed by, most probably, the oceans, but also the land biomass, through the CO2 fertilization effect. Then you would find that the atmospheric concentration would not rise (or much less than what we are observing), but the amount of CO2 in the oceans and in the land biomass would indeed increase. Now we are in a situation where temperatures are rising, but humans also emit CO2. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere, but that’s because the increased temperature has raised the equilibrium value. There is more CO2 in the oceans because there is more CO2 in the entire cycle. It won’t disappear. It just goes somewhere else.
Boris,
Please read a full argument before you start to try and tear it down. Francois’ argument has reasoning behind every counter argument you have made so far, but you have failed to reply directly to his.
During the 1970’s our CO2 was increasing but our temperature was decreasing. It only happened for 30 years! This is a very short time frame in terms of biomass and ocean CO2 absorption. So the long term trend in CO2 increased.
Earlier you stated that the correlation between sunspot activity and temperature was bogus. If this was true, how do you explain the Maunder minimum lining up exactly with the little ice age, and the recent temperature drop lining up with the drop off in sunspot activity.
Here is the basic theory, with references for those who wish to argue it. Please do, as I see a direct correlation, and if I am wrong please tell me how I am wrong. Please explain it to me like I am a complete idiot!!!
The Earth is constantly bombarded with cosmic radiation. The Sun’s magnetic field protects us, and the rest of the solar system, from most of this radiation, similar to the way the Earth’s magnetic field protects us from the solar wind. The number of sunspots on the sun directly correlates to the strength of the sun’s magnetic field. So far each of the previous statements is not disputed. Here is where it gets tricky.
Cosmic radiation, when it hits our atmosphere, “have been experimentally determined to be able to produce ultra-small aerosol particles”(1). Clouds need what are called “cloud condensation nuclei”(2) to form. Cloud formation is hindered by a lack of these CCN’s. The logical conclusion is that if you increase CCN, you increase clouds. This is the conclusion the entire theory makes.
So here is the theory combined:
As sunspot numbers fluctuate, the Sun’s magnetic field fluctuates. More sunspots means a stronger magnetic field. Stronger magnetic field means less cosmic radiations striking the planet. Less radiation means less cloud formation nuclei. Less nuclei means fewer clouds. Fewer cloud means warmer weather (which days are warmer, a cloudy one or a non cloudy one?). The reverse is also true.
The idea is that the great big nuclear reactor in the sky has the greatest effect on the temperatures on this planet.
As an aside here is a paper with calculations showing that the green house effect of anthropogenic GHG emissions (including CO2, Methane CFC’s and Nitrous oxides) are less then .3% of the total greenhouse effect. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
1- Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Nigel Marsh, Martin Enghoff and Ulrik Uggerhøj, “Experimental Evidence for the role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions”, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, (Early Online Publishing), 2006.
2- Wikipidea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_condensation_nuclei
I said no such thing. The bogus theory is that the sun is causing the warming of the past half century.
The GCR theory is separate from sunspots, IIRC. sunspots affect TSI. More sunspots, hotter sun (because apparently the area around sunspots burns brighter/hotter.)
But the GCR theory has been debunked as well. There is no recent correlation between GCR and cloudiness or GCR and temperatures. The CCN that have been proven to be caused by GCR are much smaller than they need to be to actually create clouds. SO, GCR can create proto CCN, but it is unproven whether they can actually create CCN and if those CCN will actually make a material difference given all the other CCN already in the atmosphere. But there’s no correlation at all.
See Real Climate’s take on this.
Francois, your assertion that if temps had remained constant, then human CO2 would be all gobbled up by the ocean is unfounded.
Thank you for someone finally stating a reason why this theory had incorrect scientific underpinnings. Your reasonable response actually helped me understand the theory better.
So if I understand you correctly, there has been no connection recently with cloud cover vs temperature in relation to sunspot activity?
Anthony Isgar says:
The critics of GCR have spent a lot of time attacking strawmen and have not provided any compelling counter argument that addresses the GCR theory *as described by the proponents*. For example, GCR propoponents do not claim that the effect of GCR is global since GCRs must compete with other cloud forming nuclei such as aerosols. Yet that has not stopped alarmsists from using global cloud averages to argue against GCRs.
More information can be found here: http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale
and here: http://www.sciencebits.com/RealClimateSlurs
Dr. Shaviv is quite good a posted thoughtful replies to criticisms that appear in the literature or on the net. No one should form an opinion on GCRs based on critiques in realclimate or elsewhere without looking at his counter arguments.
I did some research, and found a rather lengthy article describing the total effects of the sun on our planet’s temperature. The thing that stuck out to me though was the two graphs on page 4 and the graphs on page 8 and 11.
I would like you to take a look at them please Boris and explain why the match is so much better then the CO2 match. Show me what part of the experiment is wrong please so I can understand. Anyone who is a AGW supporter please take a look at these graphs. It shows the direct correlation between the fluctuations of the sun and the temperatures, with a correlation of .79 vs a correlation of .22 for the CO2 levels vs temperature.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Solar_Changes_and_the_Climate.pdf
Page 4, 8, 11 (for just the pretty pictures)
Please everyone take a look, it is amazing.
Anthony:
If I know the RC crowd, Boris will not look at your link. BTW the skeptics seem to be similar not wanting to look at AGW data LOL. However the AGW science boys have jobs and families at stake.. they cannot afford at the moment to admit AGW is dead
I looked briefly at that PDF, Anthony. Notice that they compare TSI to US temps, but not global temps. They are cherrypicking areas where they find correlation. It’s pretty dishonest stuff, IMO.
Rex is spreading conspiracy theories.
Okay, page 4. They compare the arctic basin temps with the Hoyt-Schatten solar reconstruction. So they cherry pick another area (remember this is GLOBAL warming) and then cherry pick the most favorable solar reconstruction. Unfortunately for them, in this case multiple cherries do not win a jackpot.
On page 8 they used the Global mean temps versus solar cycle length and CO2 concentrations.
On page 11 they used Global temperatures as well.
And they used arctic figures because the way the Earth’s magnetic poles wrap around us, the maximum effect of the solar radiation is going to be at the poles. If you have ever looked at iron fillings around I magnet, the magnetic field is at its lowest at the poles. So they used the arctic temperatures to show the correlation between solar radiation and temperatures.
The paper doesn’t give a reason for why they used the North American temperatures, so lets assume that they did what you said and found the data that fit their curve the best. So lets through out that graph.
That still leaves the Page 4 graphs (I have responded to your criticism of them) and the page 8 graph and the page 11 graph.
For those who don’t feel like scrolling up to find the link,
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Solar_Changes_and_the_Climate.pdf
On my previous post
“So lets through out that graph”
should be
“So lets throw out that graph”
Microsoft spell check how I hate you! 🙂
And by the way, I do not agree with the theory that CO2 will have no effect on temperatures, that would not be a very intelligent position to take. What I do think, though, is that CO2 is having a much smaller effect then is generally shouted about. I think Boris hit the nail on the head earlier, without knowing it, when he said as you increase the CO2 every time you increase it you get a smaller and smaller increase in temperature.
Basically CO2 has decreasing effect on temperature, the first 20 ppm have the largest effect, some estimate about 1.2 degrees for the first 20 ppm. The next 280 pp however, only increase the temperature by 1.8 degrees. This is all estimates, as it is difficult to pin down a number in the lab, but you get the point I am trying to make. If you increase the CO2 concentrations by a factor of 10 you might double they effect it has on temperatures.
Boris,
Unfounded? why is that so? Not a very strong scientific argument, in my opinion. Certainly everyone agrees that half of human emissions have been “gobbled up”. Do you deny that too?
So the current thinking is that half of the emissions have been gobbled up, mostly by the oceans. But the current thinking is not capable of explaining the temperature dependence of CO2 uptake. I can. But that does imply that not 50%, but 100% of emissions have been gobbled up, or would have been if temps had stayed constant. You’ve got to realize that the carbon cycle models are tuned to get the 50% figure, because we don’t have all the numbers to build a carbon cycle from first principles. So those parameters might as well be tuned to give 100% gobbling up, and then add the temperature response (that most don’t have), and voilà !
Anyway, I don’t see the point arguing further, if you don’t even want to read it, or get informed on the current knowledge of the carbon cycle.
Just remember that in the end, the theory and the models have to agree with observations. I’ve commented at CA on how an abusive use of models leads right back to Aristotelian science: academic debate without any link with reality. Comparing models between themselves without regards with how well they agree with observations is an example. I’ve tried to come up with a model that can be directly compared with observations.
If you think that a theory that disproves the current AGW paradigm is wrong because it stalls policy, you should not mess around with science.
I agree with Boris mainly on the percentages (I’m okay with the 13%, as the 26% figure is modeling an atmosphere only of CO2, and the 9% with it gone) although I’d peg it a little lower, maybe 10% of the greenhouse effect, and fairly stable atmospherically as to percentage. It is only about .0001 more of it in over 170 years. If that’s important and something to worry about is another issue, one that bores me.
Surveying sites? Why didn’t the people running them do that? They don’t care? But I can see him being interested; he is a weatherman after all. Certainly more of a reason to do it than a reason for a lot of the people running blogs to be compaining about him doing it. Why would anyone care if it does or not.
Lucia: “In any case, we are still emitting carbon at a significant clip; so the CO2 will likely resume rising as it has in the past.”
If there’s actually a net increase due to the release. As there probably is, due to the fact it’s long-lived of course. I’ll wait for the empirical proof though, thank you very much. 🙂
It seems logical that it’s probably mostly in the plants and ocean rather than the air. The evidence is simply unclear at how well the atmosphere either a) gets rid of CO2 by sequeestering it in the biosphere and hydrosphere b) moves the humidity and lapse rate around to take a percentage rise into account. Quantifying it is difficult.
Nature not reacting in a fully predictable manner month to month is interesting, and that is all I saw Anthony pointing out.