Climate contentions and rebuttals, AGW fails

My earlier post “The Case Against the IPCC and Proponents of Dangerous Anthropological Global Warming” received many comments so I decided to elevate one exchange to post status. The exchange is between”John Parsons” (hereinafter called JP) and “Adam.” The names are in quotes because I don’t know if they are real. JP is apparently a true believer in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), meaning that he contends that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is the main cause of recent warming and that global warming is dangerous. JP is a frequent commenter and tries to rebut issues in many of my posts. Adam is apparently a climate skeptic, meaning that he says there is no physical evidence that carbon dioxide is the main cause of warming.

I have frequently asked JP to present some physical evidence to support his position. In one long comment he presents what he considers evidence derived, he says from NASA and The National Climate Data Center. Adam gives references as he goes along. To avoid much duplication I will go point by point. You can read the complete exchange by going to the comment section of the cited post. I have added a few of my own comments to the discussion.

Claim 1

JP: Jon, You’ve seen the evidence. But because you now say you haven’t, here it is.

Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century.

Adam: But that says nothing about what forces caused the sea level to rise. There is no evidence it was due to CO2.

Wryheat: Sea level has been rising at variable rates for at least the past 15,000 years.

Claim 2

JP: The rate [in sea level rise] in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.”

Adam: “Complete nonsense. There was no significant upward trend in the rate of sea level rise over the past decade, and the rate has actually slowed over the past 6 years.”

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2012_rel1/sl_ns_global.png.

Wryheat: The rate of sea level rise is cyclical on a period approximately equal to solar cycles, see Sea Level Rising? A study of longer-term sea level fluctuations found the mean rate of global sea level rise was “larger in the early part of the last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904-1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954-2003).” (Holgate, S.J. 2007. On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century. Geophysical Research Letters 34: 10.1029/2006GL028492)

Claim 3

JP: “Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.

Adam: Most of that is probably due to the urban heat island effect since the satellites show a lot less warming over the same period.

 http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/r-345.pdf

Wryheat: JP is referring to land surface temperatures. A survey of the U.S. Historic Climate Network shows that 70% of surface stations have a warming bias of greater than 2 °C due to poor siting and the urban heat island effect. JP’s contention is also an example of cherry-picking starting points. In the 1970s, the planet was in a cooling phase and headlines speculated on the possibility of a new “ice age.” NASA data show that 1934 was the warmest year of the last 100 years. Dr. Richard Keen, University of Colorado, says “More than half of the state and provincial maximum temperature records were set during the single decade of the 1930’s, and only 29 percent of these records were set since 1950.” See graph from NOAA of U.S. Climate Extremes Index here.

Of late, however, NASA has again been revising the historic temperature records to make the past seem cooler and the present seem warmer, see here.

Claim 4

JP: Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.

Adam: No they didn’t. See:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/plot/rss-land/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend

Wryheat: Temperatures tend to lag solar cycles. (Qian, W.-H. and Lu, B. 2010. Periodic oscillations in millennial global-mean temperature and their causes. Chinese Science Bulletin 55: 4052-4057)

Claim 5

JP: The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.

Adam: Except the heat is actually a lot less than what the models predicted. This is strong evidence against the CAGW theory. These references show that the ocean is cooling:

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-3/

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/the-travesty-of-the-missing-heat-deep-ocean-or-outer-space/

Wryheat: 0.302 degrees, not 0.301 degrees? Given many sources of error in measurements and computation, it is ridiculous to claim an accuracy of three decimal places.

Claim 6

JP: Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.

Adam: That’s evidence of warming, not what caused the warming. Read the papers on the arctic.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Arctic

Claim 7

JP: In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra, and in 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period. What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus we have found direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth.

Adam: Read these links:

http://www.john-daly.com/smoking.htm

http://landshape.org/enm/interpretation-bias/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html

http://www.climateviews.com/Climate_Views/Download_Articles_files/CookRebuttalb.pdf

Wryheat: This contention is still very controversial, because it depends on how the relationship between forcing and feedback is interpreted. Water vapor increases in a warming atmosphere and water vapor absorbs infrared radiation at three of the four specific wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorbs. Nitrous oxide and, to some extent, oxygen absorbs infrared radiation at the fourth wavelength. In some papers the data are interpreted as a decrease in outgoing long wave radiation, in others, just the opposite. In still other interpretations there was no difference between early and later satellite measurements. Apparently the amount of outgoing radiation is always in flux. The comparisons are confounded by humidity and cloud cover, and it apparently depends also whether or not the readings were taken over land or over ocean, and at what season of the year. The data is subject to confirmation bias, i.e., you see what you want to see. This still does not constitute evidence that carbon dioxide is the main player.

Another reference:

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

Claim 8

JP: The planet’s total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 meters deep.

Adam: Read the other links I provided. In fact a new paper has just been published, showing the heat is missing.

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/PLA_21192_proofs_plusFigs1_2.pdf

Claim 9

JP: The list of evidence I provided is a compilation of statements of facts from NASA, NCDC and NOAA. Only the opening and closing sentences are mine. If you disagree with their findings you should contact them and let them know how they have erred.

Adam: That is simply argument from authority. It’s not a valid argument.

JP: How is it that the facts from the work of NASA scientists are an “appeal to authority” but the scientists you reference are not?

Adam: Because you don’t seem to understand the difference between “claims” and “facts”. You did not present facts in your comment, you provided claims. And those claims were not supported by real world evidence. They contradicted the facts. So therefore repeating claims and claiming that they are “facts” simply because they are from NASA is indeed argument from authority.

JP: I purposely left out the citations that accompanied the claims made by NASA, NCDC and NOAA. The comment was just too unwieldy with them and their websites make their references easily available.

Wryheat:  For a good review comparing  government claims to facts see an essay by Dr. Craig Loehle here.

Claim 10

JP: Adam, you know that GHG’s add to the Earth’s radiative budget. You don’t need to search out a mysterious mechanism that cancels out the effect they have, and then search still further for another as yet unknown force that adds that same or similar effect back into the system.

Wryheat: That mysterious mechanism is called weather. Greenhouse theory seems to ignore convective heat transfer which mixes the atmosphere and transports heat to where it can more readily radiate into space. That allows more heat to escape into space than otherwise would in an idealized clear-sky, still-air greenhouse.

(Lindzen and Choi, 2011, On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications, Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390. AND Lindzen et al.,2007, Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.)

Claim 11

JP: Adam, many who deny the obvious about AGW have a powerful political motive.

Adam:Complete nonsense. Do all these scientists have political motives.

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Wryheat: See how JP deflects the argument away from the main issue.

Conclusion

JP: Please don’t keep saying you haven’t seen the evidence.

Wryheat: Sorry JP, all the phenomena you describe have an explanation in natural variation. Your “evidence” is equivocal and contains no smoking gun. This all makes for great scientific debate, but when economically significant political policy decisions are based on equivocal “evidence” we see that it is the AGW hypothesis itself that is the real danger.

To potential commenters: Keep it civil and on point, otherwise your comments will be deleted.

Advertisements

38 comments

  1. Yawn. It’s been known that CO2 increases the heat budget of the system or a century or more.  The CO2 concentration has been increasing, and the rate of increase is increasing (an upward curve, in lock step with fossil carbon use).  So has the heat of the system.  That is, the temperature, of the whole system–air, water, and topsoil..  I think we will find that the reason that the air temp has increased less fast (but not decreased at all) in the last dozen years is because heat is being dumped more directly into the water, say because of the decrease in sea ice.

    There is no single opposing theory the skeptics have put forth that predicts what’s happening better than this.  The skeptics’ theories are all over the map.  If I want to find one reason for the changing climate, I’ll go with the cohesive one. To not at least stop the atmo loading of CO2, by stopping dumping un-offset (fossil) carbon, for our part is simply reckless.

    1. To falsify a theory, one doesn’t have to produce another theory, one just has to show that the theory in question does not fit the physical evidence.  However, as for an alternate theory: climate is complex, the sun is the ultimate heat engine and it has many cycles on different time scales that can explain the observations.  CO2 may have some hypothetical influence on the heat budget, but its effect is very weak compared to natural processes. Why else with an increasing CO2 concentration do we have both cooling and warming cycles?  In spite of your contention, you haven’t produced any physical evidence that CO2 has a major effect.

      1. Jon, As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth’s climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, “…during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”. 

        Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).

        Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008) performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005.

        Huber and Knutti (2011): “Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950.”
        Erlykin 2009: “We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming.”
        Benestad 2009: “Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.”
        Lockwood 2008: “It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%.”
        Lean 2008: “According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years…”
        Lockwood 2008: “The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings.”
        Ammann 2007: “Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century.”
        Lockwood 2007: “The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.”
        Foukal 2006 concludes “The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years.”
        Scafetta 2006 says “since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone.”
        Usoskin 2005 conclude “during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.

        It’s not the Sun.

        As illustrated above, neither direct nor indirect solar influences can explain a significant amount of the global warming over the past century, and certainly not over the past 30 years.  As Ray Pierrehumbert said about solar warming, “That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.”.  JP

      2. Hey JP. Nice cut and paste job from skeptical science. Unfortunately many of those studies have been criticised, and almost all of them used computer models. In fact many of the papers (e.g. lean and rind, lockwood, benestad) have actually been refuted by scafetta’s papers.

        I suggest that you read (at least some) these links and papers which address you argument that the sun can’t explain post 1970 climate change:

        – ‘Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600’ by Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West published in the ‘Journal of Geophysical Resarch (2007)
        http://www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf
        – ‘Is Climate sensitive to solar variability’ by Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West published in Physics Today (2008)
        http://www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
        – ‘Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to
        global mean air surface temperature change’ by Nicola Scafetta published in the ‘Journal of Atmospheric and Solar Terrestrial Physics (2009)
        http://www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf
        – ‘Empirical
        evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscilations and its
        impications’ by Nicola Scafetta published in the Journal of Atmospheric
        and Solar Terrestrial Physics (2010)
        http://www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
        – ‘Reply
        to Lockwood and Frohlich – The Persistent role of the Sun in climate
        foricng’ by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christenson published
        ‘Danish National Space Centre
        scientific report’ (2007)
        http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SvensmarkPaper.pdf
        – Poptech’s solar papers list
        http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Solar
        – Poptech’s Cosmic ray papers list
        http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Cosmic
        – Do solar scientists STILL think that recent warming is too large to explain by solar activity?  (WUWT)
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/02/do-solar-scientists-still-think-that-recent-warming-is-too-large-to-explain-by-solar-activity/
        – Does solar activity have to KEEP going up to cause warming? Mike Lockwood responds  (WUWT)
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/22/does-solar-activity-have-to-keep-going-up-to-cause-warming-mike-lockwood-responds-3/
        – Solar warming and ocean equilibrium, Part 3: Solanki and Schuessler respond  (WUWT)
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/07/solar-warming-and-ocean-equilibrium-part-3-solanki-and-schuessler-respond/
        – Nir Shaviv: Why is Lockwood and Frohlich meaningless?  (TRF)
        http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html
        – A critique on the Lockwood/Frohlich Paper in the Royal Soceity Proceedings  (FOS)
        http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen8/GregoryLockwood.html
        – The “Unruly Sunne” cannot be ruled out as a cause of Recent Climate Variation  (SPPI)
        http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/the_unruly_sunne_cannot_be_ruled_out_as_a_cause_of_recent_climate_variation.html
        – Lockwood and Frohlich Part 2  (Jennifer Morracy) 
        http://jennifermarohasy.com/2007/08/lockwood-and-frohlich-part-2/
        – Nicola Scafetta comments on “Solar Trends and Global Warming” By Benestad and Schmidt
        http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/nicola-scafetta-comments-on-solar-trends-and-global-warming-by-benestad-and-schmidt/

      3. Hey JP. Nice cut and paste job from skeptical science. Unfortunately many of those studies have been criticised, and almost all of them used computer models. In fact many of the papers (e.g. lean and rind, lockwood, benestad) have actually been refuted by scafetta’s papers.  I suggest that you read (at least some) these links and papers which address you argument that the sun can’t explain post 1970 climate change: 

        – ‘Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600’ by Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West published in the ‘Journal of Geophysical Resarch (2007)
        http://www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf
        – ‘Is Climate sensitive to solar variability’ by Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West published in Physics Today (2008)
        http://www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf
         – ‘Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change’ by Nicola Scafetta published in the ‘Journal of Atmospheric and Solar Terrestrial Physics (2009)
        http://www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf
         – ‘Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscilations and its impications’ by Nicola Scafetta published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar Terrestrial Physics (2010)
        http://www.fel.duke.edu/%7Escafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf

      4.  – ‘Reply to Lockwood and Frohlich – The Persistent role of the Sun in
        climate foricng’ by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christenson
        published ‘Danish National Space Centre scientific report’ (2007)
        http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SvensmarkPaper.pdf
         –
        Poptech’s solar papers list
        http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Solar
         – Poptech’s Cosmic ray papers list
        http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Cosmic
         – Do
        solar scientists STILL think that recent warming is too large to explain
        by solar activity?  (WUWT)
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/02/do-solar-scientists-still-think-that-recent-warming-is-too-large-to-explain-by-solar-activity/
         – Does solar activity have to KEEP going up
        to cause warming? Mike Lockwood responds  (WUWT)
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/22/does-solar-activity-have-to-keep-going-up-to-cause-warming-mike-lockwood-responds-3/
         – Solar warming and
        ocean equilibrium, Part 3: Solanki and Schuessler respond  (WUWT)
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/07/solar-warming-and-ocean-equilibrium-part-3-solanki-and-schuessler-respond/
         

      5. – Do solar scientists STILL think that recent warming is too large to explain by solar activity?  (WUWT)
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/02/do-solar-scientists-still-think-that-recent-warming-is-too-large-to-explain-by-solar-activity/
        – Does solar activity have to KEEP going up to cause warming? Mike Lockwood responds  (WUWT)
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/22/does-solar-activity-have-to-keep-going-up-to-cause-warming-mike-lockwood-responds-3/
        – Solar warming and ocean equilibrium, Part 3: Solanki and Schuessler respond  (WUWT)
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/07/solar-warming-and-ocean-equilibrium-part-3-solanki-and-schuessler-respond/
        – Nir Shaviv: Why is Lockwood and Frohlich meaningless?  (TRF)
        http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html

      6. Thanks Adam, It took three hours to do the other post so I figured I deserved a break. I’m familiar (as you know) with Scarfetta’s work. But, honestly the Math is just beyond my reach. Inasmuch as it correlates with Svensmark’s work, I think I can offer some insight. I’ll try to get to that this evening or tomorrow. I think you’ll agree that without a GCR connection, there just has’t been a reasonable mechanism proposed for a solar forcing of sufficient magnitude to account for the warming TREND we see. Agreed? JP

      7. – ‘Reply
        to Lockwood and Frohlich – The Persistent role of the Sun in climate
        foricng’ by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christenson published
        ‘Danish National Space Centre
        scientific report’ (2007)

        http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SvensmarkPaper.pdf

        – Poptech’s solar papers list

        http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Solar
        – Poptech’s Cosmic ray papers list

        http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Cosmic

         

      8. The theory is fitting the evidence.  On a short scale (centuries, certainly) the sun has almost no effect on temperature approaching what we currently see.  The radiation just doesn’t change as much as would be needed to explain current heating on such scale. 

        What influences day to day and year to year natural variability, and on a larger scale explains sharp climatic changes over decade scale is way the energy moves around in the system.  Various components can act as batteries for heat, and may charge for decades or centuries, and then discharge.  Consider the fast release of gigatons of previously dammed-up Canadian glacier water into the Atlantic via is the St Lawrence channel quite a few thousand years ago that shut down the Atlantic conveyor for a time.

        This is all seemingly haphazard, and beyond our control, but the bounds in the long run are set and known.  What we can control is the terrestrial uptake rate of the relatively constant flow of energy from the sun.

  2. Those that believe excessive carbon emissions are contributing to global warming should write their state and federal representatives demanding preventive measures for the massive forest and brush fires we have annually.  I do not understand who is profiting from allowing these fires, but cannot think of any reason other than someone is profiting.  Maintaining firebreaks and clearance on the sides of roads so that fire fighting teams have lines to effectively fight and contain these fires would seem to be much more cost effective than dealing with the out of control fires and damages caused without them.  Compare the carbon emissions from the wild fires last year to that from fuels being purposely burned.  The fact that these have occurred naturally throughout history, does not justify not doing something about them now.  This is something that can be done right now.  It will create meaningful, productive jobs maintaining these clearings that will also improve our environment.   All of the other things we can do to stop the waste can be worked on, and will take time.  This can be done quickly, but only if people make some noise about it.

  3. Claim 1: Adam says, “But that says nothing about what forces caused the sea level to rise.”  It wasn’t meant to say what caused it. It’s meant establish that it’s warming. Read on.

    Claim 2: Clever Adam. “There was no significant upward trend in the rate of sea level rise over the past decade…” True, but we’re talking about climate, and climate trends are measured over periods of thirty years or more. Weather is what happens in ten years, not climate. “The rate has actually slowed over the past 6 years.” Do I get to pick any six year period I want? And what does ANY six year period have to say about climate. Right, nothing.

    Jon states, “The rate of sea level rise is cyclical on a period approximately equal to solar cycles…” So? What does that say about AGW? Jon Then goes on to give us a study which was actually part of the NASA work! One who’s results, when including the margin of error, are completely consistent with the NASA findings. Here’s the final sentence in the abstract Jon links to:  “Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.” So we multiply 1.74mm/yr by 100 years and we get 17 centimeters. Exactly what NASA said.

    Claim 3: Adam says, “Most of that is probably due to the urban heat island effect…” Maybe he doesn’t think we know about the many studies that show that the UHIE is well accounted for in the measurements. In fact the latest (the BEST study), was done by Richard Muller, a former skeptic. Here’s a link to the Wall Street Journal where he describes the end of skepticism based on UHI:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html

    Jon goes on to tell us that: “NASA data show that 1934 was the warmest year of the last 100 years.” No it doesn’t. NASA says 2005 and 2010 were tied for the warmest. Here’s NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2010-warmest-year.html Jon then goes on to present temperatures from the U.S. as if we should accept them as evidence for GLOBAL surface temps. Jon, Global means Global. Not some region or regions you arbitrarily pick.

    Claim 4: I said that, “Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.” Adam replied, “No they didn’t.” and proceeds to link us to a site that shows us a trend of ten years. He should know (and probably does) that this is not a climate trend. To see the actual NASA climate trend chart, with error bars, means, 25, 50, 100 and 150 year trend lines; look here:  http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-3-1-1.html  Even through a deep solar minimum, the climate trend line was NEVER broken.

    Claim 5: Adam says, “Except the heat is actually a lot less than what the models predicted.” Adam, you’re not counting the heat below 700 meters. Then he goes on to tell us to visit JoAnne Nova, where she tells us that NASA is wrong and the oceans are actually cooling. That’s right, now they’re not just warming less, they’re cooling. You’ve got a tough decision to make. “Am I going to believe the guys who put a man on the moon or Jo Nova.” Think hard. 

    And Jon, well he’s upset that I left out the margin of error. It’s +/-.05.

    Claim 6: Arctic Ice Melt. Jon smartly leaves Adam hanging out alone on this one. “That’s evidence of warming, not what caused the warming.” That’s right. Not every sentence is evidence for warming AND the cause of warming. Read the whole thing. Multiple lines of evidence pointing to the conclusion. (Clue: Professor Plum did it in the library with the Lead Pipe.)

    Claim 7:  Here’s what Jon and Adam couldn’t wait for. The empirical evidence that GHG’s are causing the warming. Satellite measurements from multiple sources that show conclusively that heat is being reradiated at the exact wavelengths that CO2, CH4 and other manmade greenhouse gases absorb longwave radiation from the surface. Adam doesn’t seem to wish to comment. He sends us to one article that complains mightily about how the media made too big a deal about the findings. And another where the author informs us that the findings don’t show an increasing trend in the amount of heat. That might be because that’s not what the instruments do. First we found out what: warming. Now we’ve learned how: CO2. Next we learn who: that would be us.

    Jon, tries to explain that this is “very controversial”. But strangely, he has only one reference about this controversy. And that (the Lindzen/Choi paper) has nothing to do with the subject. It’s an attempt to repair a much maligned earlier work on climate sensitivity. Check the references. None for Evans 2006. None for Harries 2001. None for Philipona 2004. And none for Wang 2009. It’s a little difficult to refute a paper without ever mentioning it. You’ll have go do better than that Jon, if you want this “controversy” to have legs.

    Claim 8: Adam: “In fact a new paper has just been published, showing the heat is missing.” The heat was never missing. The Douglas/Knox paper is interesting but the so-called missing heat turns out to have been there all along. See this accounting of the missing heat at Nature GeoScience: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo1375.html.  It is an interesting story.

    Claim 9: The “appeal to authority” also known as the “Argument from Authority”. Let’s not just put this baby to bed, Let’s smother it with a pillow. Skeptics and Denialists love to squeal “that’s an appeal to authority!”  whenever an expert or group of experts are cited. Well guess what, the Rules of Rhetoric and Argument say properly formulated arguments from authority are powerful inductive arguments.

    “The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:
    1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
    2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.” (Refs.: Salmon, M. H. (2006). “Introduction to Critical Reasoning.” Mason, OH: Thomson Wadsworth. pp. 118–9. Gensler, Harry J. (2003). “Introduction to Logic.” New York, NY: Routedge. pp. 333–4.)

    Adam and Jon both seem to be unable to make the simple distinction between a proper and an improper form of this Argument. Let me lay out a little guideline. You see two arguments. One is an opinion piece by a blogger. The other is research by the guys who put a man on the moon. Go with the second.

    Claim 10: Jon says, “That mysterious mechanism is called weather.” Jon, climate IS weather. Over a long period of time. So you’re telling us that what is altering our long term weather is weather? Seems like you’ve gotten confused Jon.

    You go on to say, “Greenhouse theory seems to ignore convective heat transfer which mixes the atmosphere and transports heat to where it can more readily radiate into space.” Jon, it never ceases to amaze me that you can imagine you’ve discovered a phenomenon that Climatologists have overlooked. You are the one who misunderstands convection. Nearly all  Convection happens only in the lowest layer of the atmosphere, the troposphere. In fact, that’s the origin of the word ‘troposphere’. The Greek, tropos, means ‘overturning’; that is, connvection. Heat lost to space happens through radiation not convection. Jon, the stratosphere is cooling not warming. If convection from the troposphere were “dumping” heat into the stratosphere, the opposite would be observed. This is a signature of AGW. Convection plays a major role in climate. “Dumping heat into space” is not one of them. The paper you link to says nothing about “dumping heat into space”.

    Claim 11:  Jon, you say that the evidence for AGW is equivocal. But the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, AR4, produced by thousands of authors, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies, says that evidence is “unequivocal”.

    In fact, the headline findings of the report were: “warming of the climate system is unequivocal”, and “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    You are asking your readers to do just the opposite of what the Rules of Logic dictate. The authorities are legitimate experts. There is a consensus. Now we need to decide the proper course of action.   JP

    1. JP: Most of your quibbles are geared toward “It’s not the Sun.”  But you still have not presented any unequivocal evidence that CO2 is the major cause of recent warming.  That was the original question.  Is it your argument that it must be CO2 because you can’t think of anything else?  As for the IPCC’s AR4: it must be unequivocal because they say it is?  I direct readers to analyses of the IPCC:

      The Assumed Authority:
      http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2009/06/27/the-assumed-authority/ 

       IPCC and Peer Review: http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2010/02/02/ipcc-and-peer-review/ 

      and Book Review: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, an IPCC Exposé:  http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/10/17/book-review-the-delinquent-teenager-who-was-mistaken-for-the-worlds-top-climate-expert-an-ipcc-expose/

      1. Jon, Do you demand unequivocal evidence that your house will burn down before you buy insurance?   JP

    2. I’m posting this FROM ADAM

      (Disqus does not apparently support embedded links so you have to give the entire URL)

      “Hey JP. Nice cut and paste job from skeptical science. Unfortunately many of those studies have been criticised, and almost all of them used computer models. In fact many of the papers (e.g. lean and rind, lockwood, benestad) have actually been refuted by scafetta’s papers.  I suggest that you read (at least some) these links and papers which address you argument that the sun can’t explain post 1970 climate change:  

      – ‘Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600’ by Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West published in the ‘Journal of Geophysical Resarch (2007): http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf 

      – ‘Is Climate sensitive to solar variability’ by Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West published in Physics Today (2008): http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf 

      – ‘Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change’ by Nicola Scafetta published in the ‘Journal of Atmospheric and Solar Terrestrial Physics (2009)
      http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf 

      – ‘Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscilations and its impications’ by Nicola Scafetta published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar Terrestrial Physics (2010)
      http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf 

      – ‘Reply to Lockwood and Frohlich – The Persistent role of the Sun in climate foricng’ by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christenson published ‘Danish National Space Centre scientific report’ (2007): http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SvensmarkPaper.pdf 

      – Poptech’s solar papers list: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html 

      – Poptech’s Cosmic ray papers list: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

      – Do solar scientists STILL think that recent warming is too large to explain by solar activity?  (WUWT): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/02/do-solar-scientists-still-think-that-recent-warming-is-too-large-to-explain-by-solar-activity/

      – Does solar activity have to KEEP going up to cause warming? Mike Lockwood responds  (WUWT): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/22/does-solar-activity-have-to-keep-going-up-to-cause-warming-mike-lockwood-responds-3/ 

      – Solar warming and ocean equilibrium, Part 3: Solanki and Schuessler respond  (WUWT)
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/07/solar-warming-and-ocean-equilibrium-part-3-solanki-and-schuessler-respond/

      – Omitted variable fraud: vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5  (WUWT): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/

      – Nir Shaviv: Why is Lockwood and Frohlich meaningless?  (TRF)
      http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html 

      – A critique on the Lockwood/Frohlich Paper in the Royal Soceity Proceedings  (FOS)
      http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen8/GregoryLockwood.html 

      – The “Unruly Sunne” cannot be ruled out as a cause of Recent Climate Variation  (SPPI)
      http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/the_unruly_sunne_cannot_be_ruled_out_as_a_cause_of_recent_climate_variation.html 

      – Lockwood and Frohlich Part 2  (Jennifer Morracy): http://jennifermarohasy.com/2007/08/lockwood-and-frohlich-part-2/   

      – Nicola Scafetta comments on “Solar Trends and Global Warming” By Benestad and Schmidt

      http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/nicola-scafetta-comments-on-solar-trends-and-global-warming-by-benestad-and-schmidt/ 

      1. Adam, I can’t comment on many of the opinion pieces you point to, unless they are somehow based on the peer-reviewed literature. You know that I’m not a climatologist and my opinion of someone else’s opinion is…well, I think you can see how that would go. As I mentioned above, I’ll try to get to your comment, at least by tomorrow.

        In the meantime, I ask you the same question I asked Jon: Is it your opinion that we can put unlimited amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere without consequence? JP

      2. Adam, your Norman Rogers material is absolutely incoherent. For example: “Radiation absorbed by the Earth equals short wave reflected plus infrared emitted except for the energy moved to or from the oceans.” This is absolute gibberish. Would you like to explain that sentence? Please. This cannot possibly be peer reviewed.

        Adam, regarding stratospheric cooling, first you provide a link to a site that purports to show that the stratosphere is NOT cooling and in the very next sentence you provide a graph that shows the stratospheric temperature going DOWN in “steps”. How can I take this seriously , Adam?

        Your own reference says this: “Channel TLS (Lower Stratosphere) is DOMINATED by stratospheric COOLING, punctuated by warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).” You said the cooling coincided with the eruptions. It was exactly the opposite, Adam, there were brief warnings of the stratosphere due to the eruptions.

        NASA in 2011 says this: “High up in the stratosphere, from 30 to 50 km above the ground, the measurements show increasing water vapor and a very large, global cooling trend of 3° to 6°C (5° to 11°F) over recent decades.”

        I’m trying to be accommodating, Adam, but you can’t expect me to continue to spend hours running down these kinds of errors.   JP

      3. Adam (and apparently, Jon) The first four papers you cite are Scarfetta’s. Two are essentially answers to problems that others pointed out to Scarfetta (and West). Scarfetta’s work is basically an effort to describe celestial impacts on Earth’s climate with mathematical periodicity modeling. Critics have pointed out that some mathematical model can be made to fit nearly any periodic function. I do not have the expertise to critique Scarfetta. Many others have and you’ll have no trouble finding them. Good luck with the Math. The fact is that Scarfetta’s model predicts that starting around 2006, Global climate will begin to stabilize then cool until ~2030-2040. We don’t have long to wait to see if he’s right or wrong.

        I find Scarfetta interesting only in as much as his work may prove to have some basis in informing theories about the effect Galactic Cosmic Rays have (or don’t have) on clouds. Specifically cloud formation. This includes the work of Svensmark and others and the recent experimental work done at CERN, specifically the CLOUD studies, as well as the upcoming Cloud Condensation Nuclei experiments.

        Before I go on with Scarfetta and GCR’s Adam, I need to know if you have a deep understanding of these studies. Do you?

        As for the Gregory piece, although not peer reviewed, inasmuch as it has a relationship to Svensmark; I will address the issues he raises if you are prepared to discuss it.

        Concerning poptech: Are you kidding me? Do you seriously believe that all the papers listed under “solar” at PopTech arrive at the same conclusion? Or even that they have the same or similar hypotheses? That’s not what I read. There are nearly as many different mechanisms described, and as many different conclusions reached, as there are papers. Many are mutually exclusive. Was this a joke? I didn’t tell you to review every 
        paper the IPCC referenced on a subject. I suggest if you are serious, you put your hypothesis in your own words and use specific papers that directly support your notion. If you do that, I will address your contentions. You are suggesting that I’m somehow obliged to review every paper listed under “solar” or “GCR” at PopTech and sort out and address those which seem to come to conclusions at odds with my own. That’s your job Adam. 

        As far as the rebuttal of Lockwood and Frohlick, you know this is all about the TSI/ACRIM disputes. Are you an expert on the mathematics of active cavity radiometer irradiance monitors Adam? I actually did some studies of  microwave cavitrons, and this stuff is way over my head. Might I suggest that the most you or I could presume was that some scientists have issues with aspects of Lockwoods work. Given that the paper is 6 years old and has had numerous answers published, I think it’s unfair to say that Lockwood has, in any way you or I could judge, been “refuted”. To the contrary, the majority seem to agree with Lockwood.

        Adam, if you are a true skeptic, you are at least as familiar with the literature that supports the Theory of AGW as you are the literature that is skeptical. And if that is the case, you know that the consensus scientific agreement is that there is no currently known mechanism for a solar forcing that can statistically account for the warming we are experiencing. The suggested mechanism propounded by Svensmark is generally accepted as the only one now known that MAY be able to explain some PART of this warming, but much further study needs to be done. 

        Adam, you can either accept or reject the consensus of the experts on climatology. If you had a tumor, you could accept the consensus of oncological experts, or you could choose to accept the view of the few that disagree with the consensus. The latter choice would effect only you. The former is the fate of us all.   JP

  4. JP continues to claim that the current warm period is somehow unusual.  However, a summary of 20 papers citing geological and other evidence shows “the climatic transition from the Little Ice Age to the Current Warm Period was of the same type and magnitude as the climatic transition from the Dark Ages Cold Period to the Medieval Warm Period. And because the earlier of these two warming eras occurred at a time when the air’s CO2 content was stable and much lower than it is today, there is no compelling reason to believe that 20th-century warming was in any way related to the concurrent increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration. Quite to the contrary, it was most likely the result of whatever drives the natural millennial-scale cycling of Earth’s climate that has operated for eons throughout glacial and interglacial periods alike.”  See http://www.co2science.org/subject/d/summaries/dacpnamerica.php

    1. Jon, Is it your position that we can put unlimited amounts of CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere without consequence?  JP

      1. Again you are deflecting the issue away from providing evidence to support AGW.  However, I will answer.  

        My position is that looking at geologic history, we see that for a very long time CO2 was more than 3 times what it is now and we had a major ice age when it was 10 times higher than now.  And yes, when not in an ice age the planet was warmer.  We can argue the “chicken and egg” cause and effect. The ice cores show that temperature changes preceded changes in CO2 and any alleged “amplifying effects” of CO2 were not strong enough to forestall cooling controlled by Milankovitch cycles.

        I think that a doubling or tripling of CO2 will have little effect because the wavelengths of long-wave radiation absorbed and re-radiated by CO2 are near saturation.  Once saturation is reached, adding more CO2 will make no difference in the greenhouse effect.

      2. OK, You still seem to believe there is a “saturation” level of greenhouse gases. You’ve seen the refutation of this old saw at least twice, but for the sake of any reader’s that might not know, I’ll try to put together a review of the topic by tomorrow. Crazy busy today.

        Jon, do you honestly not understand that before CO2 forcing by humans, CO2 was a feedback? Do you not understand the difference between the two roles? What am I missing?

        You’ve said that the ice cores are not accurate. You had an entire post about that. Are they accurate when they support your position, but inaccurate when they don’t?

        If there were a CO2 “saturation” level, there would be no reason to limit GHG’s to “a doubling or tripling”. So am I correct to assume that you are saying there is no reason, in your view, to limit CO2 at all? JP

      3. Jon, For the third time I’ll explain why your CO2 “saturation” argument is incorrect. I don’t do it for you, but rather for the same reason I do anything here at all. That is to show your readers the truth as best we know it. In this case we know it very well.

        I know you won’t accept my explanation (which is my synopsis from Pierrehumbert’s basic college textbook “Principals of Planetary Climate”) so I ask you to contact Roy Spencer and ask him. Maybe you’ll listen to him. 

        So here it is.  (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the lower atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere that counts. The thin upper atmosphere cannot become saturated, as it is unbounded. (b) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes ( it condenses out) and at the low pressures there, water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2. 

        The saturation argument only makes sense for a closed system. Like a glass column in a lab with CO2 mixed with other atmospheric gases. The higher up in the atmosphere the CO2 is, the larger it’s relative effects are.   

        Some of your arguments have merit. This one has none and continuing to propound it will only detract from your credibility.   JP

    2. Jon, I began addressing your comment, but it is so fraught with errors, I will need to do so when I have more time. I’ll try to get back this evening. JP

    3. Jon, Why a summary of those 20 papers? Why choose those twenty rather than base your summary on all the literature? My guess is that you did so because the vast majority of climatologists disagree with your assumption. For a review of ALL the literature, your readers can see this: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html

      Five major studies have now been done on this subject. And they have come to similar conclusions using different methodologies. On the evidence of the Mann 1998 study, and four subsequent works that reach back more than 1 kyr, it is likely that the 20th century was the warmest in at least the past 1,300 years.

      One other thing is certain. The MWP was not the result of human emissions of GHG’s. Since Jon provides no mechanism for what did cause it, assuming that the same mechanism is causing present day warming and is at the same time canceling out the effects of human greenhouse gases, would be preposterous. JP

  5. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM ADAM

    JP. Thank you for writing such a long comment. 

    “It wasn’t meant to say what caused it. It’s meant establish that it’s warming.”
     
    Rising sea level establishes a long term warming trend over the past hundred years. I don’t think that any skeptic has denied that. What I was simply trying to show is that evidence of warming tells us nothing about what caused the warming trend. Sea level has always been rising and falling over millennia. I don’t deny that sea level rose over the past century. What I do dispute is the causes of it. 

    JP: “Clever Adam. There was no significant upward trend in the rate of sea level rise over the past decade…” True, but we’re talking about climate, and climate trends are measured over periods of thirty years or more. Weather is what happens in ten years, not climate. “The rate has actually slowed over the past 6 years.” Do I get to pick any six year period I want? And what does ANY six year period have to say about climate. Right, nothing.” 

    JP once again you don’t understand what I’m saying. I don’t deny that the long term trend is a clear increase in sea level rise. And I agree that in most cases, just picking out a six year period is cherrypicking (as you implied). But I don’t agree with you in this case. Over the past six years greenhouse gas forcing on the climate was meant to be at it’s maximum level over the past century. AGW supporters have continuously gone on about how greenhouse gases are increasing. “The content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is accelerating super-exponentially.”(Joe Romm). They put it on their websites. Unfortunately JP if greenhouse gases were the dominant driver of present day climate change, then you would also expect the rest of the changes in the climate system (such as sea level rise) to also be accelerating. Yet it didn’t. Whilst CO2 was “accelerating super-exponentially” the rate of sea level rise actually slowed down. You can’t claim that this observation is not important.

    Not only that, but you seem to have forgotten your original claim; that “the rate of sea level rise over the past decade was double that of the past century”. I was simply trying to show that your claim was wrong. You now seem to have completely changed what you said, and claiming that short term trends don’t matter.

    JP: “Jon Then goes on to give us a study which was actually part of the NASA work! One who’s results, when including the margin of error, are completely consistent with the NASA findings. Here’s the final sentence in the abstract Jon links to: “Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.” So we multiply 1.74mm/yr by 100 years and we get 17 centimeters. Exactly what NASA said.”

    JP I think you’ve simply made up an argument, so you could knock it down. Could you please point out where me or Jon ever claimed where NASA was wrong about the amount of sea level rise over the past century? I don’t deny that sea level rose by 17cm. What we were actually referring to is the claim of the rate of sea level rise over the past decade.

    JP: “Claim 3: Adam says, “Most of that is probably due to the urban heat island effect…” Maybe he doesn’t think we know about the many studies that show that the UHIE is well accounted for in the measurements. In fact the latest (the BEST study), was done by Richard Muller, a former skeptic. ”

    First of all Richard Muller is not a former skeptic
    http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/richard-muller-is-and-isnt-a-former-skeptic/

    http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/richard-muller-was-a-climate-skeptic-for-many-years/

    And I think you should read this link about the BEST data
    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/sks-sesame-street-and-intellectual-dishonesty/

    You still haven’t referenced the paper I provided, or explained why, if the surface temp record was unreliable, why there is such a big difference between surface and satellite records.
    And see
    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/03/why-satellites-are-better-at-measuring-global-temperature/
    and
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Weather

    “I said that, “Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.” Adam replied, “No they didn’t.” and proceeds to link us to a site that shows us a trend of ten years. He should know (and probably does) that this is not a climate trend. To see the actual NASA climate trend chart, with error bars, means, 25, 50, 100 and 150 year trend lines; look here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publication… Even through a deep solar minimum, the climate trend line was NEVER broken.” 

    Read this about the graph shown
    http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/howtheipccinventedanewcalculus

    The deep solar minimum only started significantly over the past decade. Over that period temperatures dropped. The long term trend over the past century does nothing to change that. Temperature dropped when the sun decreased.

    “Claim 5: Adam says, “Except the heat is actually a lot less than what the models predicted.” Adam, you’re not counting the heat below 700 meters. ”

    JP, a review of the theory is in order….. the CO2 intercepts and absorbs IR energy. It sends it back to the earth. Much of the earth is oceans, so most of the energy goes to the oceans……. there, it somehow travels downward beyond 700 meters without detection and then sits and heats up the 2000 and up, but not it isn’t heating the 700 meters and up as much. Is that about right? 

    Tell me, what physical process can you (or NOAA) describe that allows this heat to defy otherwise accepted laws of physics? Heat rises, and if heat rises and the heat source of the 2000-700m comes from above that, then the 700m-0 would be consistently hotter than 2000-0m. Sorry JP, but your statement is meaningless and baseless.

    “That’s right. Not every sentence is evidence for warming AND the cause of warming. Read the whole thing. Multiple lines of evidence pointing to the conclusion.”

    Yes unfortunately, all of the evidence seems to be against anthropogenic origin of arctic climate change. If greenhouse gases were the cause of Arctic warming, then you would also expect the same pattern in the Antarctic. Yet the continent cooled, as the Arctic warmed. And Arctic temps correlate with natural oceanic oscillations such as the AMO. Also changes in winds have been showed to significantly reduce the ice.
    I suggest you read this article
    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/10/polar-opposites-the-different-stories-of-the-two-polar-regions/

    “Here’s what Jon and Adam couldn’t wait for. The empirical evidence that GHG’s are causing the warming. Satellite measurements from multiple sources that show conclusively that heat is being re-radiated at the exact wavelengths that CO2, CH4 and other manmade greenhouse gases absorb longwave radiation from the surface. Adam doesn’t seem to wish to comment.”

    JP I don’t think that you read my links properly. They clearly explained how the papers were flawed. Some of the papers (like Harries, 2001) only focused on a very small area. It didn’t cover the whole planet. What the authors did was simply examine certain spectral changes in IR radiation, in small areas, completely remove the very important role of water vapour in their calculations, put the whole thing into a computer model. And with those assumptions they concluded that the small changes might have been due to greenhouse gases. I.e. it is scientist’s speculation; not empirical evidence. And the first paper mainly focused on methane, not CO2.

    I think that Norman Rogers (Climate Views) sums up the whole “outgoing radiation” argument the best:

    “Cookʼs point about satellites finding less heat escaping is just nonsense. First of all the
    satellites do not have the measurement accuracy to detect the difference in infrared
    radiation between 1970 and 1996. The papers he cites merely show an change in
    certain spectral areas related to CO2, methane, etc. This is nothing surprising.
    The Earth does not emit only infrared radiation, it also reflects sunlight or short wave radiation. This is very important. To a good approximation, the radiation absorbed by the
    Earth is equal to the radiation emitted by the Earth unless the ocean is warming, in
    which case the earth emits less energy than it receives (Or if the ocean is cooling
    more). So any difference in the radiation emitted by the Earth between 1970 and 1996
    would be a signal of a change in ocean heat storage.

    If we consider just infrared radiation, not including the short wave sunlight reflected by
    the Earth, then a change in infrared radiation is probably due to a change in the albedo
    of the earth, or the amount of short wave radiation reflected. Albedo is controlled by
    cloudiness. Radiation absorbed by the earth equals short wave reflected plus infrared
    emitted except for the energy moved to or from the oceans. Just looking at infrared
    radiation proves nothing.

    There cannot be a persistent imbalance in the radiation because as long as the
    imbalance persists the earth would continually warm or cool. The oceans are the only
    accessible repository for energy that can accommodate a persistent imbalance for a
    period of time. The imbalance consistent with changes in ocean temperature is
    extremely small, around 1 part in 1000 of the radiation falling on the Earth. As a body
    warms it emits more radiation which is why the Earth is in very close balance all the
    time.”

    “And that (the Lindzen/Choi paper) has nothing to do with the subject. It’s an attempt to repair a much maligned earlier work on climate sensitivity. Check the references. None for Evans 2006. None for Harries 2001. None for Philipona 2004. And none for Wang 2009. It’s a little difficult to refute a paper without ever mentioning it.”

    The reason Jon was citing that paper, is because that is one of the most up to date and clear results from observations of outgoing radiations. The results from the previous papers were unclear and very controversial. He was simply trying to show that recent data and scientific evidence is against the warmists “outgoing radiation” argument. Whether the paper actually references the other papers are irrelevant.

    “The heat was never missing. The Douglas/Knox paper is interesting but the so-called missing heat turns out to have been there all along. See this accounting of the missing heat at Nature GeoScience: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou…. It is an interesting story.”

    See
    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/brief-comment-on-the-nature-geoscience-paper-observed-changes-in-top-of-the-atmosphere-radiation-and-upper-ocean-heating-consistent-within-uncertainty-by-loeb-et-al-2012/

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5105

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/26/decimals-of-precision-trenberths-missing-heat/

    “Jon, the stratosphere is cooling not warming. If convection from the troposphere were “dumping” heat into the stratosphere, the opposite would be observed. This is a signature of AGW.”

    Sorry JP, but as numerous satellite and weather balloons have shown, there has been no cooling in the stratosphere since 1995
    http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tls

    Look at the bottom graph on the link.
    And stratopsheric temperature went down in “steps” rather than a linear trend and most of those steps coincided with major volcanic eruptions.

    “But the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, AR4, produced by thousands of authors, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies, says that evidence is “unequivocal”.”

    JP read the links Jon provided. Many of the sources used the IPCC’s report wasn’t peer reviewed. And as shown by the popular technology list and the NIPCC report, there is a huge amount of scientific literature, which isn’t included in the IPCC’s report.”

    1. Adam, I can get to a few of these quickly. The rest will have to wait til tomorrow.

      #1: Adam, look farther down for the cause.

      #2: Joe Rohm is wrong. CO2 is increasing logarithmically. Please don’t assume I agree with Joe Rohm or anyone else. I won’t assume your position is the same as anyone else’s. I will hold you accountable only for what you say. Please extend me the same courtesy. Adam, you don’t get to pick ANY convenient short term period. It’s not climate. By definition. Natural variations will always be able to overwhelm a secular trend. Please don’t pick out short time periods and I will adhere to the same rule.

      The claim is not mine. It is NASA’s research finding. I don’t understand what short term evidence I provided. Please explain. Climate is defined as long term weather. WMO says long term means periods of at least 30 years for most purposes. Sometimes trends are shown as short as 25 years because they add continuity to studies of 25, 50, 100 and 150 whereas 30 does not.

      #3: Okay, I now see your point. I don’t no why NASA would talk about decadal sea level rise. It’s not correct and your observation of that fact is. My point was that the paper Jon linked to was not a refutation of NASA’s point, but was actually part of the research from which there conclusion was drawn.

      #4: Muller says he was a skeptic. Neither you nor I know what’s going on in his head, so I think we have to take him at his word.
      The BEST study stands on it’s own. Statistical analysis was done to eliminate any bias from UHI effect. Many others have used other methods and come to the same conclusion. Steve McIntyre, Judith Curry and many others now have access to the methodologies and the peer review is underway. If there are errors they will be found. Some of the greatest statisticians in the world have looked at the studies previous to BEST, and the fact that ALL the studies are in close agreement suggests that the odds of large error are vanishingly small. At any rate, we all agree there is a significant temperature anomaly.

      #5: Surface and Satellite temps differ, but not by much. The reason is likely due to the methodologies involved in determining the temperatures from many different satellites with differing instrumentation. This has to be pieced together using modeling. It is exquisitely complex. John Christy was one author of a report from a committee charged with answering your question. I’m sure you can find his conclusion. If not, I’ll get it for you.

      #6: You seem to misunderstand what the NASA trend is. You linked to a decadal trend, Adam. Look at the 25 or 50 yr. trend line. It has not broken through the lower 5/95 band. EVER. I will however, look at you link and get back.

      #7: The heat in the oceans can SEEM to defy physics because Haloclines act as a barrier. Layers of water with significantly different salinity create underwater conveyers that effect the transfer of heat. A somewhat similar phenomenon of layering happens in the atmosphere and it confounds Jon’s understanding of convection there.

      #8: Why would you expect the Arctic to act like the Antarctic when the latter has a unique circumpolar ocean current. See Jon’s archives for a description of how this makes the Antarctic a whole different animal. It’s why we humans will very likely never see the Antarctic ice sheets disappear. You are correct about Arctic winds, however changes in wind patterns may be due to rising temps.

      #9: I’ve gotta go and I want to be thorough with the “out going” radiation stuff. But to suggest that a paper has definitive information about a topic previously investigated and reported on in the literature by four seminal works without reference is just not how peer review works guy. Not referencing the relevant work of others on a subject is grounds for retraction. Journal editors get fired or quit over it. The fact that the L/C paper makes no reference to Philipona, Harries, Wang and Evans is proof positive that it is not about the subject of those papers. By the way, check out L/C’s reception. Tomorrow my friend, tomorrow. JP

    2. Adam, I inadvertently posted remarks about the last of this comment on your previous post above. Please see it there. JP

  6. POSTED FOR ADAM

    JP, sorry it’s taken a few days to reply.

    “I think you’ll agree that without a GCR connection, there just has’t been a reasonable mechanism proposed for a solar forcing of sufficient magnitude to account for the warming TREND we see. Agreed?”

    Not necessarily. There is also research supporting direct solar forcing of the climate, such as warming of the atmosphere through changes in TSI. I agree that the GCR connection is probably the strongest evidence supporting the idea that solar forcing was the main cause of the warming trend over the past century. But if the GCR theory turned out to be false, it would not necessarily invalidate the solar theory. There are many peer reviewed studies supporting the theory that solar forcing was the primary driver of major climate changes, of the past. The peer reviewed papers listing the links between solar activity and past climate change are given in the link I provided.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/

    If the GCR theory turned out to be wrong, it still wouldn’t change the scientific data presented in each of the studies. There would still be evidence of an amplifier to the solar activity (whether it’s CR’s or not) in order to explain the observations shown in the data. It is clear that the weak solar radiative forcing used in the models of many papers cannot explain the strong millennial-scale cycles of the past 10,000 years which run parallel to the solar activity. Therefore there must be some sort of amplification mechanism for the role of solar activity on climate in order to explain these observed changes.

    “I can’t comment on many of the opinion pieces you point to, unless they are somehow based on the peer-reviewed literature.”

    JP I don’t think that you can dismiss the links I gave you simply because you don’t like the fact that many of them are not peer reviewed. Just because something has not been peer reviewed that doesn’t mean that is wrong. Anyway, every single one of Scafetta’s paper has been peer reviewed and they all showed that the sun could have contributed significantly to post 1970 climate change. You see in the 20th century, the temperature went up in different cycles of warming and cooling. It didn’t go up in a single straight trend, as may have been expected from greenhouse gas forcing. Post 1970 climate change was not unprecedented when compared to previous periods of warming and cooling. This is shown in Scafetta’s paper. I suggest that you watch this talk by Dr Scafetta in which he explains what is shown in his papers

    And if you look at the links I presented you will see that they were all based on real world data. For example, this link, which was written by an astrophysicist who has published in the peer reviewed literature
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.htmlif you look at the graph shown in the link

    you will see that for the past three decades, each of the peaks of CR flux was lower than the previous one. If the CR theory was correct, this would have caused warming.
    Many studies saying that the sun can’t explain recent climate change ignore the fact that for the past few decades, the sun was more active in centuries. This is a fact JP, which you can check for yourself if you want.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/02/do-solar-scientists-still-think-that-recent-warming-is-too-large-to-explain-by-solar-activity/

    “Scarfetta’s work is basically an effort to describe celestial impacts on Earth’s climate with mathematical periodicity modeling. Critics have pointed out that some mathematical model can be made to fit nearly any periodic function. I do not have the expertise to critique Scarfetta. Many others have and you’ll have no trouble finding them.”

    JP Scafetta has responded to the critiques of his papers. I can link you to them if you want. Or you could contact Dr Scafetta and ask him personally.

    “The fact is that Scarfetta’s model predicts that starting around 2006, Global climate will begin to stabilize then cool until ~2030-2040. We don’t have long to wait to see if he’s right or wrong.”

    That’s right. And current data seems to support him as the satellites show virtually no change in temperature since 2001

    “Adam, your Norman Rogers material is absolutely incoherent. For example: “Radiation absorbed by the Earth equals short wave reflected plus infrared emitted except for the energy moved to or from the oceans.” This is absolute gibberish. Would you like to explain that sentence? Please. This cannot possibly be peer reviewed.”

    JP simply because you cannot understand something, that doesn’t mean that it is ‘incoherent’ and ‘gibberish’. What Norman Rogers is trying to say is that there are numerous natural fluctuations controlling the radiation absorbed and emitted by the Earth’s atmosphere. If the world warmed, then you would expect a change in the radiation absorbed due to changes in the energy balance of the ocean content. Those studies that you cited didn’t include these variables. Therefore he is saying that their conclusions cannot be considered valid due to their limited data and the simple modelling assumptions.

    “Adam, regarding stratospheric cooling, first you provide a link to a site that purports to show that the stratosphere is NOT cooling and in the very next sentence you provide a graph that shows the stratospheric temperature going DOWN in “steps”. How can I take this seriously , Adam? Your own reference says this: “Channel TLS (Lower Stratosphere) is DOMINATED by stratospheric COOLING”
    JP please read my comment more carefully. What I actually said was that there had been no cooling in the stratosphere SINCE 1995. I didn’t say that it hadn’t cooled at all. I was simply disputing your claim that the long term cooling trend was of anthropogenic origin. If the stratospheric cooling was due to greenhouse gases, you would have expected the temperature to do down in a clear linear long term decline. Yet it didn’t. It was dominated by several short term cooling events, which caused the temperature to go down in “steps”. This corresponded to forcing from volcanoes (and CFC’s may have also played a role) and the fact that there had been cooling in the stratosphere for 17 years, pretty much shows that the long term decline is not due to CO2.

    “Your own reference says this: “Channel TLS (Lower Stratosphere) is DOMINATED by stratospheric COOLING, punctuated by warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).” You said the cooling coincided with the eruptions. It was exactly the opposite, Adam, there were brief warnings of the stratosphere due to the eruptions.”

    You are correct that very short periods of dramatic warming occurred due to the volcanic eruptions, but you are misunderstanding my argument. I’m assuming that you have some knowledge about how climate trends occur in the short term. When a period of dramatic warming occurs, in a very short time span, caused by a function which can only affect individual temp anomalies (and not significantly cause a long term warming trend), then once that natural fluctuation ‘settles down’ those periods are almost always followed by a period of significant global cooling. This process is almost always occurs during short term trends. The upper atmosphere cooled after the warming caused by the eruptions of El Chichon and Pinatubo ended. It is always hottest before the cold. It is kind of like a fail safe mechanism for the climate to get back to normal after short term anomolies. This is what I am saying caused the stratospheric cooling. Not human emissions of CO2.

    “NASA in 2011 says this: “High up in the stratosphere, from 30 to 50 km above the ground, the measurements show increasing water vapor and a very large, global cooling trend of 3° to 6°C (5° to 11°F) over recent decades.””

    JP, NASA is wrong, as plainly shown by the graph I gave you. Stratospheric temperature went down at a rate of 0.303 K/decade, which is a much less value than what NASA claims it is.

    “I’m trying to be accommodating, Adam, but you can’t expect me to continue to spend hours running down these kinds of errors.”

    Sorry JP, but I’m not the one who’s been making any errors. I think you should try and read my comments more carefully.

    “Before I go on with Scarfetta and GCR’s Adam, I need to know if you have a deep understanding of these studies. Do you?”

    I would say that I do.
    “Concerning poptech: Are you kidding me? Do you seriously believe that all the papers listed under “solar” at PopTech arrive at the same conclusion? Or even that they have the same or similar hypotheses? That’s not what I read. There are nearly as many different mechanisms described, and as many different conclusions reached, as there are papers. Many are mutually exclusive. Was this a joke? I didn’t tell you to review every paper the IPCC referenced on a subject. ….You are suggesting that I’m somehow obliged to review every paper listed under “solar” or “GCR” at PopTech and sort out and address those which seem to come to conclusions at odds with my own.”

    JP once again you have misunderstood my arguments. I was not suggesting that you read every single paper listed under the solar/cosmic paper at Poptech. And I know that many of them have different conclusions and arguments. What I was trying to show is that there are indeed numerous papers supporting the idea that the sun is the dominant driver of climate change. Look, your argument in one of your comments is that there are many studies which claim that the sun cannot explain post 1970 climate change. What I was simply trying to show is that the argument can work both ways. The SkS article you cut and pasted from claimed that the sun played a minor role in recent climate change. Yet that claim is contradicted by dozens of papers. I was not using the simple fact that there were numerous papers under solar at Poptech, as an actual valid argument against your comment. I was simply giving it as a resource, in case you decided to do independent research on each of these issues. I was not suggesting that you read every single paper, or that they all say the same thing. Just to simply look around and get informed by a few papers.

    ” I suggest if you are serious, you put your hypothesis in your own words and use specific papers that directly support your notion. ”

    I have done, as is clear from my previous comments.

    “As far as the rebuttal of Lockwood and Frohlick, you know this is all about the TSI/ACRIM disputes. Are you an expert on the mathematics of active cavity radiometer irradiance monitors Adam?”

    No I am not an expert on it. I was simply trying to show that the data used in L&F’s paper is still controversial, and what the sun actually did during that period is still up for debate.

    “I think it’s unfair to say that Lockwood has, in any way you or I could judge, been “refuted”. To the contrary, the majority seem to agree with Lockwood.”

    I disagree. The links I provided clearly showed some major flaws in L&F’s paper. I never said that he had been “refuted”, simply that his arguments had been strongly criticised. Whether or not there are other papers that simply repeat the argument made by Lockwood, is irrelevant. It is not the number of papers repeating an argument, but the actual data and evidence. If the quality of the argument is shown to be poor, then it cannot be considered valid, regardless of how many papers state it.

    ” And if that is the case, you know that the consensus scientific agreement is that there is no currently known mechanism for a solar forcing that can statistically account for the warming we are experiencing. The suggested mechanism propounded by Svensmark is generally accepted as the only one now known that MAY be able to explain some PART of this warming, but much further study needs to be done. ”

    JP read some of the first paragraphs of this comment, in which I discuss solar forcing. Many of the computer models used in those studies don’t properly include the correct solar amplification mechanisms, and are unable to replicate observed climate cycles. Throughout the 20th century solar activity was more active in century’s and it’s cycles correspond with temperature a lot better than CO2 emissions. There is much research on the amplification mechanisms of solar activity. And once again might I point out the numerous times in the past, when major climate changes corresponded with a change in solar activity. Those changes were of equal and greater magnitude than present day climate change. Therefore I do not agree that it cannot explain a significant part of the observed trends.
    Also, almost all studies focusing on solar impact on climate change, simply focus on changes in the observed TSI and Earth’s temperature. That is not the only way the sun can affect climate. For example, there is also the amount of sunlight penetrating the atmosphere and reaching the Earth,which can have strong effect on regional climate change. For example, a recent paper has shown striking correlation between the solar radiation reaching the Earth through the atmosphere, and surface air temperatures in China
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611002161
    And are you also aware of new experimental results that provide support for Svensmark’s theory
    http://calderup.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/yet-another-trick-of-cosmic-rays/

    But, I would also like to point out that the sun is not the only driver of the climate. I don’t claim that solar activity can explain all of the warming in the 20th century, just the majority. There is also new research into the major effect oceanic oscillations like the PDO and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation have on climate change. I suggest you read these links here
    https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aatsonis/www/2007GL030288.pdf
    http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm
    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/guest-post-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-and-northern-hemisphere%E2%80%99s-climate-variability-by-marcia-glaze-wyatt-sergey-kravtsov-and-anastasios-a-tsonis/

    I also suggest that you watch Chris de Freitas’ talk at the 4th international conference on climate change (skepitcs conference) in which he discusses the role the ENSO plays in global temperature.
    http://climateconference.heartland.org/past-conferences/iccc-4/

    “Adam, you can either accept or reject the consensus of the experts on climatology. ”

    First of all, show that there is a consensus among experts on climatology? And, as Andrew (Poptech) asked you before, please determine what expertise or qualification constitutes a climate scientist? As shown by the list of scientists I gave you and the Heartland scientific conferences, there are a large number of scientists questioning the IPCC and the co2 theory
    “If you had a tumor, you could accept the consensus of oncological experts, or you could choose to accept the view of the few that disagree with the consensus. The latter choice would effect only you. The former is the fate of us all. ”

    JP that is not how science is done. Science is based on facts and evidence, not how many people agree or disagree.
    For example, when Einstein was asked to comment on the denunciation of relativity by so many scientists, Einstein replied that to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.
    You would do well to listen to him.

    “Joe Rohm is wrong. CO2 is increasing logarithmically. Please don’t assume I agree with Joe Rohm or anyone else. I won’t assume your position is the same as anyone else’s. I will hold you accountable only for what you say. Please extend me the same courtesy. ”

    I had actually intended to link to the article on Romm’s blog in which he had made that claim
    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/03/16/207667/content-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-accelerating-super-exponentially/
    But thanks for stating your views on the issue.

    “Adam, you don’t get to pick ANY convenient short term period. It’s not climate. By definition. Natural variations will always be able to overwhelm a secular trend. Please don’t pick out short time periods and I will adhere to the same rule.”

    JP, you have completely avoided my argument. CO2 is increasing and over the past decade greenhouse gas forcing was meant to be at its maximum on climate. You wouldn’t have expected the rate of sea level rise to decrease, as it did. The “natural variability” argument isn’t a good enough explanation, since it shows that natural forces will always overwhelm the effects caused by CO2. None of the models predicted that. JP you have to look at the little details if you want to fully understand what is going on with our climate. You can’t simply make excuses about it being a short time span. The models can’t explain why sea level rise is decelerating, and this shows how they are flawed.

    “Okay, I now see your point. I don’t no why NASA would talk about decadal sea level rise. It’s not correct and your observation of that fact is.”

    Thank you for admitting I was correct.

    “My point was that the paper Jon linked to was not a refutation of NASA’s point, but was actually part of the research from which there conclusion was drawn.”

    But my point was that neither me nor Jon had denied that sea level had risen by 17cm as stated in the NASA study. You were criticising something we didn’t state.

    “Muller says he was a skeptic. Neither you nor I know what’s going on in his head, so I think we have to take him at his word.”

    Look at the links I provided. Muller was never a skeptic. He has been quoted in the past stating that he believes AGW is real.

    “The BEST study stands on it’s own. Statistical analysis was done to eliminate any bias from UHI effect.”

    You have not mentioned the link I provided you with. It clearly explained all the flaws with BEST. Here is another link which explains its flaws.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/best-statistics-show-hot-air-doesnt-rise-off-concrete/

    “Surface and Satellite temps differ, but not by much.”

    I disagree. The temp anomalies for GISS are clearly significantly higher than the satellite data
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend

    ” The reason is likely due to the methodologies involved in determining the temperatures from many different satellites with differing instrumentation.”

    JP any possible errors in the satellite data are likely to be minor, since UAH is also confirmed by RSS. Did you read the article I gave you about satellite data?
    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/03/why-satellites-are-better-at-measuring-global-temperature/

    “You seem to misunderstand what the NASA trend is. You linked to a decadal trend, Adam. Look at the 25 or 50 yr. trend line. It has not broken through the lower 5/95 band. EVER. ”

    JP you have not answered any of the points that was pointed out in the link I gave you. You can’t apply multiple trend lines on a single graph and come to a conclusion based on it. It is a false technique.

    “The heat in the oceans can SEEM to defy physics because Haloclines act as a barrier. Layers of water with significantly different salinity create underwater conveyers that effect the transfer of heat. A somewhat similar phenomenon of layering happens in the atmosphere and it confounds Jon’s understanding of convection there.!”

    Sorry JP, but that’s not a good enough explanation. The variation in salinity in the water is nowhere near as powerful, as needed to act as a barrier to the accumulated heat supposedly being caused by CO2. And even if the underwater ocean conveyors were controlling the transfer of heat, then you would still expect the top 700m to have more heat content, than the area below it. The ocean currents are not unique to simply the area below the first 700m, they are clearly present in the upper layer of the ocean as well. Therefore you would clearly expect the upper layer to show a higher heating pattern. Yet this is not observed.
    ” Why would you expect the Arctic to act like the Antarctic when the latter has a uniquecircumpolar ocean current. See Jon’s archives for a description of how this makes the Antarctic a whole different animal. It’s why we humans will very likely never see the Antarctic ice sheets disappear.”

    JP I think that you’ve scored an own goal with that comment there. You’ve just acknowledged that the natural fluctuations are always going to be in charge of Antarctic climate change. All of the models predicted that the continent would be warming due to greenhouse gases, yet the continent has cooled, and this is most likely due to changes in the unique forces that control climate in that area (such as the circumpolar ocean current, like you state in our comment). The power of natural forces like Antarctica’s circumpolar ocean current are clearly overwhelming any possible effect due to CO2. I suggest that you read the John Kehr article I gave you. The Arctic and Antarctic has always gone in opposite directions throughout history. It is the way natural climate change works with the polar region.
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042793.shtml
    And the observations over the past few decades all support natural domination of polar climate change.

    ” But to suggest that a paper has definitive information about a topic previously investigated and reported on in the literature by four seminal works without reference is just not how peer review works guy. Not referencing the relevant work of others on a subject is grounds for retraction. Journal editors get fired or quit over it. The fact that the L/C paper makes no reference to Philipona, Harries, Wang and Evans is proof positive that it is not about the subject of those papers.”

    Once again JP please read my comment more carefully. Me and Jon never suggested that the Lindzen & Choi paper “refuted” the papers that you provided. Simply that it provided a better quality representation of more recent data regarding changes in outgoing radiation. The papers you provided were all several years old, and had very limited data. L&C is more up to data, and has a much clear conclusions about outgoing radiation.

    1. Adam, good to hear from you. Rather than the usual, “You said, ‘blah, blah…’ , ‘I said, blah, blah…’; I’ll just go top to bottom. I don’t think it’ll be too hard to follow, and it’ll be a lot shorter. 

      From your opening statement it appears that you have no specific mechanism in mind to account for the warming you agree has been taking place in our climate. 

      I’ll be happy to get into the weeds regarding GCR theory Adam, if you will first explain one thing to me. If GCR is causing the warming we see, how is it that a solar mechanism causes warming which is more pronounced during the night than during the day? And if it’s not GCR’s but some other solar mechanism, how does it heat the troposphere while at the same time cool the stratosphere?

      Additionally, whether cosmic rays are correlated with climate or not, they have been regularly measured by the neutron monitor at Climax Station (Colorado) since 1953 and show no long term trend. No trend = no explanation for current changes.

      I suggest that the “solar amplification” you are looking for is CO2.
      When you talk about “amplifiers”, you’re just using a different word for feedback.

      Last point on this first topic, you once again point me to a list of papers. Adam, you need to be specific about what paper (and what part of that paper) pertains to which argument (and what part of that argument). It’s no good to hand me a pile of journal articles expecting me to pick out the appropriate reference. You need to properly cite your references. I acknowledge that you often do this correctly, so I know you know the difference. 

      “Comments in blogs and forums do not warrant a reply because any valid criticism would follow the established peer-review process of submitting a comment for publication in the same journal, which allows the author of the original paper a chance to publish a rebuttal in defense of their paper.” Do you recognize that quote Adam? 

      I’m not an absolutist on the use of peer-reviewed material, but I will say that on technical subjects it really is a must. I’m not a climate scientist and my math education never went beyond graduate school. I need to hear both sides of these technical issues. And I need them to be refereed. Use opinion pieces if that’s all you’ve got. But don’t expect me to consider it as valuable as refereed work, because it isn’t. Not even when you think it’s “right”.

      You seem to be quite taken with the Scarfetta work. It comprises far and away the majority of your links to a single author. And it seems to pop up in the most ad hoc manner. So here it comes again under the topic of using peer-reviewed material. We’ll get into Scarfetta as much as you like, but I’d prefer to have it be in a context with a little more continuity. For now, I’ll just leave you with this quote from the man himself:  “These [Scarfetta’s] results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted.”  Does that sound like a refutation of AGW to you? 

      Next in your comment, you proceed to show me some “real world data” from an “astrophysicist who has published in the peer-reviewed literature”. Well why not show me the peer-reviewed data? Why link me to a blog? (Incidentally, that link is not operative). The link to the graph does come up, but I don’t know what “CR” theory you are referring to. You go on to say that many studies (which one’s please) “… ignore the fact that in recent decades the sun has been more active than centuries.” I assume you meant “in centuries”. But you don’t quantify these differences. And you don’t quantify the relationship between reduced CR flux and temperature. The reason you don’t is because no one has. Adam, CR Aerosol Nucleation has been demonstrated (CERN/CLOUD). But an increase in CCN’s (Cloud Condensation Nuclei) most certainly has not. Look at the work of Pierce and Adams from Carnegie Mellon. I don’t question the nature of Solar Cycles 21, 22 and 23. “The fact”, as you call it. What I question is what nearly all climate scientists who have commented on it have questioned. What does increased CR flux mean for CCN’s, increased ionization and cloud properties. (And cloud location for that matter. Remember, colder temps=greater ionization. Temps at high altitude are colder, ergo more HIGH clouds and increased heat trapping in the atmosphere.)

      Your next Scarfetta comment begs the question: Do I get to assume he’s wrong if temps don’t go down in the next…oh, let’s say six years? No I don’t. Because trends of less than thirty years are weather trends not climate trends. And no, you don’t need to assist me in finding links to Scarfetta’s work, or critiques of his work, and you don’t need to patronize me either.

      In your valiant but vain attempted defense of Norman Rodgers, you say that the studies I cited didn’t include variables such as “radiation absorbed due to changes in the energy balance of the ocean content”. Adam, do you honestly believe that coupled GCM’s do not include changes in ocean heat content? I assume by “ocean content” you meant “ocean heat content”, or perhaps that’s just another example of MY lack of understanding.

      Because you think my understanding is so limited, please translate Mr. Rodger’s sentence for me. Just that one sentence. So even a person with my limited understanding can comprehend it. Would you do that for me?

      No Adam, your original statement about the stratosphere contained no mention of “anthropogenic origins”. You say that if “stratospheric cooling were due to greenhouse gases, you would have expected the temperature to go down in a clear linear long term  decline.” Why? Did somebody shut off ENSO? Did something stop all other cyclic variations for 15 years? And once again (how many times do we have to go through this), 15 years is weather, Adam, not climate. You know this, you’ve acknowledged it and yet you continue to try to make exceptions for yourself. Let’s do this one more time: Climate=Long Term Weather. “Long term” as defined and adopted by all members of the WMO=thirty years or more. Adam you say, “I am assuming you have some knowledge of how climate trends occur in the short term.” Yes, I have some small amount of knowledge of short term climate trends. For instance: I know that a short term climate trend is thirty years, not 15.

      Continuing with stratospheric cooling, you say, “…once that natural fluctuation ‘settles down’ these periods are almost always followed by periods of significant cooling.” Oh really? Says who? 
      What mechanism produces that effect?

      “NASA is wrong”, you say, and the proof is in the graph you provided. Look at the blue line Adam. That’s the climate trend line. It’s going down. Adam, look at the right side of the graph. See that acronym? The TLS? That’s the MSU channel for just the LOWER Stratosphere. The upper stratosphere is going down even more dramatically. Looks like NASA was right and that would mean you were… wrong.  And in your very next sentence: “Sorry JP, I’m not the one whose been making any errors.” Oh, the irony. But it doesn’t stop. Adam: “It is not the number of papers repeating an argument, but the actual data and evidence.” And again, three paragraphs later: “What I was trying to show was that there are indeed numerous papers showing that the sun is the dominant driver of climate.”  So it’s “not the number of papers”, except if they’re “numerous”? Like a farmer plowing a field Adam, you need to turn around every so often, and see where you’ve just been.

      Adam, I agree that you have done a much better job of putting your arguments in your own words in this comment and not just putting forth a bunch of general links. And I also think you have been far better at being specific with your references. So I’m not going to make a big deal about the PopTech stuff. It is, like CO2 Science, a common source of material for “skeptics”. Just as SkS is for rebutting skeptics. Nothing wrong with either. (I mean nothing wrong with the fact that they exist.)

      You complain that models do not accurately represent what you call “solar amplification”. I don’t understand that terminology. The Sun is the source of nearly all of Earth’s energy. It’s a radiative forcing. It is not a feedback. Because there has been no quantification of the effects of a mechanism that could be a solar feedback (e.g., GCR), there is no way to include such a mechanism in a model. If (and when) such mechanisms can be confirmed and their effect quantified, they would surely be incorporated. Until then, what are climatologists supposed to do; assume there’s such a mechanism and guess it’s radiative forcing. 

      Now regarding ENSO and it’s effect on climate. Does ENSO (as well as PDO and other oscillators) effect our climate? Well it (they) certainly effect weather. But can these effects be of a duration that significantly effects climate? One clue is in the name. They oscillate. They go one way, El Nino; and then the other, La Nina. Most climate scientists believe that these oscillations balance out over the long term, but no one has dismissed them as potential agents of long term change. There just hasn’t been any cogent mechanism defined in which they play such a role. Short term correlation? No doubt. Long term causation? Serious doubt. But here again you simply give me a list of opinions. If you want to exchange your, or other’s, hypotheses; with specific references to observations; I’d be interested to see them. Do I want to wade through another set of ad hoc opinions on why AGW might be wrong? Not 
      particularly.

      As I’ve already told you, the best definition I can come up with for a climatologist is the one Naomi Oreskes used in her well known study. Those actively publishing in the field. You say there “are a large number of scientists questioning the IPCC and CO2 theory”. I assume you mean AGW. What is a “large number”, Adam? Do you doubt that the majority of scientists who are actively publishing in the field have agreed on a consensus? When you seek answers to scientific questions, so you can make better informed  decisions on a course of action, do you place any value on general agreement among experts? 

      You noted Einstein’s “one fact” argument, with which I concur. What’s the one fact that disproves the Theory of AGW Adam? With the hundreds of links you’ve provided, it must be a simple matter to provide that “one fact”.

      You say I  “…can’t simply make excuses about it being a short time span.” It’s not an “excuse”. It’s the very definition of the topic. Climate Change. Not weather change. Once again you pick a short term trend. That’s a weather report, not a climate trend. Climate is the secular trend Adam, weather is the cyclic variation. One volcano can blow the top off a mountain. It can also blow apart a warming trend. I don’t get to use a short term trend with an El Nino in it, as evidence for climate warming. And you don’t you get to use a short term trend with a La Nina as evidence for climate cooling. Climate is long term weather. Try as you might, you won’t change the definition of the word. You like Einstein. Maybe you’ll like this from another great physicist: “Is it really, really so extremely difficult to persuade people that climate, which is average weather, can have three contributions that add to one another? That is, some cyclical effects, some random noise and a secular steadily rising trend from human activity?” If it still is “really, really so extremely difficult”, see this video here:  http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/science-made-easy-climate-versus-weather/

      Adam, I’ve looked at more than two hundred links you directed me to. I ask you now to see this one video. It’s less than two minutes long. It will make our work much, much easier. Thank You.

      Okay, Muller is not what he says he was. He’s what YOU say he was. It must be great to know more about other people than they know about themselves.

      The BEST studies account for UHI. It’s not even that difficult. Read how they do it. What study or studies of GST’s do you think are accurate? I’m guessing none, because they ALL AGREE.

      Surface temps v. Satellite temps: I was trying to make this less contentious, but I see that’s not happening. NOAA released the first of 21 CCSP Synthesis and Assessment reports in May 2006, entitled “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences. “The report identified and corrected errors in satellite temperature measurements and other temperature observations, which increased scientific confidence in the conclusion that the lower atmosphere is warming on a global scale: “There is no longer a discrepancy in the rate of global average temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere”. The report also says that “all current atmospheric data sets now show global-average warming that is similar to the surface warming. While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.” Skeptic John Christy was one of the authors of the above statement. Well he says he’s a skeptic. I guess we’ll have to wait for your OK on that. You appear to know better than the persons themselves.

      You say, “You can’t apply multiple trend lines on a graph and come to a conclusion based on it.” And why would that be? You can apply not only multiple trend lines, you can apply different fits to the same graphs. For example, skeptic Roy Spencer provides a graph of the UAH/MSU data which he updates monthly. He always shows the running 13 month mean AND the third polynomial fit. Others add least squares. Each gives a little different view of the trend. The same fit over different time frames is simply a way to view rate changes. 

      Notice that the graph you linked to is anonymous. Probably because whoever made it understands enough about regression analysis to know it’s a crock. First they show a totally arbitrary graph of a simple sine wave oscillating between -1 and +1. And where does it start? The zero point starts right where the sine wave is at it’s most negative. And where does it arbitrarily end? Yup, right where the sine wave goes to its highest positive value. A guy plots a series of least squares regression trend lines on a sine wave and you fell for it. Wow.

      You say that “variations in salinity are nowhere near as powerful,  as to act as a barrier to the accumulated heat supposedly
      being caused by CO2.” Do you know what the temperature difference above and below a  Halocline can be? Easily 2 degrees C, and sometimes more. Double that of the Earth land and ocean temperature anomaly in the entire instrumental record. But that’s peanuts. Other types of thermoclines can have “barriers” of 20 degrees C or more. Orders of magnitude more than necessary to account for the differences we were discussing. As for your assertion that the top 700 meters would necessarily contain more of the excess heat from AGW, considering that NOAA states that the average depth of the worlds oceans is 4,267 meters, you might want to reconsider that calculation. Remember, it’s the CHANGE in heat content within both bodies that is determinative. Not the absolute temperature of either. The deep ocean can be much colder than the upper 700 meters while simultaneously having gained much more heat.

      Maybe you were getting a little tired by the end of your comment (I know I am). Could you explain this sentence please: “I think that you’ve scored an own goal with that comment there.” Does that mean I won? Everything you said about the Antarctic is largely correct (except for the visibly fatigued syntax), with the glaring exception of the comment about models. The paleographic record informs our understanding of the Antarctic. It hasn’t been a secret how Antarctica might react to increases in CO2, and Global Climate Models reflect that reaction.  

      Are climate models perfect representations of every aspect of the natural world? Of course not. Are they valuable tools. Tools that help us determine the effects of our actions on our climate? Yeah, they sure are.   JP

  7. John,

    For all your rhetoric and nitpicking, the fact remains that climate has changed, sometimes quickly and drastically, before advent of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.  One must presume that those same forces which caused climate change in the past are still working.  The argument is about the relative strength of forces which affect climate.  The recent warming is well within the realm of natural variation.  

    So far John, you have presented no convincing physical evidence that carbon dioxide is the major forcing factor.

    I have a new post showing why increasing carbon dioxide ultimately initiates a process of strong negative feedback that tends to temper its alleged warming effects:
    http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/03/19/water-vapor-and-the-climate-why-carbon-dioxide-is-a-very-minor-player/

    1. Jon, You could walk out your back door and see your swimming pool boiling and still see “no convincing evidence”. I’m not here to attempt to convince you of anything. I’m here so your readers get the whole story, inasmuch as it’s within my ability to do so. JP

Comments are closed.