A few inconvenient truths

John A thought that it would be worthwhile to draw attention to some articles on scientific reaction to Al Gore’s film "An Inconvenient Truth". and started this post. I have kept his links and quotations, but otherwise re-written this post.

I haven’t seen Al Gore’s film and may comment on it myself later. I suspect that the film uses the most lurid and sophomoric images available and invites equally sophomoric responses. I think that there are some valid issues, but these debates tend to get reduced to sound-bites.

John A cited the following articles and provided some quotes from them, which I discuss below:

"Scientists respond to Gore’s warning of climate catastrophe", "The gods are laughing" and "Global Warming fever"

Here’s one kind of issue that I think that it’s pointless to discuss:

Gore repeatedly labels carbon dioxide as "global warming pollution" when, in reality, it is no more pollution than is oxygen. CO2 is plant food, an ingredient essential for photosynthesis without which Earth would be a lifeless, frozen ice ball.

Both sides are trivializing the issue. It’s not obvious to me that any effects of higher CO2 so far have been adverse to humans, but I also think that the impact of 2xCO2 is a large and important issue, worth studying and understanding. I’m assuming that most readers of this site are interested in more nuanced analysis.

A next quotation from a Gore critic:

The hypothesis that human release of CO2 is a major contributor to global warming is just that — an unproven hypothesis, against which evidence is increasingly mounting.

In fact, the correlation between CO2 and temperature that Gore speaks about so confidently is simply non-existent over all meaningful time scales. U of O climate researcher Professor Jan Veizer demonstrated that, over geologic time, the two are not linked at all. Over the intermediate time scales Gore focuses on, the ice cores show that CO2 increases don’t precede, and therefore don’t cause, warming. Rather, they follow temperature rise — by as much as 800 years.

Personally, I have only carried out detailed analysis of arguments which purport to show that the 1990s were the "warmest decade" of the millennium. When I try to venture into other arguments and issues, I have far less knowledge. Extrapolating from the lack of due diligence in the hockey-stick arguments, I am concerned about the level of verification and due diligence in these other areas, but perhaps it’s different. On the argument of CO2 leading or lagging ice age changes, I don’t see that it gives much comfort to either side. My understanding of the evidence is that changes in dO18 levels lead changes in CO2 levels in ice cores; however modelers argue that changes in CO2 level are an important feedback which intensify the changes.

Next:

Even in the past century, the correlation is poor; the planet actually cooled between 1940 and 1980, when human emissions of CO2 were rising at the fastest rate in our history.

It would be worthwhlie pasing through the history of this issue. If you look back at material written in the late 1980s or 1990 – for example, the interesting text by Crowley and North – they attribute the seeming lack of response to natural variability. With the subsequent warming in the 1990s, everybody in this particular debate seems to have switched sides on natural variability. Sulphur dioxide emissions and aerosols have been invoked as an explanation. Here there don’t seem to be valid estimates of the forcing other than by difference, so it’s hard to see that anything very much is settled. The lack of a more monotonic response to CO2 increases does raise question marks for me, but no more than that.

Next:

Similarly, the fact that water vapour constitutes 95% of greenhouse gases by volume is conveniently ignored by Gore.

I don’t get this point at all. So what? I think that there are important and interesting issues about negative feedbacks associated with water vapor, as well as the more publicized positive feedbacks. I don’t see the purpose of exchanging soundbites of this type.

Next:

While humanity’s three billion tonnes (gigatonnes, or GT) per year net contribution to the atmosphere’s CO2 load appears large on a human scale, it is actually less than half of 1% of the atmosphere’s total CO2 content (750-830 GT). The CO2 emissions of our civilization are also dwarfed by the 210 GT/year emissions of the gas from Earth’s oceans and land. Perhaps even more significant is the fact that the uncertainty in the measurement of atmospheric CO2 content is 80 GT — making three GT seem hardly worth mentioning.

This seems like a frivolous point expressed this way. Yes, human CO2 emissions are a small fraction of annual flux, but I don’t see that that has any relevance to the issue of the impact of CO2 build-up. The measurement issue also is a total red herring. I have no doubt that CO2 measurements are more than accurate enough for the purposes of this particular debate.

Next:

Scientists who actually work in these fields [of atmospheric physics] flatly contradict Gore. Take his allegations that extreme weather (EW) events will increase in frequency and severity as the world warms and that this is already happening. Former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg Dr. Tim Ball notes, "The theories that Gore supports indicate the greatest warming will be in polar regions. Therefore, the temperature contrast with warmer regions — the driver of extreme weather — will lessen and, with it, storm potential will lessen."

If you have warmer oceans, it seems plausible to me that there will be more hurricanes, even if there is a somewhat lessened temperature contrast. I suspect that the temperature contrast would be sufficient. However, I think that there are real attribution issues. There seems to be evidence of very high solar activity in the 20th century and especially in the late 20th century. The attribution studies that I’ve sen, which attempt to allocate between solar and CO2, are very weak. In fact, Mann’s attribution arguments in MBH98, discussed about one month ago here, included outright falsehoods in his statistical claims – first identified in blogworld by Chefen, Jean S and myself.

In an emotional debate, I think that there’s an important role for analyzing individual arguments being relied upon. I’ve focused on the multiproxy studies and have come to the conclusion that all the hockey-stick studies are flawed and biased. De-constructing each individual study is very time-consuming. I view this exercise as not dissimilar to that of a pre-war analyst studying proxy evidence for WMD such as aluminum tubes. At the end of the day, an analyst is sometimes obliged to say that maybe an aluminum tube is just an aluminum tube. That does not mean that some other piece of evidence may not be valid – only that the aluminum tube wasn’t.

In response to the criticisms of the hockey stick, the main defence or excuse has been that the hockey stick doesn’t "matter". The concern about 2xCO2 arises from basic physics and the HS could be wrong but still leave us with an important problem. In one sense, I agree. If the HS were wrong, 2xCO2 is still an issue. Then why did IPCC and governments feature the HS so much? I presume that it was for promotional purposes. I would be shocked if Al Gore didn’t rely on arguments of this type for promotional purposes and this is the type of thing that I will be looking for when I see the film rather than silly issues like measuring the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

311 Comments

  1. nanny_govt_sucks
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 3:32 PM | Permalink

    Here’s my favorite:

    Truth Is Inconvenient

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/giles2.html

    Atmospheric Physics is a growth industry but only for those that sing the proper tune and in the proper key: the proverbial sky is falling and only bold, massive government and inter-governmental regulation and expensive “investments” (paid for by the taxpayer) can save the world. Al Gore is a lifelong politician who has never held a job, the son of a politician, who has unfailingly played the role of Chicken Little (in a public policy frame of mind) his entire adult life. This movie is a just another shameless, self-promoting, dishonest and mendacious attempt at securing more taxpayers dollars which at best will squander billions on science without results (think star wars) or possibly a cruel lie that will lead to the death of millions through environmental mismanagement at its worst. Now that is an Inconvenient Truth.

  2. John M
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 4:34 PM | Permalink

    These are interesting, albeit point-of-view, articles. But one statement astounds me:.

    From the “Scientists Respond…” link

    “Morgan explains, “Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance.””

    Can anyone confirm or contradict this?

  3. Hans Erren
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 5:03 PM | Permalink

    nanny’s link increases the side bar to one third of my screen even with the smallest font, I cant even read this text whilst writing a reply, let alone reading the topic.
    Please find a professional blog engine!

  4. The Knowing One
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 5:33 PM | Permalink

    Re #1 (by nanny_govt_sucks), this is off-topic for ClimateAudit, but the star wars program was arguably money well spent. Remember when Reagan first ran for the presidency, his sole campaign promise was to spend as much as necessary to drive the Soviets to the bargaining table, to thereby end the cold war. Star wars was part of that: the program got the Soviets worried (and they had to spend money trying to find a response to it); whether or not the worrying was justified was irrelevant for the primary purpose.

    Back on topic, I do not agree that money spent to gain a better understanding our planet’s climate is squandered—gaining such is very valuable. And, the money spent is not enough to affect economies. (You could argue that there are higher priorities, but that is a separate issue.) The real problem is the effect on economies if big emission-reduciton plans are adopted.

  5. Reid
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 6:21 PM | Permalink

    Re #4 “The real problem is the effect on economies if big emission-reduciton plans are adopted.”

    The real problem is not “if big emission-reduction plans are adopted.” They have been adopted in the form of Kyoto. The real problem is if emission reductions are enforced.

    Are any Kyoto signatories going to enforce emission reductions when the US, China, India, etc. aren’t playing the game? I doubt any nation is so politically and scientifically stupid.

  6. John A
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 6:22 PM | Permalink

    Re #3

    It doesn’t do that to me. What browser are you using?

  7. TCO
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 6:32 PM | Permalink

    John, are you like this as a computer consultant? Take a look at the general population of users. This is a site with a decent amout of traffic. Don’t get all Linux on me. The public uses Microsoft. If your site doesn’t do well with it, then it’s like speaking French at an international venue. Use the lingua franca, English, Microsoft. Sheesh. Motherf***ing sheesh.

  8. TCO
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 6:33 PM | Permalink

    Don’t make me get Lambert over here to upgrade your page construction…;-)

  9. Jim Erlandson
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 7:38 PM | Permalink

    #7. It is normal for a computer consultant to ask questions like that when troubleshooting a problem.

  10. TCO
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 7:43 PM | Permalink

    You sound like the CO I had who asked about the indicator light out on the conn as the ship was sinking out of control on spec op.

  11. Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 8:08 PM | Permalink

    Re: #7

    TCO, has anybody ever told you that you can be a real jerk sometimes? John A’s question was a) perfectly legitimate and b) the same thing any other techie (myself included) would’ve asked in the same situation. He has no real way of knowing what browser you use.

    It’s a fact of life: Different browsers may render the same HTML differently. Heck, different versions of the same browser may render the same HTML differently.

  12. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 8:31 PM | Permalink

    > While humanity’s three billion tonnes (gigatonnes, or GT) per year net
    > contribution to the atmosphere’s CO2 load appears large on a human scale,
    > it is actually less than half of 1% of the atmosphere’s total CO2 content
    > (750-830 GT). The CO2 emissions of our civilization are also dwarfed by
    > the 210 GT/year emissions of the gas from Earth’s oceans and land.

    This is an old and classic contrarian chestnut. It has been discredited for a long time and it seems that, in bringing it up, ClimateAudit shows again that it is fundamentally the work of a “contrarian” rather than an unbiased “auditor”.

    Firstly, I think it is beyond dispute by even the most “contrarian contrarian” that humans have been responsible for increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by over 35% (an increase from 280 ppmv prior to industrialisation to 380 ppmv now).

    Now, there are two fallacies in the argument in ClimateAudit — they are both akin to comparing apples with oranges. The first (from the first sentence) compares a FLUX (which is actually about 5.4 PgC/year = 5.4 GtC/year = 20 Gt CO2/year and NOT 3 Gt CO2/year) with a TOTAL MASS in the atmosphere (which is actually about 730 PgC = 730 Gt C = 2680 Gt CO2 and NOT “750-830 GT” of CO2). So, quite apart from the fact that the actual numbers are all wrong, comparing a FLUX with a MASS is “goofy” (in ClimateAudit terminology). The comparison has no bearing on the fact that we are responsible for the 35% increase in atmospheric CO2.

    The second fallacy (in the second sentence) is related to the first. It involves comparing a ONE-WAY flux (anthropogenic emissions of around 5.4 PgC/yr) with a TWO-WAY EXCHANGE (NOT “emissions” as stated above) of around 210 PgC/yr (or 210 Gt C/year = 770 Gt CO2/year and NOT 210 Gt CO2/year) with the biosphere/ocean. Again, the numbers are wrong, the comparison is “goofy” and it has no bearing on the fact that we are responsible for the 35% increase in atmospheric CO2.

    Promotion of these old fallacies on ClimateAudit indicates either extreme stupidity or malevolent misinformation. Which one would you pick?

  13. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 8:50 PM | Permalink

    John M (#2): Of course, this is more garbage. Perhaps Morgan doesn’t know that, on a Mercator projection, the areas of the Arctic and Antarctica are infinite, so any “global average” would simply be the average of the temperatures at the North and South Poles! Also, look at Figure 2.7 in Chapter 2 of the TAR (“The Scientific Basis”) — two curves are shown of average temperature on each of the three plots — one is the “optimum average” and the other is the “area weighted average”. The curves are very similar, especially for the global average and there is ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of doing any kind ov averaging on a Mercator projection.

    Whoever would be stupid enough to globally-average on a Mercator projection and whoever would be stupid enough to believe anyone else would?

    This thread definitely earns the “Dunce Award” — no credible science presented at the start, and a degeneration towards arguing about browsers!

  14. John M
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 9:16 PM | Permalink

    John H:

    Thanks (I think).

    Weren’t you the one that said something about Dale Carnegie a while back?

  15. nanny_govt_sucks
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 9:30 PM | Permalink

    Firstly, I think it is beyond dispute by even the most “contrarian contrarian” that humans have been responsible for increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by over 35% (an increase from 280 ppmv prior to industrialisation to 380 ppmv now).

    So EVERY increase in CO2 concentrations is due to humans? What about CO2 increases due to warming and other natural phenomena? How did CO2 concentrations ever increase before industrialization?

  16. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 9:33 PM | Permalink

    John M (#15):

    > Weren’t you the one that said something about Dale Carnegie a while back?

    Yes, but I don’t feel a great need to “win friends and influence people” on ClimateAudit. I’m sorry, but my tetchiness varies monotonically, and in the same sense, as the degree of idiocy and/or deceit (take your pick) of these postings.

  17. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 9:42 PM | Permalink

    nanny_govt_sucks (#16): O.K., so you are a “contrarian contrarian contrarian”. But take a look at Figure 3.2 (b) in Chapter 3 of the IPCC TAR (“The Scientific Basis”) — was it just a coincidence that CO2 rose by 35% since about 1800, the same time when we were industrialising? However, we do not need to rely on “inference by correlation” — we pretty well understand the physics and chemistry of the global carbon cycle and why CO2 did indeed rise after 1800 — it’s anthropogenic. And if it didn’t rise due to us, can you please tell me where all that anthropogenic CO2 went to?

  18. Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 10:10 PM | Permalink

    While humanity’s three billion tonnes (gigatonnes, or GT) per year net contribution to the atmosphere’s CO2 load appears large on a human scale, it is actually less than half of 1% of the atmosphere’s total CO2 content (750-830 GT). The CO2 emissions of our civilization are also dwarfed by the 210 GT/year emissions of the gas from Earth’s oceans and land.

    This is an old and classic contrarian chestnut. It has been discredited for a long time…

    Not to be difficult, but… reference, please?

  19. kim
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 10:13 PM | Permalink

    It still seems like your ‘one-way flux’ is pretty small compared to your ‘two-way exchange’. Why distinguish ‘flux’ and ‘exchange’? Both transfer.
    ========================

  20. Dave Eaton
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 10:16 PM | Permalink

    I understand that CO2 conc was quite a bit higher in the deep past. Where did it go, I wonder?

    Further, there isn’t such a ducky correlation between ancient CO2 conc and temperature, so I wonder what can be concluded from that wrt to climate change and CO2? Regardless of the source, I mean.

  21. joshua corning
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 10:20 PM | Permalink

    we pretty well understand the physics and chemistry of the global carbon cycle and why CO2 did indeed rise after 1800 “¢’‚¬? it’s anthropogenic. And if it didn’t rise due to us, can you please tell me where all that anthropogenic CO2 went to?

    I think the assumption is that with such a huge load coming from natural sources and year to year and day to day fluctuations of those natural sources that the 1% human contribution would be lost in the crowd.

  22. Bryn Hughes
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 10:40 PM | Permalink

    “CO2 did indeed rise after 1800 “¢’‚¬? it’s anthropogenic.”
    If the Earth’s temperature has risen since 1800 then some of the “anthropogenic” increase must be due to this rise.
    The atmospheric CO2 conc measured at Mauna Loa sows an annual variation which appears to correlate with an annual variation in the global temperature.
    Surely someone has calculated what proportion of the CO2 increase that is due to the increasing temperature.
    After all the scenarios of future temperature rise must include a postive feedback due to CO2 released from the ocean.

  23. Lee
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 10:45 PM | Permalink

    re 21: where did that ancient CO2 go? Gee, I’ll consider that question next time I pump fossil hydroCARBONS into the tank of my car. In a less satirical vein, one might also consider the origin of all those carbonaceaous mountain masses aroudn teh earth.

    and 22. Anthropogenic emissions are doing a reasonably effective job of altering the carbon isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2 for something that would be expected to be ‘lost in the shuffle.’

  24. Lee
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 10:48 PM | Permalink

    re 24: CO2 concentration in the oceans are INCREASING, as the oceans soak up some of the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2. About half of it, more or less.

  25. kim
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 10:50 PM | Permalink

    Look, Lee, I don’t know much, but I can see you’ve confounded several different temperature/CO2 things, here. What Gore assumes will happen with increased CO2 isn’t shown by eon scale temperature/CO2 correlations that Steve referenced. And the ice core stuff is something else again. You’ve gotten apples, oranges and pears together there, and the smell is rotten.
    =========================================

  26. Lee
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 10:52 PM | Permalink

    27. kim, that’s an awfully strong statemnt to be offered with absolutely no supporting analysis.

  27. kim
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 10:53 PM | Permalink

    Well, Lee, if free oxidized carbon warms the earth, then isn’t all that carbon virtually irreversibly sequestered from the carbon cycle going to ultimately cool the earth, irreversibly? Much more in limestone than in hydrocarbons, too.
    =================================================

  28. Lee
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 11:00 PM | Permalink

    Gee, kim, I wonder why the earth is cooler now than it was before the Carboniferoius?

    I mean, as near as I can tell from what you wrote, you are repeating what I said: there is less atmospheric carbon now than at times in the ancient past, because it is sequestered. And yes, it was warmer in the ancient past.

    BTW, it isnt irreversibly sequetered. It is cycled in geologic time; mountain weathering returns carbon to the atmosphere, and is a contributor to the equilibrium that has set atmospheric carbon levels in the recpnt past, until the very recent anthropogenic “era.”.

  29. Ashby
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 11:07 PM | Permalink

    Since we understand the Carbon cycle so well, if solar forcing has warmed the globe following the little ice age, how would that change the carbon dioxide equilibrium? Would the oceans absorb less? Has anyone quantified that?

  30. cytochrome sea
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 11:08 PM | Permalink

    Lee, re:23, are you sure you’re directing your complaints to the right person?

    re:25, “Anthropogenic emissions are doing a reasonably effective job of altering the carbon isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2 for something that would be expected to be “lost in the shuffle.”

    I would agree, but the change does ‘sound’ small. Eric ?Steig? of Realclimate posits 15 hundredths of 1 per cent since 1850:

    http://tinyurl.com/r5pau

  31. nanny_govt_sucks
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 11:12 PM | Permalink

    #18 – I’m just trying to clarify your position here, John. You seem to be saying that the recent increase in CO2 concentrations above 280ppm is due entirel to humans and that there has been no natural fluctuation of CO2 concentrations at all during that time. Is that what you are saying?

  32. Lee
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 11:12 PM | Permalink

    re 31. – irrelevant. There is more carbon in the atmosphere. There is also more carbon in the oceans. Therefore, the increased atmospheric carbon is nto coming from the oceans.

    In the absence of other variable, increasing temperature woudl drive some carbon from tehoceans into the atmosphere – but given a jor increase in atmospheric concentratin, the concentration gradient is overcoming the slight decrease in CO2 solubility in ocean water with increasing temperatures. There is quite a bit of work on this, I’ve read it, I dont have the papaers to hand.

  33. Lee
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 11:18 PM | Permalink

    cytochrome – yes, I;m sure. Steve posted these on his blog, approving of them at least implicitly.

  34. Lee
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 11:24 PM | Permalink

    ah, re my 35, cytochromes 32: I see now that JohnA posted this tripe.

    That modifies but does not change my criticism: Steve continually makes the point that this is his site. In fact, I assuem such articles are Steves’ becasue of his insistence – its why I missed taht JohnA posted this. The current article is posted as an article by a person whom Steve gives authority to post articles on this site. I’ve said it before; John A cant both be a principle on this site, and just a poster. STeve cant have it both ways, if JohnA gets to post article, than Steve is implicitly approving of those articles, and the content reflects on Steve as well.

  35. cytochrome sea
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 11:26 PM | Permalink

    Lee, The second sentence of the post and the,
    “Filed under: News and Commentary “¢’‚¬? John A @ 2:34 pm”
    at the end seems to suggest otherwise. That’s all I was getting at.

  36. joshua corning
    Posted Jun 14, 2006 at 11:41 PM | Permalink

    The current article is posted as an article by a person whom Steve gives authority to post articles on this site. I’ve said it before; John A cant both be a principle on this site, and just a poster. STeve cant have it both ways, if JohnA gets to post article, than Steve is implicitly approving of those articles, and the content reflects on Steve as well.

    Lee first off welcome to the internet.

    Second I think it works like this. Steve is not an internet guru and probably does not want to be…John A is. John A provides to Steve by keeping up the site which, steve has said, gives him exposure and helps orginize his thoughts…in return Steve allows John A to post some of his views.

    Anyway this is all speculation on my part. But the arangement does not in my opinion expose steve to ridicule…it is fairly easy to seperate who writes what and to whom what opinion belongs…the name at the bottom is a good clue.

  37. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 12:07 AM | Permalink

    Hang on everyone, arguing about atmospheric CO2 etc. etc. ….. I am not going to spend lots of time teaching people about where CO2 goes in the the biosphere/atmosphere/ocean system — Lee is having a pretty good go and you only have to look in the IPCC TAR. The whole point of my original posting is that:

    IT IS BULLS**T TO COMPARE A ONE-WAY FLUX WITH A TWO-WAY EXCHANGE OR WITH A MASS.

    Get it?

  38. John A
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 1:18 AM | Permalink

    Well, well, well. I go to sleep and find when I wake that John Hunter has found another thread to make personalised attacks, logical fallacies and paranoid references to “contrarians”. How the University of Tasmania must love the way Hunter enhances the academic reputation of its faculty.

    And that Lee decides that the best way to advance his cause is to attack Steve McIntyre in personalised terms for even allowing this “bull****” onto the hallowed pages of this weblog?

    Where do you people ever get off?

    I didn’t say I approved of every word in those articles – I simply mentioned them as “interesting” and thought they were worthy of discussion.

  39. John A
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 2:01 AM | Permalink

    Lee:

    Steve, excuse me for being blunt, but how can you approvingly post complete tripe like this and expect anyone to take you seriously?

    He didn’t post it, let alone approvingly. I did. Perhaps you’d care to read a little more carefully before attacking him.

    This garbage isnt even internally consistent. “The correlation between CO2 and temperature that Gore speaks about so confidently is simply non-existent over all meaningful time scales,”‘? followed by “the ice cores show that CO2 increases don’t precede, and therefore don’t cause, warming.”‘? In other words, claiming there is no correlation between CO2 and warming at all, and then going on to talk about the phase relationship, a phase relationship which of course requires that the correlation is there.

    Is it? The plain fact of the matter is that on geological timescales, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere bears little or no relation to the temperature index. This was established (amongst other studies) by Retallack et al in 2001:

    On the scale of centuries and millennia, carbon dioxide and methane concentrations track temperature rise and fall by centuries. For example, Monnin et al, 2001

    And given the blatant error at that level, I wont even get into the argument that CO2 as an amplifying feedback for warming can be both increased by some initial warming , AND a cause of further warming. But that, of course, is way to complex to enter the considerations of these “experts”‘? when considering that phase relationship.

    I think you should get into that argument, because as far as I can tell it is false. As we can see from Monnin et al, carbon dioxide and methane continue to rise for centuries after the temperature has stabilized or even begun to fall. What sort of “amplifying feedback” does that? Or are we simply talking about an article of faith that refuses to be tested like any other scientific hypothesis in the crucible of expeimental evidence?

    And then this howler: “”‘?The theories that Gore supports indicate the greatest warming will be in polar regions. Therefore, the temperature contrast with warmer regions “€? the driver of extreme weather “€? will lessen and, with it, storm potential will lessen.”‘? First, tropical storm intensity is NOT dirven by temperature exteremes between latitudes, so this argument is meaningless for tropical storms. Second, even I, with an ocean racing sailor’s knowledge of basic meteorology, know that this is ludicrously oversimplified when decribing extratropical storms – among (many, many) other things, greater energy means effects on water content, which is also a major determinant of storm intensity. That statement is so oversimplified (at least) as to be abvously not worthy of serious consideration as offered, even for extratropical storms.

    What howler? That you refuse to parse the sentences correctly? Tim Ball did not say “tropical storm intensity” but “storm potential” and “extreme weather”. Tim Ball did not say that tropical or extra-tropical storms would individually be reduced in intensity, only that ultimately, the potential of the ocean-atmosphere system to produce extreme weather would be reduced as the temperature gradient between tropics and poles is decreased.

    You ignore (did you bother to read the article in question?) also the follow-up to the remark:

    This [reduced storminess during warming] is exactly what former Environment Canada research scientist and EW specialist Dr. Madhav Khandekar found. His studies show there has been no increase in EW events in Canada in the past 25 years. Furthermore, he sees no indication that such events will increase over the next 25 years. “In fact, some EW events such as winter blizzards have definitely declined,” Khandekar says. “Prairie droughts have been occurring for hundreds of years. The 13th and 16th century saw some of the severest and longest droughts ever on Canadian/American prairies.” Like many other researchers, Khandekar is convinced that EW is not increasing globally, either.

    On hurricanes, Gore implies that new records are being set as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions. Besides clumsy errors in the presentation of the facts (Katrina did not get “stronger and stronger and stronger” as it came over the Gulf of Mexico; rather, it was category 5 over the ocean and was downgraded to category 3 when it made a landfall), Gore fails to note that the only region to show an increase in hurricanes in recent years is the North Atlantic. Hurricane specialist Tad Murty, former senior research scientist Department of Fisheries and Oceans and now adjust professor of Earth sciences at U of O, points out, “In all other six ocean basins where tropical cyclones occur, there is either a flat or a downward trend.” Murty lists 1900, 1926 and 1935 as the years in which the most intense hurricanes were recorded in the United States. In fact, Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, has stated that global warming has nothing to do with the recent increase in hurricane frequency in the North Atlantic. Murty concludes, “The feeling among many meteorologists is that it has to do with the North Atlantic oscillation, which is now in the positive phase and will continue for another decade or so.”

    But heck, these are scientists responding to the mistakes in a film as it relates to their own fields of study. What do they know?

    And are you really seriously posting and repeating that bull**** about CO2 concentrations? Are you so ignornant (or willing to be seen as being so ignorant) of basic equilibrum processes, and the major effects that relatively slight ongoing changes in input can have on transient and eventual equilibrium concentrations in an equilibrium system? Not to mention the very, very strong analyses of the origins of the increased CO2?

    It would be fascinating to know where you got the idea that the Earth’s climate was in equilibrium or could be even approximated to an equilibrium system.

    Oh, and here’s a strong analysis of the current rise in CO2: it’s eight hundred years since the Medieval Warm Period.

    Do you really expect people who read this absolute***e to bother to put any energy into wading through your (intentionally or otherwise) obfuscatory posting style to understand anything else you say?

    Only if they’re prepared to put in the effort of actually reading what was written. Otherwise, no.

  40. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 2:04 AM | Permalink

    nanny_govt_sucks (#40):

    > Do you still stand by your statement in #12?

    Pretty well, I think — I think most climate scientists would agree — there would have been other small contributions to CO2 but I’m not sure of their sign, so that it is even possible (50%) that we would have increased CO2 even further in the absence of other effects.

    Do you have any other model which would account for the increase from 280 ppmv prior to industrialisation to 380 ppmv now, when the variation over the previous 1000 years had been so small?

  41. Anders Valland
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 2:08 AM | Permalink

    John Hunter,

    if all is so simple about CO2 in the atmosphere, you could probably give us a rundown on why the 35% increase you tell us we are responsible for is not 70%?

    In your post #12 you tell us how goofy it is to use the wrong numbers, then you calculate the new ones for us. All the while you leave out the uncertainty range, and thus try to draw away the focus from comparing the annual human input to the uncertainty in the overall mass of CO2. And surely, you cannot mean that comparing the annual input to the overall mass is unimportant?

  42. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 2:09 AM | Permalink

    John A (#41):

    > I simply mentioned them as “interesting” and thought they were worthy of discussion.

    They are neither — they are unmitigated rubbish, and I note that you don’t address the issues I raised at all.

  43. fFreddy
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 2:12 AM | Permalink

    Re #6 John A
    John, the problem was being caused by the long “unwrappable” piece of text in Nanny’s comment (the link).
    It sounds as though Hans’ problem is that the RHS of the comment box is fixed, and the LHS is expanding leftwards to fit the longest piece of text.
    On my Firefox 1.5.0.1, I have never had these problems. In this case, both LHS and RHS of the comment box remained where they always are, but Nanny’s link was expanding out of the right hand side of the comment box. This meant that it was going off the screen to the right and I would have had to scroll horizontally if I wanted to see it all. This is probably not proper behaviour, but it is no bother for me. Because the width of the box was unchanged, wrapping on all other lines remained as it should be.

    I get the impression that the comments box gets two sets of orders to determine their width. The first set relates to how you want the box to appear for a given screen size and resolution. The second set relates to how the box treats wrapped text within itself. My browser is treating the first orders as an absolute priority. Hans’ browser is allowing the second set to take priority over the first set in some circumstances.
    Thinking back, someone was saying that they also were having a problem when the main column contained some big graphics which, of course, cannot be wrapped. If I recall correctly, my browser just cut these off. It sounded like other people were finding that the main column was expanding to fit the graphics in.
    This implies that it is not a problem with the new comments box facility, but rather with the main page layout itself.

    It might be worth having a hard look at whatever parameters or code there are that control wrapping, and particularly, what happens when it is unable to wrap.
    (In strong awareness of my ignorance of this software…) I hope this helps. Good luck.

  44. James Lane
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 2:45 AM | Permalink

    For what it’s worth, the CA page looks fine using Safari. Very occaissionally I’ll have a graphic obscured by the side-bar, but it is quite easy to uncover it.

  45. John A
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 2:59 AM | Permalink

    On my Firefox 1.5.0.1, I have never had these problems. In this case, both LHS and RHS of the comment box remained where they always are, but Nanny’s link was expanding out of the right hand side of the comment box. This meant that it was going off the screen to the right and I would have had to scroll horizontally if I wanted to see it all. This is probably not proper behaviour, but it is no bother for me. Because the width of the box was unchanged, wrapping on all other lines remained as it should be.

    This is what I got, since I’m using Firefox 1.5.0.3

    My guess is that TCO and Hans are using Internet Explorer 6, which wraps by keeping the page size fixed, and moving everything to the left.

  46. John A
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 3:04 AM | Permalink

    They are neither “¢’‚¬? they are unmitigated rubbish, and I note that you don’t address the issues I raised at all.

    I don’t address them because I don’t feel any obligation to answer any of your screed while you behave as if I were an idiot impressed by dogmatism.

  47. stephan harrison
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 3:41 AM | Permalink

    Dear All
    Re the human contribution to the increase in C02. Doesn’t the recent rise in C02 have a specific isotopic signature (C13 I think) that identifies it with burning of fossil fuels? This implies that we can isolate the human signature in the record.

  48. fFreddy
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 4:03 AM | Permalink

    Re #48, John A

    My guess is that TCO and Hans are using Internet Explorer 6,

    I think it is more than that. I have Internet Explorer 6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2.021108-1929 (and thank you, Microsoft, for not letting me copy and paste that, you swine). When I tried to reproduce TCO’s previous problem (see #36 on Road Map thread), it worked fine.

  49. fFreddy
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 4:05 AM | Permalink

    Re #50 et al, CO2 content
    Dumb question time: I always see these CO2 measurements quoted as having been taken at Mauna Loa in Hawaii. Why isn’t it relevant that there is a bloody great volcano just down the road ?

  50. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 4:18 AM | Permalink

    Re #52. fF, you don’t honestly think CO2 is only measured on Mt Loa? Try this or try this set of graphs – enjoy.

    Re #50, yes.

  51. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 5:26 AM | Permalink

    Anders Valland (#44):

    > give us a rundown on why the 35% increase you tell us we are
    > responsible for is not 70%?

    Because (380-280)/280 = 0.357, or 35% after rounding to the nearest 5% — is that O.K.?

    > All the while you leave out the uncertainty range …..

    Pray, tell us what that is …..

    > And surely, you cannot mean that comparing the annual input to the overall mass is unimportant?

    The ratio of the overall mass to the annual input is simply an estimate of the time (in years) which it would take to make a dramatic (i.e. 100%) change to the atmospheric CO2 concentration, if there were no other sources or sinks. So, if you really want to do it, and using Figure 3.1 in Chapter of the IPCC TAR ("The Scientific Basis"), this is (730 GtC) / (5.4 GtC/year) = 135 years. It is really only useful doing this comparison if you know what else is happening to the system. So, 5.4 PgC/year is going in, of which 0.2 PgC/year goes into the land biosphere and 1.9 PgC/year goes into the ocean, leaving 3.3 PgC/year as a total input to the atmosphere. Now, the atmospheric CO2 went up by about 35% since pre-industrial times to around 730 PgC, representing an increase of about 190 PgC, which would require a time of 190/3.3 = 58 years at an input of 3.3 PgC/year. Given the time since the industrial revolution and the fact that emissions are at their highest now, this seems reasonable agreement. So what is the problem?

  52. kim
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 5:26 AM | Permalink

    Lee, the presence of stores means the ‘flux’ is toward irreversible sequestration. Sure, nothing is surely permanently irreversible, but the presence of all that sequestered carbon indicates an eddy off the carbon cycle which is functionally not part of it. Else why accumulate?
    ====================================================

  53. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 5:35 AM | Permalink

    stephan harrison (#50):

    > Doesn’t the recent rise in C02 have a specific isotopic signature
    > (C13 I think) that identifies it with burning of fossil fuels?
    > This implies that we can isolate the human signature in the record.

    We can indeed identify "anthropogenic" CO2 (i.e that derived from fossil fuels). Unfortunately, much of this is exchanged with the ocean (see the large exchange of +/- 90 PgC/year in Fig 3.1 of the IPCC TAR), and most of the "anthropogenic label" goes into the sea — which leads to another contrarian fallacy that we are only "responsible" for the anthropogenically-labelled CO2 which remains in the atmosphere (even though it has been replaced by "non-anthropogenic" CO2 from the ocean).

  54. kim
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 6:24 AM | Permalink

    Think of all the ways to buffer that hot acid, CO2.
    ============================

  55. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 6:41 AM | Permalink

    I added the following comment when I noticed this post:

    I didn’t post this and disagree with many of the points here. For example, yes, annual human CO2 emissions are a relatively small contribution to annual CO2 flux, but I am quite convinced the rise on atmospheric CO2 levels is due to human emissions. This is a useless argument. Likewise the “uncertainty” in CO2 measurement. I have no doubt that the measurements of CO2 concentration are reasonable. The argument as to whether CO2 is a pollutant or plant food is a pointless and un-nuanced argument that I have no interest in participating. The issue of the effect of 2xCO2 is a large and important issue. In other forums, people may have to get involved in such pointless discussions, but I don’t want to get involved in that here. I haven’t seen Gore’s film, but I assume that it is distilling sophomoric images and it accordingly invites sophomoric responses.

  56. Terry
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 6:42 AM | Permalink

    I’m with John Hunter and Lee on this one.

    At first, I was rather upset when I thought that Steve M. had posted something like this. I have a very high respect for Steve’s honesty and integrity, and this sounded like half-baked orneriness which made me think Steve had gone off on a bender for some reason. I was quite relieved to find out that it was actually John A who posted it.

    BTW, I don’t buy at all that the recent increase in CO2 was not anthropocentric, and I agree that the 3 GT figure is completely misleading.

    I recommend that Steve distance himself explicitly from this thread.

  57. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 6:46 AM | Permalink

    #59. I just logged on and noticed this and have done so. I’m considering deleting this thread.

  58. Andersw Valland
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 7:13 AM | Permalink

    #54: John Hunter, you are very good at simple maths. But you see, our total production of CO2 since the dawn of the industrial age is for all practical purposes double of what is found as an increase in the atmospheric concentration. If all our produced CO2 went to the atmosphere, the increase should actually be 70%. It isn’t, it is merely 35%. Something happened on the way to heaven, and it is fair to say that we really only have sketchy knowledge of that something. And since we do not know specifically why the rise is only half of what we put in, one should consider the possibility that there is more we do not know. Of course, if one is not interested in knowledge and only have an axe to grind one would not seek such knowledge. After all, why find more of the truth when what we already have suits our purpose?

  59. John A
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 7:14 AM | Permalink

    I’m with John Hunter and Lee on this one.

    But they haven’t said anything! They’ve made dogmatic statements without proof. They contradict scientists in the field. Lee made statements that were clearly false, and I showed (with graphs no less!) why they were false

    At first, I was rather upset when I thought that Steve M. had posted something like this. I have a very high respect for Steve’s honesty and integrity, and this sounded like half-baked orneriness which made me think Steve had gone off on a bender for some reason. I was quite relieved to find out that it was actually John A who posted it.

    Why thanks. Which parts did you not agree with? Was it a) the bit I had commented on, in which case can I ask why? b) some of it or c) all of it?

    BTW, I don’t buy at all that the recent increase in CO2 was not anthropocentric, and I agree that the 3 GT figure is completely misleading.

    Why is it misleading? Because John Hunter called it BS or was it something tangible? I pointed out (on several occasions) that ALL of the high resolution ice cores showed carbon dioxide was a delayed response to climatic warming and never a precursor. Since the MWP was 800 years ago, shouldn’t that consistent response be considered? Or the fact, as pointed out, that the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature was very poor even in the 20th Century?

  60. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 7:25 AM | Permalink

    Wow, people dissect and discuss these same criticisms of “An Inconvenient Truth” on RealClimate, and it’s considered a civil, worthwhile, and acceptable discussion. People do it on ClimateAudit, and the site/Steve are blasted and illegitimized for it.

  61. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 7:31 AM | Permalink

    RE: #21 – attempting here to recall a paleo course that is in my own deep paleo … ;)

    I believe that the running theory is that most of the CO2 from the Carboniferous glut time frame ended up being precipitated as CaCO3 in both fresh and marine waters. I also believe there to be some good debate and discussion in geochemical quarters regarding the degree to which said biological processes (planktonic shell formation) is acting as a positive feedback and on what sort of phase relationship to atmospheric PP. My own observations with the responses of land fora and fauna to changes in availability of required substances have been that there can be a significant lag between availability and subsequent responses. So, lets say that the equilibrium in the part of the carbon cycle involving natural waters gets changed, we still don’t really comprehend exactly how quickly the plankton will respond and just how much they may respond. 100, 1000, 0r 10000 years from now, will organisms living in natural waters have changed their own profile and reduced the PP of CO2? Or, will they have maxed out prior to reaching the level that would fix the seeming excess? Yet another one of those questions of the day, that, in spite of many arrogant claims, really has no definitive answer just yet.

  62. TCO
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 7:32 AM | Permalink

    Steve, please close this thread and re-open the “ghetto”.

  63. Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 7:42 AM | Permalink

    RE: # 60 and #65. Please keep this going. I am new here and learning the arguments about the carbon cycle.

    BTW I collected some old newspaper headlines about climate at:

    http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html

    Thanks
    JK

  64. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 7:54 AM | Permalink

    RE: #64 – DOH!!! Instead of “is acting as a positive feedback” I ought to have written “is acting like a negative feedback.” Sorry for any confusion.

  65. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 7:58 AM | Permalink

    RE: #67 – you reveal much about your ego and your scientific ethics with your ad hominem attack. In my couple or three trips around the block I have repeatedly run into your type. Your type embraces egoful rather than egoless research, experimentation, programming, electrical engineering, and realization. I have an entire career ahead of me fixing all the mistakes and disasters caused by the egoful approach. But of course, your ego will prevent any of this from sinking in.

  66. JEM
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 7:58 AM | Permalink

    Re #12

    Now, there are two fallacies in the argument in ClimateAudit “¢’‚¬? they are both akin to comparing apples with oranges. The first (from the first sentence) compares a FLUX (which is actually about 5.4 PgC/year = 5.4 GtC/year = 20 Gt CO2/year and NOT 3 Gt CO2/year) with a TOTAL MASS in the atmosphere (which is actually about 730 PgC = 730 Gt C = 2680 Gt CO2 and NOT “750-830 GT” of CO2). So, quite apart from the fact that the actual numbers are all wrong, comparing a FLUX with a MASS is “goofy” (in ClimateAudit terminology).

    I’m afraid it’s this comment which is really “goofy”.

    Point One:

    The IPCC, Jones, etc., all conflait “PgC’ and “PgCo2″; in fact and to be more exact, they always talk about PgC when they mean “PgCo2″, an expression no-one ever actually seems to use.

    Thus anthropogenic CO2 is currently more like 5.4 PgC/Yr = 5.4 PgC/Yr = 5.4 Gt Co2/Yr and NOT 20 Gt (or 3 Gt either)/Yr as Mr Hunter is trying to tell us. (In actual fact it’s more like 6.5 or 7.0 PgC/Yr, but that’s by the way.)

    Point Two:

    Atmospheric CO2 ppm has increase by about 61 ppm between 1959 and 2003. Converted from volume to mass, this is to say about 453.32 Gt CO2.

    Again according to IPCC, anthropomorphic CO2 released into the atmosphere was estimated to be more like 2.5 Gt/Yr back in 1959, much less than today’s value. Anyway, if you add up all the anthropmorphic CO2 the IPCC says has been pumped into the atmosphere between 1959 and 2003, it comes to 226.76 Gt

    But wait!

    This is MUCH less than the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 over the same time scale.

    In fact, it’s about HALF of the MEASURED increase in CO2.

    So, the unavoidable conclusion is that if the fundamental numbers are correct, the main engine for Atmospheric CO2 increase cannot possibly be anthropomorphic.

    And I would suggest that should lead to an urgent serious review of the whole anthropogenic global warming thesis.

  67. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 8:03 AM | Permalink

    RE: #71 – Any argument sent your way will result in an ad hominem attack as you principle retort. You are a political scientist. You place philosophy and politics ahead of scientific work. How do I know this? Back when I was a young, romantic, Gaia worshipper, I was just like you. Oh, how I still feel that pain. And pain it was. What a burden to bear.

  68. James Lane
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 8:14 AM | Permalink

    Don’t feed the troll, Steve.

  69. Paul Penrose
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 8:18 AM | Permalink

    I find that when people use profanity, like TCO and John Hunter have here, it is because they are unable to debate the issues. I don’t know if they just don’t understand the issues or if they are just jerks that enjoy making other people upset, but the result is the same: the discussion is degraded. Steve and John A., when this happens you really need to censor those postings mercilessly. Any posting that contains the level of profanity found in #7 and #39 should be deleted completely as soon as you see it. I know you will be criticized for being heavy-handed, but it’s the right thing to do if you want to maintain the level of civility required for a reasoned discussion/debate. Personally I don’t know why you put up with TCO’s continued use of profanity and personal attacks; I would have banned him long ago.

  70. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 8:21 AM | Permalink

    RE: #73 – I only feed them when there is a higher order reason for doing so. Something critical is being revealed here. Look at it closely. I wonder who it is? Mann? Raypierre? In any case, it is telling. Understanding the psychology behind things can be very instructive. But point taken…. my own tolerance for engaging trolls is about 2 posts. :)

  71. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 8:27 AM | Permalink

    #63 I agree 100% with your observation.
    You’d think it was criminal to be “contrarian” or even have an opinion and speak it freely for that matter. I say let people sputter even when they name call and insult and demand things that have nothing to do with the facts being pondered over. Maybe Inconvenient Fear should be the title?

    This may be dumb, but heck, in my fantasy, I’d like to ask this of Al Gore in front of hundreds of people :

    What IS the perfect global average temp of Eden err..I mean the Earth, sir?

    Because I think this movie wants to create fear. And only doing so to sway people to embrace a political ideology. It is also guilt based thinking which I hate and it is stemming from a psuedo-religious idea of Eden. Because…We humans are evil. We humans ruined Eden with our evolution, our progress and our technology!

    Not only do I disagree with that thinking; I believe it is wrong. For one thing, humans have been naturally pulling away from using carbon based fuels since burning fires in caves to keep warm. I have faith we will pull away even more in time.

    I refuse to feel guilty about any human progress creating the modern world. That’s just insane.

  72. TCO
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 8:29 AM | Permalink

    I agree that profanity should not be allowed. However, I think you should make an exception for me.

  73. TCO
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 8:30 AM | Permalink

    Artistic contrast is much nicer when I’m the only one. Plus it will chap people’s asses even worse that you are being unfair in rules enforcement. ;)

  74. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 8:38 AM | Permalink

    I wonder who it is? Mann? Raypierre? In any case, it is telling.

    My guess its the same putz who has tried to bring politics and ad-homs to this board repeatedly over the last month or so – the same guy who hasn’t debated one issue in several dozen postings. But now he’s doing it anonomously and giving himself “hero” stature. One has to wonder if he bought a mask and cape for the task. Or maybe he bought a set of underoos on eBay and tried to squeeze in.

  75. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 8:40 AM | Permalink

    Re: #75

    And this way you can be the designated troll-basher this time and I don’t even have to read his messages.

    re: #70

    This would be big news if true. Therefore I have trouble believing it’s true. And I’ve worked through the numbers before and think I would have noticed if people had been using the wrong units. I realize you’ve presented some numbers here, but could you re-present them with tracable links so that you can be audited here. That is, after all, the purpose of this blog.

  76. Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 8:55 AM | Permalink

    RE: #80: “biased position (pro-capitalism, Libertarian, right-wing etc)”
    JK: Do you have something against freedom?

    Thanks
    JK

  77. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 8:55 AM | Permalink

    #83. I’ve decided to leave this post up, but have done a complete edit so that it reflects my views at least somewhat.I’ve been indulgent in the past with taunting commenters because I figure that they mostly just embarrass themselves.  However, flamers are on notice that flames may be deleted, and inconsistency may occur due to the fact that it’s time consuming and boring to check for flames.

  78. John A
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 9:28 AM | Permalink

    Reply to Steve McIntyre’s edited article

    On Carbon Dioxide:

    It’s not obvious to me that any effects of higher CO2 so far have been adverse to humans, but I also think that the impact of 2xCO2 is a large and important issue, worth studying and understanding. I’m assuming that most readers of this site are interested in more nuanced analysis.

    I’d like to know why you’d think 2xC02 is a large and important issue. The response of the climate to CO2 is logarithmic, not linear. Also rising carbon dioxide is a response to previous warming and its feedback is tiny.

    On this very point of whether CO2 is a response, you say:

    Personally, I have only carried out detailed analysis of arguments which purport to show that the 1990s were the "warmest decade" of the millennium. When I try to venture into other arguments and issues, I have far less knowledge. Extrapolating from the lack of due diligence in the hockey-stick arguments, I am concerned about the level of verification and due diligence in these other areas, but perhaps it’s different. On the argument of CO2 leading or lagging ice age changes, I don’t see that it gives much comfort to either side. My understanding of the evidence is that changes in dO18 levels lead changes in CO2 levels in ice cores; however modelers argue that changes in CO2 level are an important feedback which intensify the changes.

    I refer you back to Monnin et al, 2001 in my reply #42 above. As far as modelers concerns about what is important or not, here’s Tim Ball again:

    "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."


    On hurricane intensity
    :

    If you have warmer oceans, it seems plausible to me that there will be more hurricanes, even if there is a somewhat lessened temperature contrast. I suspect that the temperature contrast would be sufficient.

    Alas it ain’t that simple, see Pat Michaels on this very subject

    Hurricanes are atmospheric heat engines, and if there is a lessened temperature gradient between the sea surface and the mid-troposhere, then hurricanes either do not form or are very weak affairs. This happens in the North Atlantic basin when there is a strong El Nino in the Pacific – the enhanced water vapor from the Eastern Pacific rolls into the Caribbean, reducing the number and intensity of hurricanes.

  79. McCall
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 9:32 AM | Permalink

    My vote is to keep the thread. Allow the ignorant and not-so-ignorant RC-cheerleaders a forum to support and defend such cinematic(?) propaganda — likewise for the other side.

  80. JEM
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 10:13 AM | Permalink

    re: #82

    re: #70

    This would be big news if true. Therefore I have trouble believing it’s true. And I’ve worked through the numbers before and think I would have noticed if people had been using the wrong units. I realize you’ve presented some numbers here, but could you re-present them with tracable links so that you can be audited here. That is, after all, the purpose of this blog.

    I quite agree it would be big news if true.

    I’ve been quiet around here for the last few weeks once I first came to suspect what I said here is true. I’m now quite certain it is. I will have a short ‘position paper’ on this ready in a few days.

    Two points will be clear:

    One: ALL data will come from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report “Climate Change 2001: Working Group 1: The Scientific Basis”

    Two: If true, this is little short of earthshattering for the whole topic.

    I have been reluctant to ‘publish’ because I want to be absolutely ‘150%’ certain I’ve not made a silly mistake; that I am clearly right.

    I am now that certain, and will have finished my presentation in a few days. At that time I would like to post it on this site.

  81. beng
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 10:37 AM | Permalink

    I found out who RealClimateHero is:

  82. beng
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 10:40 AM | Permalink

    Jeez, tried the help buttons & they didn’t work.

    Try this:

    http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm

  83. agn
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 10:43 AM | Permalink

    # 70, 87

    The IPCC, Jones, etc., all conflait “PgC’ and “PgCo2″‚ⱻ in fact and to be more exact, they always talk about PgC when they mean “PgCo2″‚ⱬ an expression no-one ever actually seems to use.

    Thus anthropogenic CO2 is currently more like 5.4 PgC/Yr = 5.4 PgC/Yr = 5.4 Gt Co2/Yr and NOT 20 Gt (or 3 Gt either)/Yr as Mr Hunter is trying to tell us. (In actual fact it’s more like 6.5 or 7.0 PgC/Yr, but that’s by the way.)

    JEM, just a mo: if the anthropogenic carbon equivalent is 5.4 Gt/year then the amount of CO2 added (if we say that all of the carbon goes in as CO2, which is just an approximation) is indeed 19.8 Gt/year – don’t forget that the carbon content of CO2 is just 12/44ths (by molecular weight)…

  84. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 10:57 AM | Permalink

    Sorry if this is going to be long winded: speaking of propaganda.

    I don’t know if it’s around on the internet to view or it is going to be aired again, but the 10 min or so trailer for this movie (we saw on MTV a few weeks before the theater release) is something I found very disturbing/telling to the level of intelligence, purpose and content of this movie; which I for one don’t plan on watching.

    Aimed at teenage/young adult audiences I presume, it urges to pay attention to this dire/horrible/out of control situation we are in as inhabitants of the planet. (and implies the current admin of the country isn’t up to par too I believe).

    If I was still a kid I would have changed the channel just because it was really boring and the acting horrible, it felt “lame” to me and I remember what that feels like. LOL

    Anyway, a group of young adults are conversing at one point on how they can contribute to the cause or help keep the planet clean.

    The subject of saving paper comes up where; I kid you not!, one young man says to another:

    “Hey what about that big porn collection you have?” (giggles all around)

    the young man answers something to the effect: “Hey I’ve got it all on my PC! I am helping keep the planet clean and didn’t know it” (giggles all around)

    And no! the reference to porn is not what I found the most disturbing about the trailer. I could care less what consenting adults do in that arena. Try and see this thing if you can and you’ll understand what I saw and felt.

    JEM that sounds really interesting. Keep it up no matter the outcome.
    JK, those are cool scans of newpapers. Thanks for sharing.

    P.S. In my book of life, if one needs a hero, that means one is probably in trouble, or in way over their head. ;)

  85. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 11:08 AM | Permalink

    RE#90 and others,
    I’m not sure whose figures are right, but 5.4 GtC/yr would be the equivalent of 19.8 GtCO2/yr (assuming all that C is from CO2), as agn says, not 5.4 GtC02/yr. 1 ton of CO2 is not the equivalent of 1 ton of C.

    I can see the conversion from CO2 to C units for the common inclusion of other carbon-based GHGs like methane. But since the properties of compounds like CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere are so different (residence time, plant intake, etc), I don’t quite understand the need or appropriateness to convert to C. 1 ton of C as CO2 emissions is a lot different than 1 ton of C as CH4 emissions. I would think it best to keep them separate.

  86. agn
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 11:16 AM | Permalink

    #92: indeed, but I think the vast majority of anthropogenic carbon emissions are as CO2, with much smaller amounts of CH4 and CO, so for the purposes of working out how much CO2 in the atmosphere comes from us lot, it’s probably a fair approximation.

  87. Lee
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

    re: 42:

    JohnA, thanks for ilustrating my point so well. The quote you posted said there is no (NO – as in NONE) correlation at “any meaningful time scale” and then goes on to discuss the phase relationships of those correlated time series that they deny are correlated.

    You defend that quote by dening such a correlation in your first point/graph, and then show a graph with a gorgeous tight correlation, and discuss the phase relationship, in your second point. You defended that internal inconsistency by committing the exact same inconsistency. BTW, if the phase relationship is worth discussing, if it makes a point about the dynamics of CO2 and Temp, even a negative one as you argue, then it is clearly a “meaningful time scale.”

    If you want to be honest, you also need to point out that over the last 300 millin years, as shown in that first graph, Pangaea was breaking up into smaller continents, creating (among other things) major changes in atmospheric water concentration dynamics, which would alter global climate resoponse to CO2 but clearly NOT be meaningful to the discussion of what CO2 will do over historical time spans too short for continental rearrangement to occur. I would also ask what the calculated correlation IS in that first graph you post; I can eyeball a rough correspondence between peaks and valleys, and the correlation does not look like it is zero.

    On weather extremities; YOU need to pay some attention. First it is obvious even to someone who hasnt seen the movie that Gore spends time discussing hurricanes; ie, tropical storms. Hell, he’s been criticised for the advertisement that shows him standing in front of a picture of a hurricane; ie, a tropcial storm. Criticism of what he says about storms, unless expliclty restricted, applies to WHAT HE SAID ABOUT STORMS, which includes tropical storms. But even granting that the criticism only is meant to apply to extra-tropical storms, it is still ludicrously incomplete. Storm intensity is driven both by temperature differences between air masses (one source of energy) and by the energy content of the air masses involved (another source of energy), which meanss in large part the water content. Warmer air contains more water. Wether extratropical storm intensity wil increase with warmoing is stil an open questin in my opinion, arguing that it CANT increase for the reason stated in that quote is absurdly oversimplified. Ignoring everything except a possible slight decrease in temperature gradient is oversimplifying to the point of falsehood. I made that point in my post, you ignored it.

    And please, JohnA, please tell me you didn’t say this:
    “It would be fascinating to know where you got the idea that the Earth’s climate was in equilibrium or could be even approximated to an equilibrium system.”

    Lets see, we have an atmospheric concentration of CO2, which concentration is determined by integration over the past of many inputs with (forward rate constant) fluxes, and many sinks with (reverse rate constant) fluxes. ***THAT*** is an equilibrium process. The atmosphere may or may not BE at the equilibrium concentration; given that the fluxes change over time it is probably seldom at equilibrium. But it will alwasy be trending toward equilibrium, and the changes in those forward and reverse fluzes will change the equilibrium concentratin and therefore change the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the direction of the change in concentration whenever the current equilibrium concentration and the present actual concentration change sign relative to each other. This is REALLY BASIC to the science; first month of first year chemistry kind of basic.

    In this kind of equilibrium process, even a small constant new input (forward reaction rate driver, in quasi-chemist language) can lead to large changes over time. Which is what anthropogenic carbon emissions are doing to our atmosphere. I believe John Hunter poitns oaut above taht the ratin of new forward flux to teh total mass allows one to calculate the time needed for a particular increase, which is in close agreement to the observed icnrease. That you try to dispute this, even at the level of disputing whether equilibrium processes apply, is utterly discrediting to your basic understanding of any science, much less this one.

  88. Lee
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 11:45 AM | Permalink

    re 92:
    Michael, as I understand it, one of the reasons for treating carbon in general, at least for some kinds of calculatins, is that some of the carbon compounds arent stable. CH4, if I remember correctly, oxidizes to CO2 in the atmosphere with a half life on the order of decades, not centuries. That half time is from memory and I dont have that reference handy; I’d check it before relying on it. This means that when considering longer-term consequences, it makes sense to treat carbon generally, not as CO2 and CH4 separately, because it ends up as CO2.
    However, given the different GHG properties of CO2 and CH4, it does make sense to treat them separately over shorter time periods, to understand decade-scale dynamics.

    If I’m misunderstanding that, I’d be happy to be corrected.

  89. JEM
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 12:47 PM | Permalink

    Re #90:

    JEM, just a mo: if the anthropogenic carbon equivalent is 5.4 Gt/year then the amount of CO2 added (if we say that all of the carbon goes in as CO2, which is just an approximation) is indeed 19.8 Gt/year – don’t forget that the carbon content of CO2 is just 12/44ths (by molecular weight)…

    I am aware of the basic chemistry, thank you.

    It was this very point that I had to have settled clearly before I could be sure I’m right in what I’m saying here.

    Indeed as I already pointed out in #70,

    The IPCC, Jones, etc., all conflait “PgC’ and “PgCo2″‚ⱻ in fact and to be more exact, they always talk about PgC when they mean “PgCo2″‚ⱬ an expression no-one ever actually seems to use.

    As I will show soon, there is no doubt whatever that by ‘PgC’ IPCC actualy means what should more properly be called ‘PgCO2′. I suspect that this is the fundamental error that has possibly led to a completely wrong interpretation of the objective and commonly accepted evidence by IPCC, Kyoto, and just about everybody else in the ‘reduce anthropic CO2′ camp.

    I know that’s difficult to believe, but just wait a few days and I will show you why this conclusion is inescapable. You might say, the ‘Emperor of Kyoto’ turns out to have no clothes — and of course it was a small boy who pointed that same fact out about the original ‘naked emperor’ in the fairy story.

    Sometimes the truth can be so obvious everyone misses it. (g)

  90. John A
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 1:30 PM | Permalink

    Lee,

    This would be a lot more difficult if you didn’t make simple logical errors and blame others for your inadequacies

    On the link between CO2 and temperature

    The quote you posted said there is no (NO – as in NONE) correlation at “any meaningful time scale” and then goes on to discuss the phase relationships of those correlated time series that they deny are correlated.

    You defend that quote by dening such a correlation in your first point/graph, and then show a graph with a gorgeous tight correlation, and discuss the phase relationship, in your second point. You defended that internal inconsistency by committing the exact same inconsistency. BTW, if the phase relationship is worth discussing, if it makes a point about the dynamics of CO2 and Temp, even a negative one as you argue, then it is clearly a “meaningful time scale.”

    Ah yes, but the causal relationship on the scale of centuries is exactly the opposite claimed in alarmist articles and statements from climate modellers – the carbon dioxide change is always a response and NEVER a forcing. NEVER EVER.

    I would expect that you’d want to retreat from foolish statements such as

    And given the blatant error at that level, I wont even get into the argument that CO2 as an amplifying feedback for warming can be both increased by some initial warming , AND a cause of further warming. But that, of course, is way to complex to enter the considerations of these “experts” when considering that phase relationship.

    but we’re not hearing that old song about the smothering embrace of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because when referenced to the real world – IT DOESN’T EXIST. There is no amplifying feedback, there never has been on any timescale.

    If you want to be honest, you also need to point out that over the last 300 millin years, as shown in that first graph, Pangaea was breaking up into smaller continents, creating (among other things) major changes in atmospheric water concentration dynamics, which would alter global climate resoponse to CO2 but clearly NOT be meaningful to the discussion of what CO2 will do over historical time spans too short for continental rearrangement to occur. I would also ask what the calculated correlation IS in that first graph you post; I can eyeball a rough correspondence between peaks and valleys, and the correlation does not look like it is zero.

    You can use eyeballs for many things but they often deceive, which is what this weblog is about. So when the resolution of the Retallack graph is of the order of 6 million years, then I think it’s fair to say that there is no correspondance at all – no matter how you squint at it. The special pleading about the break-up of Pangaea makes no difference.

    On extreme weather

    Storm intensity is driven both by temperature differences between air masses (one source of energy) and by the energy content of the air masses involved (another source of energy), which meanss in large part the water content. Warmer air contains more water. Wether extratropical storm intensity wil increase with warmoing is stil an open questin in my opinion, arguing that it CANT increase for the reason stated in that quote is absurdly oversimplified. Ignoring everything except a possible slight decrease in temperature gradient is oversimplifying to the point of falsehood. I made that point in my post, you ignored it.

    I didn’t ignore it. I explained it at length. Extreme weather events such as extratropical storms REDUCE during warming periods, as you’d expect from the fundamentals of meteorology that Tim Ball explained. Note that it says nothing at all about individual storms, but on the potential for storminess in the atmosphere. Individual storms may indeed be large as you’d expect in a non-equilibrium system, but the lower the difference between poles and tropics reduces the likelihood of storminess planetwide.

    Nor is this an extraordinary result just for the Earth, the other atmospheric planets also show this same relationship, with Venus which has lots and lots of thermal energy in its atmosphere having had not so much as a frontal trough in 3 billion years. (I expect to see yet another special pleading that means that the laws of physics are not universal – please don’t disappoint)

    On equilibrium systems

    And please, JohnA, please tell me you didn’t say this:
    “It would be fascinating to know where you got the idea that the Earth’s climate was in equilibrium or could be even approximated to an equilibrium system.”

    Oh dear, perhaps Lee will make a fool of himself.

    Lets see, we have an atmospheric concentration of CO2, which concentration is determined by integration over the past of many inputs with (forward rate constant) fluxes, and many sinks with (reverse rate constant) fluxes. ***THAT*** is an equilibrium process. The atmosphere may or may not BE at the equilibrium concentration; given that the fluxes change over time it is probably seldom at equilibrium. But it will alwasy be trending toward equilibrium, and the changes in those forward and reverse fluzes will change the equilibrium concentratin and therefore change the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the direction of the change in concentration whenever the current equilibrium concentration and the present actual concentration change sign relative to each other. This is REALLY BASIC to the science; first month of first year chemistry kind of basic.

    Nope Lee didn’t disappoint – he really doesn’t have a clue.

    If you’re going to be patronizing and condescending – remember not to make such a stupid mistake as to confuse the tendency of closed systems to reach equilibrium with open systems that oscillate chaotically. That’s basic science but you, like Hunter and Lambert, were asleep at the desk when that one was taught.

    Equilibrium only exists in systems which can be considered to be CLOSED. The Earth’s climate system is not closed at all, being dominated by the variability of the Sun’s output, the celestial mechanics of the solar system and the cosmic ray flux. There is very strong evidence that these sources of variability dominate the climate system. But they’re not the fault of mankind, so they’re ignored, or better still claimed to be “accounted for” in those wonderful random number generating machines called climate models.

    But there’s only one parameter that’s going up at the same time as the temperature appears to be rising – carbon dioxide. Never mind that there are a million variables in the average climate model, we’ll focus on just the one – carbon dioxide. (It used to be two, but then ExxonMobil paid off the methane to level off and decline at the turn of the century)

    It doesn’t matter that carbon dioxide rise is a response and never a forcing. It doesn’t matter that carbon dioxide is a trace gas. It doesn’t even matter that carbon dioxide concentration has been many times its modern value over most of the last 300 million years including during Ice Ages. It’s produced (in very small part) by mankind so it must be to blame.

    In this kind of equilibrium process, even a small constant new input (forward reaction rate driver, in quasi-chemist language) can lead to large changes over time. Which is what anthropogenic carbon emissions are doing to our atmosphere. I believe John Hunter poitns oaut above taht the ratin of new forward flux to teh total mass allows one to calculate the time needed for a particular increase, which is in close agreement to the observed icnrease. That you try to dispute this, even at the level of disputing whether equilibrium processes apply, is utterly discrediting to your basic understanding of any science, much less this one.

    The kind of climate system you describe is one that is in unstable equilibrium. But as you can see from the world around us, the climate system is metastable. Rather like your spelling above and John Hunter’s state of mind at all time, a small push can produce a fountain of pure equilibrium gibberish

    The problem is Lee, is you’re not describing the real world. You’re describing your own value system and prejudices and claiming them scientific.

  91. Lee
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 1:41 PM | Permalink

    96: So you have proof that an entire field of science going back many decades, even centuries now, and all of the associated scientists, many of whom make their livings in part by measuring or calculating fluxes of carbon between reduced to oxidized forms, have all made the basic error of forgetting to multiply by the mass ratio? And no one has noticed? And you’ll let us see that proof “soon?”

    This should be good.

  92. Terry
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 1:59 PM | Permalink

    John A:

    Let me try to explain why the original post (before Steve’s editing) bothered me.

    ClimateAudit has specialized in very careful and very fact intensive analysis of specific issues. Its thoroughness and care in supporting everything it says, as well as its honesty in acknowledging errors and uncertainties, have been its great strengths and the reason it has been so compelling.

    The original version of this thread was just too general, too thinly supported, and too advocatish of a certain outcome. I would welcome careful and patient investigations of some of these issues (Patrick Michaels often has good and careful posts on such things), but the original post didn’t meet that high standard.

    I’m not trying to be offensive — you have done much great work otherwise — it just wasn’t what I have come to value from ClimateAudit.

  93. Hans Erren
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 2:16 PM | Permalink

    Re 90:

    JEM here are the sums using emission data from Tom Boden et al and atmosphere concentration data from Mauna Loa

    http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm

    Mauna Loa:
    concentration 1959: 315.98 ppm
    concentration 2000: 369.48 ppm
    difference: 53.5 ppm
    using 2.123 GtC/ppm CO2
    yields 113.1559 GtC atmosperic increase 1959-2000

    Boden et al:
    cumulative total global emission 1959-2000: 205.643 GtC

    see also

    http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/sink.htm

    Humans emitted more than the increase in the atmosphere.

    Nowe if you put a waterhose in your swimming pool and you also see the level rising less than you put in, would you then say: “there is water flowing from an unknown source into my pool”?

  94. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 2:18 PM | Permalink

    RE: #80 – Does that make you an anti-capitalist?

  95. Nick
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 2:18 PM | Permalink

    #97

    I suspect the differences in dynamics between the atmosphere’s of Venus and the Earth originate mostly in the very low Coriolis parameter on Venus.

    To state confidently that “Earth’s climate system is … dominated by the variability of the Sun’s output, the celestial mechanics of the solar system and the cosmic ray flux” is to go far beyond what current scientific knowldege will support, particularly in the case of cosmic-ray fluxes and solar variability. The former because it is by no means clear that CR fluxes significantly change cloudiness in the atmosphere and the latter because we don’t have accurate long-term measurements of the solar constant.

  96. Lee
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 2:19 PM | Permalink

    and still.. let me count:

    There is no correlation, and the correlation is the wrong phase (yet again).

    The fact (and yes, it is clearly a fact) that CO2 can vary in response to temperature, proves that temperature can never vary in response to CO2.

    Continental rearrangements of the planetary surface dont matter to climate; claiming they do is “special pleading.”

    The six-million-year resolution of that 300 million year graph means there is no correlation between carbon and temperature (at least, near as I can make out that is what you said).

    The fact that I asked for a calculated correlation because it looks as if they may be correlated, means that you dont have to bother to supply one because eyeballs can deceive. John, John.. this is precisely why I asked for a calculated correlation.

    Cyclic or chaotically cyclic gas concentration systems with outside forcings dont respond to the immediate equilibrium concentrations determined by the internal and external forcings. Here’s a hint, John: cyclic systems (even chaotically cyclic systems) can be thought of at any given moment as chasing a cyclically varying equilibrium concentration. Systems will only REACH equilibrium in a closed or constant system; they will respond to deviations between actual concentration and the momentary equilibrium concentration whether or not they are closed.

    Apparently, all of this stuff about open and closed systems overrides the observed fact of anthropogenc carbon output driving huge increases in atmospheric and oceanic CO2. Speaking of not describing the real world…

    Including variations in solar flux in climate models proves that the modelers arent seriously considering variations in solar flux.

    Climate models are random number generators.

    CO2 is a trace gas so it apparently can’t possibly have any effect.

    “The Earth’s climate system is not closed at all, being dominated by the variability of the Sun’s output, the celestial mechanics of the solar system and the cosmic ray flux.” – without mentioning that no one I have seen has managed to account for the magnitude of temperature changes on earth solely by the magnitude of those cyclic changes.

    That’s all I have time or stomach for right now, at leat until you deign to respond substantively. I’ll finish by simply pointing out that Steve also apparently thought your original article to be embarrassing enough that he completely rewrote it. To his credit – although why he continues to let you post top articles here is beyond me.

  97. Larry Huldén
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 2:45 PM | Permalink

    comment to John Hunter on :
    ” … Lee is having a pretty good go and you only have to look in the IPCC TAR… ”
    Please John, forget about IPCC as a scientifically reliable source.
    My experience of the report of IPCC is admittedly in WG-II but the conclusion is very, very clear:
    They simply rely on cherry picking of falsifications in scientific results. One of these is based on insects poleward shift because of global warming. I was asked to be an author in a Nature article about that topic, but I refused because it was completely against the data I had sent to one of the lead author of IPCC. Now this article is used as one of the main proof of the effects of global warming.
    J O H N – H U N T E R:
    What do you think makes the scientifc community think that IPCC would be better in other topics of climate science ????
    Especially when the Hockey Stick is an obvious misinterpretation of known data !!

  98. JEM
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 3:55 PM | Permalink

    Re: #100:

    Mauna Loa:
    concentration 1959: 315.98 ppm
    concentration 2000: 369.48 ppm
    difference: 53.5 ppm
    using 2.123 GtC/ppm CO2
    yields 113.1559 GtC atmosperic increase 1959-2000

    I use and in no way dispute the Mauna Loa data myself, as you will see later.

    However, you are wrong — seriously wrong — about “2.123 GtC/ppm CO2″

    According to NASA (and others all agree) http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html the total mass of the earth’s atmosphere is 5.1 x 10^18 Kg, or 5.1 x 10^6 Pg. The mean molecular weight of the atmosphere is 29 g/mole and the molecular weight of CO2 is 44 g/mole.

    Therefore the mass of 1 ppm of atmospheric CO2 is 5.1 x 44/29 = 7.739 PgC, not 2.123 GtC as you state.

    Thus 53.5 ppm would yield 414.0365 PgC (given, as I stated earlier and will demostrate conclusively later, the ‘C’ in ‘PgC’ actually means ‘CO2′) which is of course 3.659 times more than you would have us believe, and far more than IPCC and friends claim for anthpogenic CO2 emissions during the same period.

    The objective conclusion is quite certain: humans emit much LESS CO2 than the reported increase in atmosphere CO2.

  99. Lee
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 4:10 PM | Permalink

    JEM, the difference in the numbers is precisely the mass ratio of carbon and CO2. Your argument in 105 reduces to your previous claim that, “They’ve all been using the wrong mass in the calculations, and no one noticed”

    Pardon my scepticism…

  100. Ashby
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 4:25 PM | Permalink

    Michael, as I understand it, one of the reasons for treating carbon in general, at least for some kinds of calculatins, is that some of the carbon compounds arent stable. CH4, if I remember correctly, oxidizes to CO2 in the atmosphere with a half life on the order of decades, not centuries. That half time is from memory and I dont have that reference handy; I’d check it before relying on it. This means that when considering longer-term consequences, it makes sense to treat carbon generally, not as CO2 and CH4 separately, because it ends up as CO2.

    If solar forcing is increasing due to an increase in solar output, would this result in greater production of CO2 from CH4?

    Has this been quantified?

  101. JEM
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 4:33 PM | Permalink

    Re #106

    JEM, the difference in the numbers is precisely the mass ratio of carbon and CO2. Your argument in 105 reduces to your previous claim that, “They’ve all been using the wrong mass in the calculations, and no one noticed”

    You are right about the difference being the difference between C & CO2. That is my thesis, which I now know can be proved beyond question — and will, in a few days when I have all my data in a clear and presentable order

    Pardon my scepticism

    Of course.

    I started out with scepticism on this in spades myself. I could not believe there could be such a crass and obvious error in such a significant document that so many governments are basing key policy desicions upon.

    But there is… there is.

    Ultimately, however, facts are stubborn and awkward things.

  102. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 4:39 PM | Permalink

    stephan harrison (#50):

    Sorry, the last sentence of my response (#56) was unclear. What I meant to say was:

    Unfortunately, much of this is exchanged with the ocean (see the large exchange of +/- 90 PgC/year in Fig 3.1 of the IPCC TAR), and most of the “anthropogenic label” goes into the sea “¢’‚¬? which leads to another contrarian fallacy that we are only “responsible” for the anthropogenically-labelled CO2 which remains in the atmosphere (even though THE REMAINDER has been replaced by “non-anthropogenic” CO2 from the ocean).

  103. Lee
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 4:59 PM | Permalink

    re109: You mean that anthropogenic-labelled CO2 is equilibrating between the atmosphere and the oceans? But the earth isn’t a closed system, Dr. Hunter, and JohnA just told us that means that equilbrium processes arent applicable. So you must be wrong.

    /sarcasm.

  104. Hans Erren
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 5:01 PM | Permalink

    JEM the CDIAC emission data unit is MtC

    All emission estimates are expressed in million metric tons of carbon.

    1000 MtC = 1 GtC = 1 PgC

    please read…

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

    The relation between the atmospheric carbon content and the carbon dioxide concentration can be denoted \Delta m_a/ \Delta C and has a numerical value of 2.123 GtC/ppm.

  105. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 5:08 PM | Permalink

    JEM (#70):

    > The IPCC, Jones, etc., all conflait “PgC” and “PgCo2″; in fact
    > and to be more exact, they always talk about PgC when they
    > mean “PgCo2″, an expression no-one ever actually seems to use.

    Rubbish. See: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/165.htm which is the Appendix of the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios and which says specifically:

    “GtC – Gigaton of carbon (1 GtC = 1015 gC = 1 PgC ~ 3.7 Gt carbon dioxide)”

    It is pointless to argue with your numbers if you continue to claim that “C” is the same as “CO2″ — they are not — they are related by the atomic weight of C (12) and molecular weight of CO2 (44). This is the terminology of reputable climate scientists and of the IPCC.

  106. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 5:20 PM | Permalink

    Steve (#58, #60,#84): Thanks for bringing some sense to this discussion from the direction of ClimateAudit. If I’d been you, I’d have deleted the thread completely (along with “John Hunter on Sea Levels”).

    As for “I’ve been indulgent in the past with taunting commenters because I figure that they mostly just embarrass themselves”, don’t you think that John A’s original posting fully deserved a few “taunts”, and also that the embarrassment lies entirely with John A and ClimateAudit?

  107. John A
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 5:33 PM | Permalink

    Lee:

    What you can’t manage with reference to facts you can make up with references to your own struggle with science.

    There is no correlation, and the correlation is the wrong phase (yet again).

    The fact (and yes, it is clearly a fact) that CO2 can vary in response to temperature, proves that temperature can never vary in response to CO2.

    Incredible. This is the future of alarmism: appeal to gibberish.

    Continental rearrangements of the planetary surface dont matter to climate; claiming they do is “special pleading.”

    Ah yes, but the Earth’s climate strives towards equilibrium so it shouldn’t really matter, should it?

    The six-million-year resolution of that 300 million year graph means there is no correlation between carbon and temperature (at least, near as I can make out that is what you said)

    What is it with alarmists? Can’t they ever read?

    The fact that I asked for a calculated correlation because it looks as if they may be correlated, means that you dont have to bother to supply one because eyeballs can deceive. John, John.. this is precisely why I asked for a calculated correlation.

    Lee, Lee: No you didn’t. You squinted and found a correlation. Please let me know if you find one. I’m not going to do your calculation. If there’s a correlation then you can produce a number. Do let me know when you’ve found one. I pointed out that carbon dioxide levels have been many times the current level during Ice Ages, but obviously you’re describing a different planet.

    Cyclic or chaotically cyclic gas concentration systems with outside forcings dont respond to the immediate equilibrium concentrations determined by the internal and external forcings. Here’s a hint, John: cyclic systems (even chaotically cyclic systems) can be thought of at any given moment as chasing a cyclically varying equilibrium concentration. Systems will only REACH equilibrium in a closed or constant system; they will respond to deviations between actual concentration and the momentary equilibrium concentration whether or not they are closed.

    In mathematics, there is a type of fallacy often found when there’s a huge logical hole in a proof: it’s called PROOF BY VEHEMENT ASSERTION.

    So you can give hints all you like, but you have yet to demonstrate any relation between what you’ve written there, which is derived from 19th century laboratory chemistry to the real world of climate. Color me not impressed with the rhetoric.

    Apparently, all of this stuff about open and closed systems overrides the observed fact of anthropogenc carbon output driving huge increases in atmospheric and oceanic CO2. Speaking of not describing the real world…

    And we’re back to proof by vehement assertion. You’ve yet to demonstrate from any empirical study, that carbon dioxide chamge causes climate change (without using a time machine), still less that anthropogenic carbon output drives anything other than federal grants to alarmists.

    Including variations in solar flux in climate models proves that the modelers arent seriously considering variations in solar flux.

    Climate models are random number generators.

    CO2 is a trace gas so it apparently can’t possibly have any effect.

    Now we’re back to gibberish. Still, it’s easier than reasoned argument and it pays the same, doesn’t it Lee?

    “The Earth’s climate system is not closed at all, being dominated by the variability of the Sun’s output, the celestial mechanics of the solar system and the cosmic ray flux.” – without mentioning that no one I have seen has managed to account for the magnitude of temperature changes on earth solely by the magnitude of those cyclic changes.

    Ah yes, the "God of the Gaps" argument as applied to climate science. "Since no-one has proven that it is all caused by solar variation, this must mean that my cherished belief has not been proven false"
    “¢’‚¬?

    That’s all I have time or stomach for right now, at leat until you deign to respond substantively. I’ll finish by simply pointing out that Steve also apparently thought your original article to be embarrassing enough that he completely rewrote it. To his credit – although why he continues to let you post top articles here is beyond me.

    Probably because this way, we get to embarass twice as many fantasists like you and Hunter as Steve would on his own.

  108. John A
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 5:40 PM | Permalink

    Thanks for bringing some sense to this discussion from the direction of ClimateAudit. If I’d been you, I’d have deleted the thread completely (along with “John Hunter on Sea Levels”)

    Why whould Steve delete you at your paranoic best?.

    As for “I’ve been indulgent in the past with taunting commenters because I figure that they mostly just embarrass themselves”, don’t you think that John A’s original posting fully deserved a few “taunts”, and also that the embarrassment lies entirely with John A and ClimateAudit?

    I’ve no idea. My original contained very few words other than I thought the articles interesting. Steve expanded on it. Mind you, I’m not the one still begging Steve to delete a thread (what is this, the sixth time?) that features some of the finest quality academic statements ever produced from the University of Tasmania. The faculty must be so proud.

  109. David Smith
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 5:48 PM | Permalink

    Fascinating thread!

    Question: can anyone provide a link to data/chart showing atmospheric methane concentrations in recent years?

    Comment: I am of the opinion that man-released CO2 is warming the atmosphere to an unknown extent, which may put me into the John Hunter group, but frankly I am embarrassed by the arrogance and condecension of people like him.

  110. Lee
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 5:54 PM | Permalink

    Ahh, but JohnA; it’s YOUR gibberish. I just stated it more clearly.

    Adn re: 115 – JohnA’s original article, before Steve disemboweled it, WAS a taunt. Steve, why do you allow this guy to post top articles to your site? By doing so, you are signaling your approval of this tripe.

  111. e.ou
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 5:54 PM | Permalink

    Steve,

    Carbon dioixde just like any essential substance supporting life could be a pollutant. A pollutant is a substance (energy and matter) in concentration beyond the capacity of the environment to assimilate and hereby cause or potentially cause damage. Nitrogen and phoshpates are needed for growth but in excess it kills the plant. Flouride is added to drinking water to reduce teeth decay in excess it causes teeth moulting.

    In its simplest form, radiatiion absorption, emission and subsequent increase in temperature of a fixed mass in a vacuum with constant radiation from another fixed source could be chaotic. It is not just the initial conditions which is critical but also the way the equations are coded in the computer since the differences in the computational algorithm are amplified under chaotic conditions. I think it is time to have a hard look on the chaotic nature of the radiation energy and retention balance in the atmosphere as it interacts with the chaotic nature of the fluid (atmosphere and ocean) motions.

  112. Lee
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 5:55 PM | Permalink

    116: David, did you read JohnA’s original top article, before Steve rewrote it, saving both JohnA and this site considerable embarrassment?

  113. John A
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 5:56 PM | Permalink

    Re #116

    Comment: I am of the opinion that man-released CO2 is warming the atmosphere to an unknown extent…

    Then you’re with the vast majority, including me.

    Question: can anyone provide a link to data/chart showing atmospheric methane concentrations in recent years?

    Peter Hearnden produced this one, which is excellent as a starter.

  114. David Smith
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 6:47 PM | Permalink

    Lee, I did read it, and I read the referenced articles. I can’t call it “poor science” because much of it had no science. The reasoning in portions was weak to non-existent.

    At first I thought it was written by Steve M. This made me wonder, “If Steve is so weak on these things which I know a bit about, then maybe he’s also weak in his statistical work in ways I cannot detect.” I was glad to later read that Steve had not written it, because I have come to see Steve’s work as honest and valuable to the scientific effort.

  115. TCO
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 6:51 PM | Permalink

    Simple answer: He wanted to make up for RealClimate allowing some postings by Rasmus.

  116. John Reid
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 7:23 PM | Permalink

    John Hunter @12,#56,#109 Surely he fact that around 90 PgC/yr is interchanged between atmosphere and ocean indicates that a good first-order model would be of a vapour in equilibrium with its solution. Total anthropogenic CO2 should therefore be compared to the total CO2 in the atmosphere/ocean system of 38,000 PgC when it would appear negligable.

    CO2 is highly soluble in seawater and this solubility is a strong inverse function of temperature so that small changes in the temperature of the ocean will lead to large relative changes in CO2 in the atmosphere. On the other hand the radiative forcing due to increased CO2 of 2.5 w/m2 since the start of the industrial era is very small compared with total solar irradiance of 1300 w/m2 at the top of the atmosphere. It is small compared with the fudge factors known as “heat flux corrections” used in most of the OAGCM’s. It is also small when compared with heat fluxes in and out of the oceans of the order of 100 w/m2.

    It therefore seems reasonable to assume that CO2 is the result and not the cause of global warming. So what causes global warming in the first place? Increases in solar irradiance following the end of the “Little Ice Age”. The fact that this coincided with the onset of increased fossil fuel usage is just that – a coincidence.

  117. Paul Penrose
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 7:30 PM | Permalink

    Re 121:
    John,
    You may not consider that word profane, but I do, and many consider it vulgar at least. You say you are just being direct, but I’ve never found it necessary to resort to that kind of language in a polite discussion. Sure, everybody has thought of using those words when having a big disagreement with somebody, but mature people self-censor themselves and find different language to get their point across. This is especially true in this medium where you have plenty of time to cool off and consider your responses before you press the “Submit Comment” button. So using profane and/or vulgar language here is an even more intentional, calculated tactic here, which makes it even more unacceptable.

  118. Lee
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 9:14 PM | Permalink

    JohnA,

    Re the ancient co2/temp graph. I attempted to follow that back to get its origin, and can’t do so. It comes from somewhere on John Daly’s site, but that’s as far as I got. I will remind you that YOU posted it with the claim that it demonstrates that there is no correlation between CO2 and Temp. YOU are the one supporting that claim with a graph, with no analysis as far as i can see aside from YOUR apparetnly squinting at it and claiming there is no correlation. There may or may not be, but without access to the study, the methods, and the actual calculated correlation, it is a meaningless claim. YOU are the one who has the burden of supporting YOUR claim, especially when your source is unattributed and yo offer no analysis. Posting an unattributed and untraceable graphic is far, far from doing that; if one of your opponents did so, you would trash them for it.

    On the high-carbon ice age.

    Before the present period of glaciation (approximately 40 mya to present, all relatively low carbon regimes) there have been two known periods of glaciation. One was the “Karoo” from 350-260 mya, which was associated with a probable large decline in CO2 levels. See this:

    The other was from 460-430 mya in the Ordovician. The major circumpolar land mass was largely iced; the large equatorial masses were likely not, even in their extratropical extremes. It appears very likely that CO2 levels WERE high, perhaps up to 10x (about 3 doublings in concentratin) higher than what they are today.
    The major land mass was at the south pole, leading to a geological expectation, by current theory, of colder temperatures. The remaining land masses were at the equator, reducing the area of equatorial ocean and thus heat transport from equatorial regions, also leading to an expectation of cooler temperatures. But perhaps most important, and a major hole in your argument, JohnA, is this:
    “Both the theory of stellar evolution and the measured amount of energy reaching Earth today imply that our Sun is currently brightening by ~1% every 100 million years. ” In other words, at the time of the high-carbon Ordovician ice age, insolation of planet earth would have been about 4 – 4.5% less than it is today. Given that the timing of recent glaciation seem to be driven by ~0.1% changes in insolation (and the vociferous arguments by CO2-doubters that those 0.1%-order deltas are the major cause of current temperature changes), and that this ancient lower insolation was some 40-45 times larger in magnitude than that, and it was coupled with geological distributions of land masses expected to make the planet susceptible to ice ages, how is it that we didnt get a massive, long-lasting global iceball? Gee, I wonder if the CO2 concentration, about 3 doublings above current CO2 concentrations, might have had something to do with keeping the planet warm enough not to experience globl ice age?

    But my main point is that you are ignoring other major relevant variables, and saying that if everythign cant be attributed to CO2, then nothing can. In doign this, you make exactly the same mistake that you accuse others of – attributing everything to CO2 as if there are no other relevant variables – except that in your case, when there is a response not in perfect monotonic accord with the CO2-only effect, you discount CO2 effects altogether.

    BTW, nice job of sidestepping any response to the points I made in the earlier posts.

  119. Lee
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 9:19 PM | Permalink

    re 123 – except that CO2 in seawater is ALSO increasing. If atmospheric CO2 is rising due to decreased ocean solubility and resulting movement from ocean to atmosphere, then oceanic CO2 should drop. It isnt; exactly th eopposite.

    In fact, with a 40% increse in atmospheric CO2, this is what one expects; the atmospheric partial pressure term outweighs the seawater solubility term in the equilibrium calculation, even with slight warming. And yes, JohnA, this is an equilibrium calculation, even on the “not a closed system” planet earth.

  120. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 9:39 PM | Permalink

    John Reid (#123)

    > It therefore seems reasonable to assume that CO2 is
    > the result and not the cause of global warming. etc. etc

    This subject has been done to death on ClimateAudit. If you don’t understand the concept of feedbacks then I’m not spending my time convincing you. I’ll just say that if you assume it is ONLY and ALWAYS a case of “CO2 causes warming” (or the reverse), then you’ve lost the plot before you even start.

  121. JEM
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 10:11 PM | Permalink

    Re: #112:

    JEM (#70):

    > The IPCC, Jones, etc., all conflait “PgC” and “PgCo2″‚ⱻ in fact
    > and to be more exact, they always talk about PgC when they
    > mean “PgCo2″‚ⱬ an expression no-one ever actually seems to use.

    Rubbish.

    No, I’m afraid the rubbish is yours on this occassion. I have you bang to rights, as the police used to put it.

    Just as a ‘for instance’, take a look at one of the data sources for manmade CO2 emissions used by IPCC…

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2003.ems

    …where it is spelled out in so many words that what we are talking about is NOT ‘carbon’ but CO2.

    It is so clear that I am right and you are wromg, an apology would be in order. But I don’t expect that will happen, somehow.

  122. Lee
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 10:18 PM | Permalink

    re 129.

    JEM, that does not ‘conflate’ the two; it simply expresses CO2 in terms of the carbon content, and it says quite explicitly at the top that it is doing so. To convert, simply multiply by 44/12.

    And the fact that one site expresses it that way does not mean that no one uses CO2 instead of carbon. Not taht it matters at all, as long as they are clear about what they are using.

  123. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 10:21 PM | Permalink

    #125 Lee,
    You need to re-read your introductory geology text book:

    how is it that we didnt get a massive, long-lasting global iceball? I wonder if the CO2 concentration, about 3 doublings above current CO2 concentrations, might have had something to do with keeping the planet warm enough not to experience globl ice age?

    We did have global ice ages. It’s one of the fundemental facts of plate tectonic theory. Glacial striations in Eastern South America match the glacial striations in Western Africa. Did you know that?

    Don’t also forget the Earth’s orbit, which is not well defined that far back in time, had something to do with it too.

    John Hunter, your screed isn’t science either. Science isn’t a “thing” or even a specific thing to “defend” . Science is a method of observing the world around us. And it is only one method of looking at our world. There are many other ways to look at the world besides using the scientific method.

    Looking down at everyone and insulting them seems to be your favorite way, and THAT has nothing to do with science.

  124. Tom Brogle
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 10:23 PM | Permalink

    John Hunter
    Told me that todays CO2 conc is 5 times more effective at raising the temperature than the CO2 conc during deglaciation.(See J Hunter and sea levels)

  125. Lee
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 10:29 PM | Permalink

    re 131.

    We had extensive ice in the ordovician, but not universal; even some of the high temperate zoens were not iced.

    http://www.scotese.com/mlordcli.htm

    My point stands.

  126. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 15, 2006 at 10:40 PM | Permalink

    Ice ages are rarely if ever universal. Altitude matters, mountain ranges matter, wind direction matters, distance from a water source matters, plus the age dating as far back as the Ordivician has plus or minus millions of years! For instance 450,000,000 years ago -plus or minus 10,000,000 years! The precision and accuracy in dating is not there.

    Your point does not stand up against the field of Geology.
    Take a geochronology course.

  127. JEM
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 12:10 AM | Permalink

    Re: #130:

    JEM, that does not “conflate’ the two; it simply expresses CO2 in terms of the carbon content, and it says quite explicitly at the top that it is doing so. To convert, simply multiply by 44/12.

    Uh no, it quite exactly conflates the two.

    “Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2003″ is about ‘CO2′ and not ‘carbon’, at least when one is speaking English.

    “All emission estimates are expressed in million metric tons of carbon.” is the conflation in action, so to speak.

    There are many other references that make it clear beyond doubt that this is the case.

    It is also not so difficult to run a check calculation on the ‘theorectical’ mass of anthropogenic CO2 emmissions that makes it clear that the mass in question just has to be CO2, not ‘carbon’. If it was ‘carbon’, the anthropogenic CO2 mass would have to be absurdly higher than it possibly could be.

  128. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 12:31 AM | Permalink

    JEM (#129): I really can’t see what point you are trying to make. The figures I gave earlier were from Figure 3.1 of the IPCC TAR (“The Scientific Basis”). The value for the anthropogenic emissions for the 1980s was given as 5.4 PgC/year, which is 5.4 petagrams of carbon per year or 5.4 gigatonnes of carbon per year.
    If I look at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2003.ems, I see a header which says quite clearly “all emission estimates are expressed in million metric tons of carbon” (which are megatonnes of carbon) together with annual values for the 1980s which are in the range 5330 to 6143, giving 5.330-6.143 gigatonnes of carbon per year which is consistent with Figure 3.1 of the IPCC TAR.

    So where on Earth is your evidence that any of these values represent MASS OF CARBON DIOXIDE? They both say MASS OF CARBON and are consistent in their values. The carbon is of course released as carbon dioxide, but the units are still MASS OF CARBON.

  129. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 12:35 AM | Permalink

    JEM (#135):

    > It is also not so difficult to run a check calculation
    > on the “theorectical’ mass of anthropogenic CO2
    > emmissions that makes it clear that the mass in
    > question just has to be CO2, not “carbon’. If it was
    > “carbon’, the anthropogenic CO2 mass would have to be
    > absurdly higher than it possibly could be.

    O.K. — show us one such calculation.

  130. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 12:50 AM | Permalink

    Tom Brogle (#132):

    > John Hunter told me that today’s CO2 conc is 5 times
    > more effective at raising the temperature than the CO2
    > conc during deglaciation.(See J Hunter and sea levels)

    Rubbish. What I said in #452 of “John Hunter on Sea levels” was:

    > If you need to be convinced that the dominant physics
    > is different, just look at the ratio of variations of
    > CO2 concentration to variations of global-average
    > temperature (assuming that the variations of global-average
    > temperature are roughly 0.5 x the variations of Vostok
    > temperature — a not unrealistic assumption):
    >
    > Over the last glacial cycles (from Vostok data): 18 ppmv/deg C
    >
    > From 1881-1978 (from GISS data and data from Law Dome): 90 ppmv/deg C
    >
    > A factor of FIVE difference — so the dominant physics is
    > DIFFERENT (the glacial cycles were not driven by smoking chimneys).

    This DOES NOT SAY that “today’s CO2 conc is 5 times more effective at raising the temperature than the CO2 conc during deglaciation” (even if it did, you have the numbers the wrong way round!). I assume that the reason why you cannot see the difference is that you live in a linear, single-input world with no feedbacks in which A ALWAYS causes B and B can NEVER have an effect on A.

    Say a hundred times “the dominant physics is DIFFERENT” and you may get to see some light.

  131. John Reid
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 12:54 AM | Permalink

    Lee #126 if this were true and CO2 throughout the ocean has indeed been shown to be increasing I would have to eat my words. Can you give me a reference please.

    John Hunter #127 What particular aspect of feedback mechanisms do you assume I don’t understand? I specifically stated that it was a first order model. Of course increased CO2 will lead to increased warming but the positive feedback only becomes catastrophic when the poles/eigenvalues of the system lie outside the unit circle. A heating effect of 2.5 w/m2 is not likely to satisfy that condition.

    There may well have been other times in the earth’s history when the feedback was significant such as during the ice ages but in the current phase of the glacial cycle the logarithmic nature of the radiative transfer curve of CO2 makes the feedback insignificant.

    If the CO2 concentration were decreasing then we may have cause for concern. This could be how ice ages work – positive feedback between ocean temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration causes the system to be driven backwards and forwards between two metastable states in a 100,000 year cycle although I suspect atmospheric water vapour might play the major role.

    My argument is really about scales. If we look at the amount of anthropogenic CO2 as a fraction of the CO2 in the whole system then it is insignificant. If we look at the radiative forcing due observed CO2 increases in the atmosphere it is also insignificant. We need to look further than the AGW hypothesis if we are to account for observed increases in global temperature.

  132. John A
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 1:25 AM | Permalink

    Lee:

    You simply lost the argument and lost the plot. Get over it. Resorting to condescension because you’re positing an unphysical argument are the actions of a desperate person defending his belief in a religious cult of unreason.

    Re the ancient co2/temp graph. I attempted to follow that back to get its origin, and can’t do so. It comes from somewhere on John Daly’s site, but that’s as far as I got. I will remind you that YOU posted it with the claim that it demonstrates that there is no correlation between CO2 and Temp. YOU are the one supporting that claim with a graph, with no analysis as far as i can see aside from YOUR apparetnly squinting at it and claiming there is no correlation. There may or may not be, but without access to the study, the methods, and the actual calculated correlation, it is a meaningless claim. YOU are the one who has the burden of supporting YOUR claim, especially when your source is unattributed and yo offer no analysis. Posting an unattributed and untraceable graphic is far, far from doing that; if one of your opponents did so, you would trash them for it.

    But I have already trashed your “argument” haven’t I, Lee? Telling me that the Earth’s climate can be considered in equilibrium is “not even wrong”. You’re the one squinting and then telling me that there’s a correlation, but as far as I’m concerned trying to demonstrate that peaks in temperature and peaks in carbon dioxide concentration are within 6 million years of each other does not demonstrate a meaningful correlation let alone a causitive mechanism.

    I know how Hunter would react to your excuse for not finding the reference – drawing himself up to full intellectual height of six inches, he would castigate you for being unable to use Google and therefore you are incompetent to argue scientific claims and you’re wasting his precious time for whatever Hunter actually does for a living (unless the University of Tasmania has an academic chair of “Being an Obnoxious Jerk on Werblogs” in which case he’s just doing his job).

    Retallack’s letter to Nature is titled “A 300-million-year record of atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil plant cuticles” and is from Vol 411, 17 May 2001.

    Oh and by the way, please tell me where the “taunt” was in the original article, because I remember it very clearly. My sole comment was that on the issues of carbon dioxide origins and on the link betweeen extreme weather and warming, I thought the quotations from the scientists were interesting. And that’s all folks! So where you got the idea of a taunt from that is beyond me. Perhaps you think there’s mileage in claiming a “taunt” is beyond me. Maybe in the wild world of climate change alarmism, to merely point out scientific viewpoints which contradict key beliefs of alarmists is reflexively described as “taunting”, but as far as I can see, it only reflects the schoolyard mentality of alarmists.

  133. JEM
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 3:06 AM | Permalink

    I shall get back to the question of carbon & CO2 later (as I said earlier I would) when I can find a moment between other pressing demands on my time.

    In the meantime, perhaps you would care to savour the following remark found in the Wikipedia article on Greenhouse Gasses:

    TAR chapter lead author Michael Mann considers citing “the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas” to be “extremely misleading”

    And of course, we all know that Michael Mann would have nothing to do with misleading data.

    And knowledge of Michael Mann’s role gives one such confidence in the reliability of IPCC TAR too.

  134. Terry
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 6:14 AM | Permalink

    #121:

    At first I thought it was written by Steve M. This made me wonder, “If Steve is so weak on these things which I know a bit about, then maybe he’s also weak in his statistical work in ways I cannot detect.” I was glad to later read that Steve had not written it, because I have come to see Steve’s work as honest and valuable to the scientific effort.

    Comment by David Smith “¢’‚¬? 15 June 2006 @ 6:47 pm

    #122:

    Simple answer: He wanted to make up for RealClimate allowing some postings by Rasmus.

    Comment by TCO “¢’‚¬? 15 June 2006 @ 6:51 pm

    Exactly the same thoughts occurred to me. The real test of integrity comes when you see how the site reacts to such posts. Do you acknowledge weaknesses, or do you try to bulldoze your way through by censoring critical posts and denying there is anything wrong? (See the RealClimate post “How Red are my Proxies?” for a sterling example of the latter approach where they simply deny that a paper that explicitly says it is using a “differencing technique” is using a differencing technique.

  135. David Smith
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 7:06 AM | Permalink

    Since there are bright minds of all persuasions visiting this site, i’d like to ask a global warming question.

    Caution: my verbalization of the question is poor, because I’m not quite sure what I’m asking, so be gentle!!

    It seems to me that, in the absence of clouds, low-level air is heated during daylight and usually rises. That brings heat to the mid and upper atmosphere.

    But, if low-level clouds are present, then that ground heating does not occur and thus there is no heated air to rise into the mid atmosphere. The gound-level temperature is more or less constant (heat can’t radiate in or out due to the clouds) but that constant temperature can be misleading, because that constant ground-level temperaturee does not capture the fact that mid-atmospheric heating is not occurring.

    So, it seems to me that low clouds are very important to the issue of atmospheric warming, and that small changes in low cloud cover (due to whatever) can have a big impact. Things that change low cloud cover (cosmic rays, sunlight, particulates, cities, ocean flow patterns, evil Republicans, evil Democrats, whatever) may be as critical as CO2, it seems to me.

    Rather than burden this thread with this rather off-topic subject, I ask: does anyone have a link that could enlighten me on the subject of cloud cover impact on global temperature?

    Thank you in advance.

  136. TCO
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 7:15 AM | Permalink

    The daytime temperature will typically be cooler if there are low level clouds and warmer with direct sun. And yes, heated air circulating up will be less with the cloud layer there, but so is temp. It is the temperature difference that drives the circulation, not the degree of clould cover. It’s just like natural circulation in a steam boiler. The clouds don’t serve as some sort of baffles for air migration. They serve as a blocking layer for direct sunlight.

    Warning: I am just hypothesizing. Don’t really know anything about inversions and the like…

  137. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 7:17 AM | Permalink

    #139,

    Dear Mr. John Hunter.

    Ok you look down on everyone BUT Steve.

    I think you are cherry picking the comments on this blog and forming a conclusion YOU think is true about it. (One wonders why someone would continue visiting a site one has such a low opinion of)

    I count at least 4 people in this thread alone that find your comments insulting and someone even mentioned "ghetto", and someone else said: "I am embarrassed by the arrogance and condecension of people like him" Should I go through the other topics and count the people there as well?

    IF you need a consensus to accept the data on this observation regarding the "the climate" that is experienced when reading your posts , I believe it is all there baby.

    I believe in the work being done to find the truth about all this fear/guilt/indoctrination being dished out to my children, and I have been reading this blog for awhile now.

    I posted to your Sea Level thread; you missed that one. It was my first post ever. I said it there too : you continue to insult and you look horrible, no matter your level of knowlegde.

    I have found that the general level of knowledge about physics, maths and climate science is so abysmally low among the ClimateAudit cheerleaders

    My husband reads this site with me. He is an environmental scientist with a masters in environmental geology. He, reading Lee in this thread finds little or no knowlege of Geology. You said Lee was "doing fine". How do you skip the geology? Could it be you are not really being scientific or your knowledge is limited in regards to what we know or do not know about the earth?

    BTW, do you any of you have any comments about the movie, besides telling Steve/JohnA how stupid/embarrassing/beneath them it is to talk/taunt about it?

    How can movie, narrated and promoted by a political figure with some level of influence, but no scientific background, put out a movie on a scientific theory based firstly on a graph that’s been broken by owner of this blog, not want to be talked about? Holy freaking cow.

  138. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 7:24 AM | Permalink

    “Rather than burden this thread with this rather off-topic subject, I ask: does anyone have a link that could enlighten me on the subject of cloud cover impact on global temperature?”

    I’m not sure there is a definitive answer – this is perhaps the most complete answer atm, with update to come with the next IPCC report no doubt. But, what I think is clear is that changes to clouds would be a feedback not a forcing – an effect not a cause?

  139. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 7:32 AM | Permalink

    ‘Welikerocks’, before you criticise others perhaps you better re read your post #77 and wonder how much those you describe as ‘insane’ like such insults?

  140. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 7:48 AM | Permalink

    #148, I stand by that opinion, I would feel insane. I am not going to hate people, corporations, oil, cars or modern technology. I am not going to be afraid, fearful, scared, shattered, or feel guilty about what humanity has developed thus far to survive, prosper or be ok nor am I going to feel that way about the future. My opinion is about the movie and it’s message. I can give you the link to the trailers. It is right here:

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inconvenient_truth/trailers.php

    You watch them and come back and tell me what your opinion of that message is.

  141. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 8:01 AM | Permalink

    Wow, Dr. Hunter sings the praises of Peter, who (no offense Peter) I don’t recall ever posting anything demonstrating a knowledge of physics, maths, or climate science, yet call the “general level” of “cheerleaders” knowledge to be “abysmally low” in those subjects.

    Of course, I think Steve has shown some members of the hockey team’s knowledge of statistics to be “abysmally low” – but they seem to escape Dr. Hunter scrutiny on thread after thread.

    FWIW, I like Dr. Hunter condescendingly questioning the mathematical knowledge of John Brignell at NumberWatch here http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/equations.htm . There’s also Dr. Hunter eating statistical dirt at the hands of a “Steve_V” here http://www.debunkers.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000682.html . Show THAT thread “to a few people who have been trained in the subject and ask them what they think” about Steve_V’s exchange with Dr. Hunter.

    Why is it that some of the more educated people in the world – with professions in the academic world to boot – have such a hard time learning a lesson?

  142. John A
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 8:03 AM | Permalink

    However, I have found that the general level of knowledge about physics, maths and climate science is so abysmally low among the ClimateAudit cheerleaders that it is difficult not to be, at times, “robust” in my comments (I wouldn’t call it “insulting”).

    I’d call it insulting. Since you arrived here you have been nothing but patronizing and insulting to everyone, Steve included.

    It can be pretty annoying when one spends a career engrossed in a technical subject and then have people coming from nowhere, with quite clearly no knowledge of the field, making outrageous claims that are completely outside their expertise.

    So why do you keep making these outrageous claims? For someone who claims so much expertise, you won’t bother to ever demonstrate that expertise unless its in the highly specialized field of invective and abuse.

    So you’ve got a big ego and a big mouth. I’ve met and conversed with people a lot brighter than you and its been cordial and informative. I wouldn’t mind so much if you’d ever bother to demonstrate that expertise with a single equation or reference to a single source which wasn’t highly politicized like the IPCC. Instead we get reams of abuse about “cheerleaders” and perversely endless appeals to a consensus that appears less and less to exist.

  143. Lee
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 9:04 AM | Permalink

    135: JohnA, perhaps I should demand a link? I seem to remembercertain persons on this site doing so, repeatedly, and considering that a simple citation is not adequate. But anyway, thanks for the cite; I’ll look.. I do note, however, that you hve still not actually offfered a single quantitative fact supporting the assertion YOU made, that the graph YOU offered as evidence shows that there is no correlation. In fact, you just said that the data on the graph you offered is not adequate to answer the qustion of whether there is (and therefore, whether there is or is not) such a corelation. Nice going; I like the kind of honesty that allows you to admit that the evidence you offred is not adequate to the job. Data that is not adequate to answer the question, is not adequate to answer the question either way.

    You might also consider not misstating what I said; its in the record in this thread. “Telling me that the Earth’s climate can be considered in equilibrium is “not even wrong”.” I never said the earth’s climate “can be considered in equilibrium.” In fact I specifically said that it is likely that it (CO2, which is what I was specifically considering) is seldom, if ever, at equilibrium.

    I also note that you carefully didnt address in any way the ‘high CO2 ice age’ point. And that you are engaging in ‘debunking by adamant assertion” yourself.

    BTW, if you offered those “interesting” quotations merely to allow people to see that alleged climate experts engaged in trashing this movie are saying thinigs utterly absurd and scientificaly illiterate, then I apologize. However, if you ofered them, as seems likely, in order to give a voice to their lunacy, then my point stands.

  144. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 9:12 AM | Permalink

    It can be pretty annoying when one spends a career engrossed in a technical subject and then have people coming from nowhere, with quite clearly no knowledge of the field, making outrageous claims that are completely outside their expertise.

    Let’s think about the Hockey Team and Mike “I am not a statistician” Mann or Briffa or the i.i.d. crowd. Purporting to calculate confidence intervals from wildly overfitted equations. Is that what you have in mind? No wonder you’re annoyed.

  145. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 9:21 AM | Permalink

    RE: #114 – Bingo! That is indeed the essence of the actual problem. It would sure be nice if the so called “climate science” community would actually spend effort on it instead of statistical sleight of hand and politically (anti-capitalist/communist/global collectivist) charged agenda mongering.

  146. Nick
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 9:22 AM | Permalink

    McIntyre, your co-host is now writing things like,

    “So you’ve got a big ego and a big mouth. I’ve met and conversed with people a lot brighter than you…”

    Is this really how you want your blog to develop?

  147. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 9:24 AM | Permalink

    RE: #119 – to make the electrical analogy, the total “steady state” (assuming it can actually be defined) partial pressure of CO2 is like a DC bias as is the total solar insolation. Impose on the DC bias waveforms of small to medium amplitude. Fourier, fourier, fourier … :)

  148. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 9:28 AM | Permalink

    here’s a an article that interviews some experts:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html

    “The Tempest”

    And it mentions the movie.

    “”He is often called the World’s Most Famous Hurricane Expert. He’s the guy who, every year, predicts the number of hurricanes that will form during the coming tropical storm season. He works on a country road leading into the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, in the atmospheric science department of Colorado State University. He’s mentored dozens of scientists. By rights, Bill Gray should be in deep clover, enjoying retirement, pausing only to collect the occasional lifetime achievement award.

    He’s loud. His laugh is gale force. His personality threatens to spill into the hallway and onto the chaparral. He can be very charming.

    But he’s also angry. He’s outraged.

    …Much of his government funding has dried up. He has had to put his own money, more than $100,000, into keeping his research going. He feels intellectually abandoned. If none of his colleagues comes to his funeral, he says, that’ll be evidence that he had the courage to say what they were afraid to admit.

    Which is this: Global warming is a hoax””.

  149. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

    RE: #144. Scientists and engineers who adopt radical Leftist polity become, in many ways, dangerous. They wear their qualifications and perhaps a few past bona fide accomplishments as outer vestments, but inside, they have lost their ability to use the scientific method. They have allowed their radical political drive to become the overarching goal, with quackery intermingled with science and engineering as nothing more than a means to an end. I see it in my own worklife, every day. The world has gone mad. Let me recommend a book, “Intellectuals” by Paul Johnson. Read it, then compare with what we see here and at RC in these debates.

  150. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 9:42 AM | Permalink

    RE: #152 – Let me also be clear that I have run into individuals who supercede real science and engineering with their polity who are from other political quarters than the radical Left. But, that said, 25 years of work life have taught me that it is usually the revolutionary, and the breaker of existing things and norms, who is the most common case. By strict Oxfordian definition, a revolutionary is not a keeper of norms or a hard worker within the existing system. He or she is not the producer of wealth or value but instead one who seeks, in Jacobin fashion, to overturn, smash and destroy. Beware the radicals.

  151. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 9:46 AM | Permalink

    #152, 153. Please no more politics of this type.

  152. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 10:02 AM | Permalink

    Steve M – point taken. If only I did not have to run into it in my worklife or other venues of scientific discourse. Sorry for allowing my frustration to boil over. Back to the maths and science.

  153. Lee
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 10:42 AM | Permalink

    re. 134 – oceanic CO2 increases. Here are a couple sources with relevant quotes from the abstracts; follow the links for the remainder of the papers. I googled ‘oceanic co2 increases” to find these; I havent followed this literature lately, so I don’t remember the key papers off the top of my head; following citations from these would likely lead you easily to the key relevant literature.

    http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309058767/html/36.html

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA

    Vol. 94, pp. 8308–8313, August 1997

    Colloquium Paper

    This paper was presented at a colloquium entitled “Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change,” organized by Charles D. Keeling, held November 13–15, 1995, at the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
    Direct observation of the oceanic CO2 increase revisited

    PETER G. BREWER * , CATHERINE GOYET “‚➠, AND GERNOT FRIEDERICH *

    *Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, P.O. Box 628, Moss Landing, CA 95039; and “‚⟗oods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543

    ABSTRACT We show, from recent data obtained at specimen North Pacific stations, that the fossil fuel CO2 signal is strongly present in the upper 400 m, and that we may consider areal extrapolations from geochemical surveys to determine the magnitude of ocean fossil fuel CO2 uptake. The debate surrounding this topic is illustrated by contrasting reports which suggest, based upon atmospheric observations and models, that the oceanic CO2 sink is small at these latitudes; or that the oceanic CO2 sink, based upon oceanic data and models, is large. The difference between these two estimates is at least a factor of two. There are contradictions arising from estimates based on surface partial pressures of CO2 alone, where the signal sought is small compared with regional and seasonal variability; and estimates of the accumulated subsurface burden, which correlates well other oceanic tracers. Ocean surface waters today contain about 45 µmol·kg-1 excess CO2 compared with those of the preindustrial era, and the signal is rising rapidly.

    http://171.66.122.53/cgi/content/abstract/305/5682/367

    Science 16 July 2004:
    Vol. 305. no. 5682, pp. 367 – 371
    DOI: 10.1126/science.1097403

    Prev | Table of Contents | Next
    Research Articles
    The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2
    Christopher L. Sabine,1* Richard A. Feely,1 Nicolas Gruber,2 Robert M. Key,3 Kitack Lee,4 John L. Bullister,1 Rik Wanninkhof,5 C. S. Wong,6 Douglas W. R. Wallace,7 Bronte Tilbrook,8 Frank J. Millero,9 Tsung-Hung Peng,5 Alexander Kozyr,10 Tsueno Ono,11 Aida F. Rios12

    Using inorganic carbon measurements from an international survey effort in the 1990s and a tracer-based separation technique, we estimate a global oceanic anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) sink for the period from 1800 to 1994 of 118 ± 19 petagrams of carbon. The oceanic sink accounts for ~48% of the total fossil-fuel and cement-manufacturing emissions, implying that the terrestrial biosphere was a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere of about 39 ± 28 petagrams of carbon for this period. The current fraction of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions stored in the ocean appears to be about one-third of the long-term potential.

  154. Lee
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 10:52 AM | Permalink

    re 129 – welikerocks.

    Please read my point more carefully. It simply doesnt matter what the exact timing in the ordobvician was. What matters was that we were not in an ice age, then we entered one, then we exited one. And all this with the relative output from the sun decreased relative to today by about 4-5%.

    Consider this against a backdrop of the ice age of the last 40 million years, where it appears that variations in solar outpout on the order of 0.1% or less are the driving force for entering and exiting from glacials and interglacials. In other words, in th eORdivician, a constant reduction in solar output of some 40-50 times greater magnitude than those driving entry to and exit from glacial periods today, did not enforce glaciation then, and in fact the planet exited a glaciation even with the drastically reduced (relative to today) solar output.

    This means, perforce, that the conditions then are not comparable to today, so the existence of a glacial then with high CO2 is NOT evidence that CO2 isnt an effective greenhouse gas, as JohnA is tryin gto argue. My hypothesis that the high CO2 is what actaully offset the reduced solar output, while reasonable, is NOT necessary to the conclusion the conditions then and now are not comparable.

  155. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 11:15 AM | Permalink

    #157,

    re: the ice ball

    Do you understand that you are assuming the solar output of the sun remains constant for 450,000,000 yrs, plus or minus 10,000,000? Do you also realize that mountain ranges can grow and break down in 10,000,000 years?

    Your assumptions regarding solar intensity are not true. They are guesses. They ignore the reality that the sun has it’s own cycles we don’t know anything about. Nothing in nature is constant.

    From:

    WILLIAM T. HYDE et al
    Ice sheets may have reached the Equator in the late Proterozoic era (600-800 Myr ago), according to geological and palaeomagnetic studies, possibly resulting in a ‘snowball Earth’. But this period was a critical time in the evolution of multicellular animals, posing the question of how early life survived under such environmental stress.

    The authors present computer simulations of this unusual climate stage with a coupled climate/ice-sheet model. To simulate a snowball Earth, they use only a reduction in the solar constant compared to present-day conditions and keep atmospheric CO2 concentrations near present levels. They find rapid transitions into and out of full glaciation that are consistent with the geological evidence. When they combine these results with a general circulation model, some of the simulations result in an equatorial belt of open water that may have provided a refugium for multicellular animals.

    Nature 405, 425 – 429 (2000) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

    Please be aware : Although their model used levels of CO2 equal to those in the present day numbers (which in your opinion is important) geological evidence points to most likely, those numbers were even higher.

  156. Lee
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 11:32 AM | Permalink

    sigh…

    “Do you understand that you are assuming the solar output of the sun remains constant for 450,000,000 yrs, plus or minus 10,000,000? Do you also realize that mountain ranges can grow and break down in 10,000,000 years?

    Your assumptions regarding solar intensity are not true. They are guesses. They ignore the reality that the sun has it’s own cycles we don’t know anything about. Nothing in nature is constant.”

    No, I am NOT assuming that solar output remained constant. I am assuming that the sun is a main sequence star of 1 solar mass, and that therefore its output is increasing at the rate of approximately 1% per 100,000,000 years conseqeunt to its ongoing consumption of its hydrogen fuel, as current understanding of solar physics tells us it is and will do. I am also assuming that the shorter-term variation and cycling in its output is and will remain small, on the order of the near 0.1% that we observe now that we have satelite observations capable of resolving those smal variatins, because this is also what basic solar physics tells us is true of the behavior of a hydrogen-fusion-driven main sequence star, with its feedbacks between luminance, radius, and fusion reaction rates. I will also pointout tht the latter assumption, fo small short-term variation, is not necessaryh to my point; in fact, if there are in fact unpredictable larger-order changes in short term solar output, it strengthens my point obout the problems in pointing to an ancient glaciation as evidence that CO2 doesnt matter.

    And yes, I am well aware that mountain ranges can grow and break down in those time frames. If you will bother to reread what I wrote, a major part of my point is that entire continents (with their growing and crumbling mountain ranges) in the Ordivician were in entirely different places from where they are now, and that the fact that there was a very large relative increase in circumpolar land area, and a simultaneous decrease in equatorial sea surface area, means that the climatic conditions then were not comparable to now, so that one can not assume the underlying geological effects on climate to be constant when assessing how CO2 contributes to the potential for glaciations.

  157. Dane Robinson
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

    Re # 159
    Lee as usual you are wrong again. I love it how you pick and choose which assumptions and conditions you will use.

    So let me get this straight, ice ages in the past and CO2 concentrations in the past don’t matter because the plates were in different positions then? Even though the Atm CO2 concentrations were at least 2-3 times higher then than today? But CO2 is the main driving force today behind climate change? and the 20-30 years of decent satellite data we have about the sun is enough for Planetary physiscists to totally understand solar output over the last 800 million years? What a crock.

    It is like a religion, no matter what the real world data says people like you will never beleive the atm CO2 concentrations are not the climate driving force you think they are. Amature.

  158. Ashby
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 11:52 AM | Permalink

    Regardless of the political biases of scientists, the correct way to redress such a problem is by hewing close to the actual science & accumulated evidence. Discussing the political underpinnings of specific biases may be entertaining, but it really doesn’t push the debate forward in a useful way.

    Regardless of which side you are on, it rests on fallacious ad hominem reasoning.

  159. Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 11:57 AM | Permalink

    On the subject of solar influence, doese anyone have an opinion of this theory: Eight Charts Which Prove That Chandler’s Wobble Causes Earthquakes, Volcanism, El Nino, and Global Warming

    http://www.michaelmandeville.com/polarmotion/spinaxis/vortex_correlations2.htm

    This theory suggests that temperatures are augmented by intermittent releases of heat through ocean trenches timed with orbital wobbles that both the earth and sun participate in. So solar correlations may be due to gravitational factors, not just raw insolation.

  160. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

    Lee, [heavier sigh]
    the whole field of Geology still doesn’t sit right with you at all. Look up : “Uniformitarianism” and read.

    Here’s a bit :

    “Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of science, is the assumption that the natural processes operating in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. Its methodological significance is frequently summarized in the statement: “The present is the key to the past.” Uniformitarianism is most closely associated with geology, but it is also used in astronomy, paleontology, and other sciences whose objects of study are in the past and (as a result) beyond the reach of direct observation”

    Steve and JohnA, This is exhausting, but in a alot of ways enjoyable! Thanks for allowing us to sputter on and providing a place for it in the last couple of days.
    I am going to give you all and the sidebar a break and just shut up.

    Your work here is more important and more interesting.
    Thank you!

    Cheers!!!

  161. Lee
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

    sigh again…
    “So let me get this straight, ice ages in the past and CO2 concentrations in the past don’t matter because the plates were in different positions then? Even though the Atm CO2 concentrations were at least 2-3 times higher then than today? But CO2 is the main driving force today behind climate change? and the 20-30 years of decent satellite data we have about the sun is enough for Planetary physiscists to totally understand solar output over the last 800 million years? What a crock.”

    CO2 in the past probalby does matter – but its relative importance in the face of the OTHER variables that matter are also inmprotant, and deriving understanding from past climate requires one to look at those other varaibles as well. Solar output alsomatters,a nd so does geology. A 5 frickin’ percent reduction in solar output is a HUGE, OVERWHELMING, MASSIVE difference from today. And if you want to cast that out as being perhaps incorrect, then you are casting out our entire present understanding of how stars evolve, which is derived only in very small part from those 20-30 yaars of observations, but in much larger part from our understanding of nuclear fusion reactions, and from observations of many, many, many main-sequence stars in the universe. If you want to throw out a major conclusion from a major field of solar astrophysics, have at it – but its going to take a lot more than “What a crock” to do it.

    And again, if there are variations we dont currently know about, it STRENGTHENS my argument that we cant assume that other varaibles like solar output and geology are equivalent to today, when analyzing the effects of CO2 close to 500 million years ago.

    As I said, the fact that the earth underwent glaciations, and recovered from them, in a past environment with (based on current very strong understanding of solar dynamics on macro time scales – otherwise you need to discount most of our understanding of solar physics) some 4-5% less solar output, and with a geology more conducive to glaciations, and with CO2 levels perhas 3 doublings higher than now, is simply evidence that all three variables were different from what they are now and liekly to interact in different ways, NOT that CO2 does not matter. Unless you start with the assumption that CO2 cant matter, as you seem to be doing.

    And again, I would ask you, given that solar variations on the oder of about 0.1% are the likely driving force behind enttry into and exit from glacials now, how one explains an exit from a glacial period, with a solar deficit of some 40-50 TIMES that great? Unless you are arguing that solar output did not matter then, but does now?

    Oh, but I forget – the solar astrophysicicsts must have gotten it all wrong.

  162. Lee
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 12:19 PM | Permalink

    welikerocks – I know the history of the conflict betwen uniformitarianism and catastrophism. What on earth does that have to do with the pointunder discussion?

    OF COURSE the PROCESSES operating in the past are still operating today. But the ENVIRONMENT in which they are operating, with increased solar output, and altered placement of land masses and ocean basins, and decreased atmospheric CO2, are different now. In fact, they are different as a consequence of the slow operation of those uniformitarian processes through geological (and astronomical) time.

  163. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 12:41 PM | Permalink

    #165, Um, what? LOL

    You forget a couple of important “ANDS”:

    AND the earth is still in the process of emerging out of the last ice age.

    AND the tilt and wobble, and orbit of the earth at this time,

    AND the heat coming from the earth’s core at this time.

    (Does CO2 now make winter, summer, spring and fall as well?)

    Sorry, I said I was done!! I AM. *zipped up lips and finger*

    Thanks Lee for the lively talk. :)

  164. Dane Robinson
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

    Lee,
    Again, your understanding of time is not realistic. The assumptions made by astrophysiscists are fine when talking about evolution of stars and solar systems, but have nothing to do with the time scales of going from a glacial to interglacial period. Thats what I mean when saying you pick and choose which assumptions to use and which ones to ignore. During the Tertiary and quarternary ice ages the continents were in the same positions as they are today, relatively speaking anyway. Co2 levels were higher during that time, and ice formed anyway.

    Also, I wouldn’t put so much faith in Ice core data as the end all of paleothermometers. All it shows is squished gas concentrations through time in recrystilized snow. it could be a regional climate signal you are seeing, and not a global signal as is assumed. I have seen and read the methodology used, it is flawed.

    I would argue the earth is not a greenhouse, Co2 concentrations play no role in global climate, whatever energy they do contribute to potential warming can be readily eliminated by a 1-2 decade solar burst, as YOU suggest, something there is no way of measuring in the past. At least not yet.

    [snip]

  165. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 1:15 PM | Permalink

    #167. I disagree with these comments.

  166. Dane Robinson
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 1:25 PM | Permalink

    Re # 162

    Intersting study. I don’t think most of what they show has anything to do with anything for the same reason I don’t buy into Anthropogenic influenced warming, the time scales are WAY to short. But it may have some slight influence on a couple of the things mentioned, you never know. I attended a talk about 10 years ago where the Proff suggested Malinkavitch wobbles controlled large scale tectonics. It was really interesting. The time scales were huge as well, so there was some correlations, but it is just hard for most people to grasp for some reason?

    I studied wobbles as an undergrad, actually did a 3 year study on them. They are fascinating. I too wonder how they contribute to all things going on within the earth’s systems.

    I did think chart # 102 was interesting, and may help contribute to the Co2 rise in the Atm. I question the man made contribution calculations, not that we are not adding to the Atm, just maybe the estimates of how much could be off, especially when seen what increases in volcanism can do, and the politics driving this debate.

  167. Dane Robinson
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 1:28 PM | Permalink

    # 168

    Steve, what exactly do you disagree with? The tectonics? The ice core comment? the Astrophysics? or the propoganda portion? I call it as I see it.

  168. John A
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 1:29 PM | Permalink

    JohnA, perhaps I should demand a link? I seem to remember certain persons on this site doing so, repeatedly, and considering that a simple citation is not adequate. But anyway, thanks for the cite; I’ll look.. I do note, however, that you hve still not actually offfered a single quantitative fact supporting the assertion YOU made, that the graph YOU offered as evidence shows that there is no correlation.

    I haven’t quantified what is and is not acceptable as correlation or what statistical metric demonstrates as a correlation – but then again neither have you other than what could be called the “squint test” (which I must admit I have been unable to find in any decent book on statistics).

    In fact, you just said that the data on the graph you offered is not adequate to answer the qustion of whether there is (and therefore, whether there is or is not) such a corelation. Nice going; I like the kind of honesty that allows you to admit that the evidence you offred is not adequate to the job. Data that is not adequate to answer the question, is not adequate to answer the question either way.

    That’s because I don’t have a squint. It makes observation just that much easier.

    You might also consider not misstating what I said; its in the record in this thread. “Telling me that the Earth’s climate can be considered in equilibrium is “not even wrong”.” I never said the earth’s climate “can be considered in equilibrium.” In fact I specifically said that it is likely that it (CO2, which is what I was specifically considering) is seldom, if ever, at equilibrium.

    What you said was:

    And are you really seriously posting and repeating that bull**** about CO2 concentrations? Are you so ignornant (or willing to be seen as being so ignorant) of basic equilibrum processes, and the major effects that relatively slight ongoing changes in input can have on transient and eventual equilibrium concentrations in an equilibrium system? Not to mention the very, very strong analyses of the origins of the increased CO2?.

    I pointed out that equilibrium exists even as a potential when the system is closed. It’s a basic understanding of physics that eludes you, so stop trying to blame me for your own inadequacies.

    I also note that you carefully didnt address in any way the “high CO2 ice age’ point. And that you are engaging in “debunking by adamant assertion” yourself.

    Was there one? Was it directed at me? I must have missed the opportunity…which is a shame. Still you’re providing enough evidence of ignorance that it makes no difference. I made a clear statements following up on Professor Jan Veizer, thus:

    I pointed out (on several occasions) that ALL of the high resolution ice cores showed carbon dioxide was a delayed response to climatic warming and never a precursor.

    Now that should be easy to refute with a single ice core. Just one. But you’ve forgotten about it.

    BTW, if you offered those “interesting” quotations merely to allow people to see that alleged climate experts engaged in trashing this movie are saying thinigs utterly absurd and scientificaly illiterate, then I apologize. However, if you ofered them, as seems likely, in order to give a voice to their lunacy, then my point stands.

    This is a point? These are scientists speaking about parts of science in which they are considered experts, and THEY’RE the lunatics?

    From first to last on this thread you have not shown one single statement made by those scientists to be incorrect with reference to any scientific evidence. Instead you’ve simply engaged in a simple ruse of propagandists of left and right the world over: never mind the evidence because they’re lunatics who don’t know The Truth.

    You’ve even tried desperately hard to get Steve to pull the discussion with references to “trash” and “lunacy”, but fortunately Steve knows most of the ruses, so you’ll have to think of something else.

    It’s almost time for John Hunter to tell us again how embarassing this all is to Climate Audit, and how Steve should delete it (and the one on sea levels) so as to spare Steve the embarassment, and how the behavior of the “Maintainer” is compromising Steve’s reputation. (Which reminds me, I must get a t-shirt with “The Maintainer – weblog superhero” on it)

  169. John A
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 1:32 PM | Permalink

    Re: #170

    I think, Dale, that Steve would take exception to the last paragraph in comparing the current debate over climate science to the rise of Nazism. It’s a poor taste comparison that does not belong here.

  170. Terry
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 1:55 PM | Permalink

    Hi Lee:

    If I catch your drift, you seem to be saying that there bave been enormous changes in climatic factors in the earth’s history (solar input, land-mass distributions, CO2 levels, etc.)

    A question: why has the earth’s temperature been relatively stable over very long stretches of time in the face of these changes? (I am calling a 6 degree temperature change relatively stable.)

    A second question: given such large historical changes in climatic factors, does the current increase in CO2 concentrations seems relatively minor? So, should it have a relatively minor impact? Or maybe not? (I am aware of the calculations that say a doubling of CO2 should have a warming effect of X watts/square meter … which sounds reasonable).

    I am genuinely not trying to be inflamatory. I am trying to get a grip on the magnitude of the causes and effects here and a grip on what we actually know versus what we are surmising versus what we are just guessing at.

  171. Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 2:11 PM | Permalink

    Re: #169. Thanks for the opinion from someone who has studied it. It would be interesting to see the data in graph #102 as an independent variables in the data from Hegerl’s study for example. The attribution of GHGs is usually on the basis that there is no other possible explanation for the residual increase in temps after solar and other factors are factored out. But I have never seen volcanism (distinct from atmospheric volcanic particulates) put into the models as a possible variable.

  172. Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 2:30 PM | Permalink

    While on the subject, my back of the envelope calculations show that insolation variation of 0.25% (assumed by models) and applied to the earths temperature of around 300K would be more than adequate to give an increase of 0.75K degrees from then to now. What is wrong with my calculations?

  173. Lee
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 2:32 PM | Permalink

    re 171.

    JohnA, I remind you yet again, YOU offered that graph as evidence to support the origianl author’s stated position that there is no correlation on reasonable time scales between CO2 and temperature. IT is YOUR evidence, and blaming me for its insufficiency when I point out that it is insufficient for the purpose for which you offered it, and when I point out that the relevant fact for your point is the actual numerical correlation which you have not suplied, is merely deflecting attention away from the fact that it is in fact not evidence for what you were defending. I am not “squinting” and claiming a correlation. I’m refusing to squint and deduce NO correlation; YOU are the one doing that, apparently. You are squirming about the point exactly the way that you trash others for allegedly doing. So what is the damn correlation coefficient, John.

    And remember, this argument originates from my pointing out that the quote you posted was internally inconsistent on this point; the author flatly stated that there was no correlation between temp and co2 on any reasonable time scale, and then went on to dispute details of the correlation between temp and CO2, which of course completely refutes his own first bald satatement. Pointing out that he refutes himself requires no evidence other than the original quote, and you have not addressed that point other than to make the same mistake, by posting that graph purporting, (without numerical analysis) to show that there is no correlation, and then posting another graph with a tight correlation, and discussing the phase relationship. I’ll also point out, John, that showing one graph with no corelation (even if it is true that there is no corelation in that data set for that time period) does NOT show that there are NO correlations on any reasonable time period. Address the damn point, John.

    Before you embarass yourself any more on the equilibrium issue, John, do yourself a favor and google the phrase “equilbrium in open systems.” You might find this one, among many, many others, titled “Thermodynamic Equilibrium in Open Chemical Systems.” http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0004035 I will also point out, just to start you on your way, that living organisms such as humans are open systems deriving all our energy, our oxygen, our carbon, et al from outside ourselves, and yet physiologists use equilibrium expressions as a fundamental tool of understanding living organisms. You are simply flat-out (and embarassingly) wrong on this.

    John, I don’t disagree about the co2/temp phase in the ice cores. Dinging me for not offering evidence to refute a point with which I agree is simply silly. I havent disagreed, and I am not disagreeing that the ice cores show that co2 rise lags temp rise. I have simply pointed out that the observatin that temp can be causal for CO2 concentration, does NOT disprove the hypothesis the co2 concentratin can also be causal for temp. In fact, the dual causality is fundamental to the hypothesis that co2 feedback is operative in amplifying temperature increases. I’ve made that point several times; the closest you’ve come to addressing it is to call it gibberish and then pretend it isnt an issue, or to baldly and vigorously state that there is no co2 feedback (argument by vehement assertion, John?) and then ignore the point.

    Stop pretending you can read my mind, John, and mistating my motives. I have never asked Steve to pull a thread, tried to get Steve to pull a thread, advocated for Steve to pull a thread. I have asked Steve to disavow your original post (which he did by rewriting it in a way that states that he thinks the issues you emphasized are, essentially, irrelevant or silly) and have asked him why he continues to let you top post (future, at this point) threads, when your scientific misunderstandings and insulting style are so blatant.

    Now, do you think you can respond on target, to the point? Hell, I’ll even be wiling to suffer your ‘is not, naah, naah, naah’ style if you go beyond that to actually addressing the issues.

  174. Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 2:33 PM | Permalink

    By then I mean the Maunder Minimum.

  175. Hans Erren
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 2:52 PM | Permalink

    On climate sensitivity Hans Oerlemans gave an interesting talk on May 8 in Amsterdam, Titled “The cooling of the Earth” in which he shows that the Earth has been cooling down steadily since the PETM 55 Million years ago.
    The talk was in Dutch the text is here:

    http://www.phys.uu.nl/~oerlemns/KNAW-VV-8mei2006.pdf

    One interesting graph I translated for you here, it shows the theorised response of the Coolhouse-Hothouse Earth as a hysteresis effect (something already published by him in the late 70’s). Another property of the response is that the ice age climate sensitivity is steeper than the present day sensitivity, so you cannot use ice age climate sensitivity (typically 3K/2xCo2) in present day models.

  176. John A
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 4:59 PM | Permalink

    JohnA, I remind you yet again, YOU offered that graph as evidence to support the origianl author’s stated position that there is no correlation on reasonable time scales between CO2 and temperature.

    No I didn’t. Retallack actually states that there is a correlation betwen temperature and CO2, but doesn’t quantify statistically what that relationship is. From the graph there is no correlation: peaks of temperature correlate with carbon dioxide lows as often as peaks and vice versa.

    I’ll make a bet – $100 says that the correlation between the temperature and the level of carbon dioxide is approximately the same as two random walks with long term persistence. Any takers?

    IT is YOUR evidence, and blaming me for its insufficiency when I point out that it is insufficient for the purpose for which you offered it, and when I point out that the relevant fact for your point is the actual numerical correlation which you have not suplied, is merely deflecting attention away from the fact that it is in fact not evidence for what you were defending. I am not “squinting” and claiming a correlation. I’m refusing to squint and deduce NO correlation; YOU are the one doing that, apparently. You are squirming about the point exactly the way that you trash others for allegedly doing. So what is the damn correlation coefficient, John.

    No, you’re attempting to bore me into submission. You claimed that the statement of Jan Veizer about the lack of correlation was trash – you have yet to prove me, or Professor Veizer incorrect. Furthermore you have presented no counter-evidence, but seek to criticize me for the temerity to produce some.

    And remember, this argument originates from my pointing out that the quote you posted was internally inconsistent on this point; the author flatly stated that there was no correlation between temp and co2 on any reasonable time scale, and then went on to dispute details of the correlation between temp and CO2, which of course completely refutes his own first bald satatement. Pointing out that he refutes himself requires no evidence other than the original quote, and you have not addressed that point other than to make the same mistake, by posting that graph purporting, (without numerical analysis) to show that there is no correlation, and then posting another graph with a tight correlation, and discussing the phase relationship. I’ll also point out, John, that showing one graph with no corelation (even if it is true that there is no corelation in that data set for that time period) does NOT show that there are NO correlations on any reasonable time period. Address the damn point, John.

    Once again reading comprehension isn’t your forte, is it Lee? The original paragraph was as follows:

    … the correlation between CO2 and temperature that Gore speaks about so confidently is simply non-existent over all meaningful time scales. U of O climate researcher Professor Jan Veizer demonstrated that, over geologic time, the two are not linked at all. Over the intermediate time scales Gore focuses on, the ice cores show that CO2 increases don’t precede, and therefore don’t cause, warming. Rather, they follow temperature rise — by as much as 800 years. Even in the past century, the correlation is poor; the planet actually cooled between 1940 and 1980, when human emissions of CO2 were rising at the fastest rate in our history.

    Note that the author says “meaningful” not “reasonable“. Second, the author acknowledges that carbon dioxide rise and fall follows temperature rise and fall on the scale of millennia by about 800 years. On longer timescales, the correlation disappears (Jan Veizer) and is poor on scales of less than a century. It’s clear that carbon dioxide does get some sort of forcing from temperature rise, but its absolute level within any given geological epoch is not determined by temperature at all. (I suspect plate tectonics plays a big part)

    So on the meaningful timescale of the last thirty years, the fact that there is a temperature rise and carbon dioxide rise currently is no more meaningful a correlation nor a meaningful possible causation than the previous rise in carbon dioxide and fall in temperature.

    Before you embarass yourself any more on the equilibrium issue, John, do yourself a favor and google the phrase “equilbrium in open systems.” You might find this one, among many, many others, titled “Thermodynamic Equilibrium in Open Chemical Systems.” http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0004035 I will also point out, just to start you on your way, that living organisms such as humans are open systems deriving all our energy, our oxygen, our carbon, et al from outside ourselves, and yet physiologists use equilibrium expressions as a fundamental tool of understanding living organisms. You are simply flat-out (and embarassingly) wrong on this.

    From a discussion of climate you run to the title of a paper on cellular energy exchange? Sheesh you’re desperate. You made the claim that the climate can be viewed using equilibrium assumptions, and so far you’ve produced not a single example that that should ever be the case. In the case of cellular energy systems, the simplification is only valid during times when the cells are in mid-life (which is fortunately most of the time), but towards the end, the temporary suspension of the 2nd Law is lifted. Or death as its better known. How the leap from self-replicating and repairing biological cells to non-linear behavior of climate is made is one of those gaps of logic that I’m willing to bet you’re never going to justify.

    John, I don’t disagree about the co2/temp phase in the ice cores. Dinging me for not offering evidence to refute a point with which I agree is simply silly. I havent disagreed, and I am not disagreeing that the ice cores show that co2 rise lags temp rise.

    Hooray!

    I have simply pointed out that the observatin that temp can be causal for CO2 concentration, does NOT disprove the hypothesis the co2 concentratin can also be causal for temp.

    It’s rather remarkable isn’t it, that for the entire history of the Earth it has never happened, but now uniquely it has.

    There is a term for this type of foolishness: post hoc ergo propter hoc I’d suggest you look it up. It’s a religious belief and immune to disproof.

    In fact, the dual causality is fundamental to the hypothesis that co2 feedback is operative in amplifying temperature increases. I’ve made that point several times; the closest you’ve come to addressing it is to call it gibberish and then pretend it isnt an issue, or to baldly and vigorously state that there is no co2 feedback (argument by vehement assertion, John?) and then ignore the point.

    No, actually I base the argument that there is no significant feedback on the evidence that no feedback has ever been found outside of a climate model or the modeller’s fevered imagination. In the graph by Monnin et al, above, it’s easy to see that temperatures level or even fall even as carbon dioxide and methane continue to rise. Not much of a feedback there.

    There’s an expression for a fallacious belief in something that does not describe the real world, and its not “dual causality” but “irrational belief in the absurd” or “religious dogma”.

    Stop pretending you can read my mind, John, and mistating my motives. I have never asked Steve to pull a thread, tried to get Steve to pull a thread, advocated for Steve to pull a thread. I have asked Steve to disavow your original post (which he did by rewriting it in a way that states that he thinks the issues you emphasized are, essentially, irrelevant or silly) and have asked him why he continues to let you top post (future, at this point) threads, when your scientific misunderstandings and insulting style are so blatant.

    My scientific misunderstandings are many, but unlike you, I’m prepared to give up a cherished belief in something when presented with good direct evidence. It’s called skepticism, and its in really short supply at the moment. However you haven’t shown any scientific understandings on my part, only your own.

    Now, I’m not going to post on CA for a while because I have some real-world work that is going to curtail my opportunities to deal with replies. You could think of it as a victory, but only if you’re pathetic.

  177. Lee
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 5:22 PM | Permalink

    Oh, and John, while we’re at it let me also point out that you seem to have fricked up the definition of open and closed systems. I’ve been waiting to see if any of our scientific brethren here catch this, but here goes:

    “Equilibrium only exists in systems which can be considered to be CLOSED. The Earth’s climate system is not closed at all, being dominated by the variability of the Sun’s output, the celestial mechanics of the solar system and the cosmic ray flux. There is very strong evidence that these sources of variability dominate the climate system. But they’re not the fault of mankind, so they’re ignored, or better still claimed to be “accounted for” in those wonderful random number generating machines called climate models.”

    Err, John. A closed system is one in which the boundaries are permeable to energy (as heat or work) but not to matter. An open system is one in which the boundaries are permeable to both energy and matter. For most purposes the earth is a **very** close approximation to a closed system; the flux of mass across the boundary is so small relative to the mass of the system itself that it is negligible for nearly all purposes, but earth freely exchanges energy as heat and as work (celestial mechanics) with its surroundings.

    You seem to have been thinking of an isolated system, which does not interact in any way with its surroundings, and has some special and convenient thermodynamic characteristics. But the idea that equlibrium as a concept only exists in isolated systems is even more ludicrous than the claim that it only exists in closed systems, so perhaps that is not what you were thinking.

    It’s a good thing you werent loudly declaiming on the ignorance of basic scientific concepts of other people here.. oh, wait.

    We’ll spare you, and not touch on your apparent claim that phenomena in open systems are chaotic of necessity.

  178. John Reid
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 5:24 PM | Permalink

    Re #156 Thanks for those references Lee. I will certainly check them out while bearing in mind that oceanic penetration of anthropogenic CO2 is not quite the same thing as a nett increase in CO2. Has anyone found similar results for other water masses?

    I was hoping for a similarly informative response from Hunter after I had dealt with his straw-man argument about my not understanding feedback processes.

  179. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 5:30 PM | Permalink

    Lee, can you try writing a post for a change without calling other people stupid or embarrassing? Even if you think it. If you want to say that about articles in the public domain, that’s one thing, but even then, it should be about the article and not the person. It’s easy to stray from time to time, but your taunt ratio is running too high.

    Dane and others, any post with the term Nazi in it is going to be deleted, regardless of the point that you think that you’re making.

  180. Lee
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 5:47 PM | Permalink

    Oh, I give up!!!

    To a simple request that you offer numerical evidence that there is no corelation, you trash me for daring to ask for such evidence. Yet frickin again. I AM NOT CLAIMING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WHETHER THAT DATA IS CORRELATED, John. YOU ARE. Hell, you now admit that th author does say there is a correlation, but you argue by eyeball alignment of peaks and valleys that ther is not. In other words, you;re doing a squint analysis. Stop attacking me for a claim I’m not making, John, stop attacking me by claiing that I’m doing (I’m not) waht YOU are actually doing, and supply the damn number. Or withdraw the claim that the graph means anything.

    Adn John can you read two nonadjacent sentences and aprse their relationship? Here, let me help by juxtaposing them:
    “the correlation between CO2 and temperature that Gore speaks about so confidently is simply non-existent over all meaningful time scales.” – and – “Over the intermediate time scales Gore focuses on, the ice cores show that CO2 increases don’t precede, and therefore don’t cause, warming. Rather, they follow temperature rise “¢’‚¬? by as much as 800 years.” In other words the ones Gore talks about on reasonable scales have no correlation, but the one Gore talks about, on a scale meaningful enough that one can argue that temperature can drive CO2, has phase relationships in the correlation that suport tha positioni. But ther isnt any correlation. But its the wrong phase. Or something.

    I’ve had enough of this tripe; you consistently attack arguemtn ns other than the one I make, and misstate what I said. I’ve had enough of your dishonesty, and I’m ready to call it what it is.

    I will point out that the paper I cited was on chemstiry, the example I gave from another field, and the google search I suggest will return comments aobut equilibrium in open systems from MANY fields. The intent was to counter you GENERAL claim that there is no such thing as equilibrium outside closed systems; you are simply wrong, John. BTW, as I point out elsewhere, you ALSO got ‘closed systems’ wrong.

  181. Lee
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 5:54 PM | Permalink

    Steve, have you bothered to read any of JohnA’s posts? I’ll tone it down out of respect for your request. But when a moderator of this site attacks and taunts, and in doing so dodges teh scientific issues in favor ot tautns, I am surely tempted to respond in kind. And given that its a moderator doing it I find it hard to dredge up a good reason to refrain.

  182. Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 6:23 PM | Permalink

    Lee:

    Grow up, this is not the school yard. Stick to the science.

  183. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 6:43 PM | Permalink

    Lee, Peace!
    Go have some fun, it’s Friday.
    I am, I am going to go swimming in a minute.

    Take that bet if you are so sure. And back up your claims.
    Your paragraph about what Gore said or didn’t say for instance, back it up. What graphs does he talk about that are meaningful to you? What you said is really hard to understand without an example. I think that’s what JohnA wants in your replies.

    BTW I googled “closed systems” just now and found a biology paper that reflects on how if the earth was –really– a perfect closed system, there might not be life on it, anyway…
    not that it matters to your beef, because you are going for math/models. Cheers!!

  184. Lee
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 7:56 PM | Permalink

    re 173 – Terry asks:

    A question: why has the earth’s temperature been relatively stable over very long stretches of time in the face of these changes? (I am calling a 6 degree temperature change relatively stable.)

    A second question: given such large historical changes in climatic factors, does the current increase in CO2 concentrations seems relatively minor? So, should it have a relatively minor impact? Or maybe not? (I am aware of the calculations that say a doubling of CO2 should have a warming effect of X watts/square meter … which sounds reasonable).


    Good questions; they get at the heart of the debate. I aint the expert, but let me try something that might be interesting.

    Recall that the current best estimate of the climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 is about 3 +/- 1.5 C – derived from several means, including analysis of the temperature changes relative to insolation changes at the transitions into and out of glaciations, assemblage results of model runs, and even (very roughly) of northern and southern hemispheric climate coupling with latitudinal shifts in peak insolation. Rather than go into the evidence, lets assume that value for now for the sake of argument, and apply it to the Ordovician point I’ve been making. This is going to be very rough and oversimplified, but its interesting.

    CO2 in the Ordovician is thought to have been about 3000 – 4000 ppmv. For ease of analysis, lets look at a base CO2 of about 250ppmv as a value in which glaciation is possible in our recent climate (pretty close). Three doublings from that is 2000 ppmv – three doubling is 4000 ppmv. So the Ordovician CO2 is somewhere between 3-4 doublings above concentrations that in present conditions allow glaciation.

    Convert that to temperature, using the climate sensitivity value of 3C, and we get a CO2-driven temperature delta of somewhere between 9C and 12C higher in the Ordovician due to CO2 alone, relative to today.

    Perhaps better, use the endpoints of the sensitivity range of 1.5 – 4.5C, and combine with the uncertaintly in doublings of somewhere between 3 and 4, and we get a bottom end value of 1.5C/doubling times 3 doublings, is 4.5C (lets call it 5 for simplicity), and an upper end of 4.5C/doubling times 4 doublings is 18C. So, looking purely at CO2 effects, using current estimates for sensitivity and for Ordovician CO2 values, we get an expectation that temperatures in the Ordovician should be somewhere between 5C and 18C higher than values that allow us to transition into and out of glacials.

    Assuming the accurscy of that, there must have been an offsetting set of forciings that REDUCED temperatures somewhere between 5C and 18C relative to those that allow transitions out of glaciations today.

    Given that we only have access to even rough data from insolation and geology as potential additional Ordovician climate forcing variables, we can ask if there is potentially sufficient negative forcings from those variables to offset a positive CO2 forcing of 5C to 18C. I don’t have access to those values; I’m not sure if they are known or estimated.

    But what we can deduce, if the combination of geology (circumpolar land mass and reduced equatorial ocean mass) and insolation (4-5% reduced solar output), is sufficient to create a negative forcing on temp somewhere in the range of 5C – 18C, offsetting the positive forcing due to CO2, then the occurance of glaciation in the Ordovician is not inconsistent with a positive climate sensitivity of 1.5 – 4.5 C for CO2 doubling.

    I’ll also note that this works the other way. If there is, for example, a calculated negative forcing of, say, 10C for that combination of geology and insolation, and the Ordovician glaciation ENDED (which it did) then there must have been a countervailing positive forcing to offset that – and the only visible candidate right now is CO2.

    Pesonally, Id say that the fact that the Ordovician glaciation ENDED, even with reduced solar output of 4-5% and with geology highly favorable to glaciation, is another piece of evidence (not rock solid, but one of many) that CO2 increases temperature by a substantial amount.

  185. kim
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 8:39 PM | Permalink

    So since until we came along, carbon was progressively sequestered, don’t you think it’s about time to let a little back into the cycle? Are you sure there is enough of it about to transition out of the next ice age?
    ====================================================

  186. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 16, 2006 at 11:48 PM | Permalink

    John Reid (#134, #181):

    > I was hoping for a similarly informative response from Hunter after
    > I had dealt with his straw-man argument about my not understanding
    > feedback processes.

    Sorry not to have responded within one microsecond, but (a) I do have life outside ClimateAudit, and (b) my response time is very much less than the ClimateAudit “audit” of our work at Port Arthur (see thread “John Hunter on Sea Levels”), which is proceeding with glacial slowness.

    It is interesting that you talk of “poles/eigenvalues” (which are only relevant to a linear or linearised system) at the same time as you are talking about “two metastable states” (which can only exist in a highly nonlinear system). I guess dropping such phrases may impress the general reader of ClimateAudit …..

    However, you can talk qualitatively about this and get nowhere, but the fact remains that you can calculate the climate sensitivity from the recent glacial and interglacial states, taking due account of the feedback due to change of albedo from ice cover. Modern climate models exhibit approximately this same climate sensitivity and also manage to simulate global average temperature during the 20th century — they did this well back at the time of the IPCC TAR in 2001 and they do it better now. They take account of all the dominant forcings such as greenhouse gases, solar variations and volcanoes. So what is your problem? Our simulations of modern climate ARE consistent with what happened during the recent glaciations, so it is reasonable to assume that we are modelling the feedbacks correctly. Your saying things like “in the current phase of the glacial cycle the logarithmic nature of the radiative transfer curve of CO2 makes the feedback insignificant” and “if we look at the radiative forcing due to observed CO2 increases in the atmosphere it is also insignificant” doesn’t really help — if we put all we know into a model, then we get answers that fit recent glacial cycles AND today’s climate (which includes AGW).

    Now if you want to continue this conversation, show us where the models have got the physics wrong and show me how, if you put the physics “right”, you get the results you are claiming.

    Incidentally are you the “John Reid” I used to work with once?

  187. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 12:08 AM | Permalink

    Steve: A number of us are getting pretty sick of the bias shown towards anyone who disagrees with the cheerleaders. You accuse me of “taunts” and I am accused of being “vulgar” and “arrogant”, and yet here is the latest serving from “John A”:

    > I know how Hunter would react to your excuse for not finding
    > the reference – drawing himself up to full intellectual height
    > of six inches, he would castigate you for being unable to use
    > Google and therefore you are incompetent to argue scientific
    > claims and you’re wasting his precious time for whatever Hunter
    > actually does for a living (unless the University of Tasmania
    > has an academic chair of “Being an Obnoxious Jerk on Werblogs”
    > in which case he’s just doing his job).

    Don’t you think that is just possibly a “taunt”?

    So here is my challenge:

    1. Go through this thread (YOU do this, don’t entrust it to John A) and delete ALL the “taunts” — mine, Lee’s, John A’s etc.

    2. Counsel John A to stop taunting

    3. Do not allow John A the freedom to censor what he likes — ensure that you see everything before he censors it — after all, you have assured me that this is YOUR site and that John A only helps you out once in a while.

    Thanks.

  188. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 12:08 AM | Permalink

    Michael Jankowski (#144): This may escape you, but criticism by an unknown (presumably anonymous) “Steve_V” in no way constitutes anything approaching a valuable assessment. So — do the test — show my conversation with “Steve_V” to someone whom we would both acknowledge to be a qualified and competent statistician (e.g. Hans von Storch) and let’s see the result.

  189. maksimovich
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 1:25 AM | Permalink

    Re 189 You mention both qualitative attributes of the modelling including “They take account of all the dominant forcings such as greenhouse gases, solar variations and volcanoes.”

    What level of understanding of the variables would you suggest the variables are?
    Say WMGG,Stratospheric ozone,Troposheric ozone,The various aerosols such as black carbon,seasalt,sulphates,chlorines etc.Solar ,high cloud formation,volcanic forcings solar variability.

    Could you rate these from say very high level of understanding to little knowledge?.

    What measurement attributes can be quantified for say solar and cosmic radiation and what chemogenesis would you expect in the troposhere.

    With quantification of anthropogenic emissions,what degree of accuracy would you expect in the assesment.Is the model accurate or is it using base methodology that may be satifactory asa component in a benchtest,does extrapolation reflect the observables.?

    What level of differential is identified at each of the monitoring stations for co2 types can you show me the co2 differentials for each station for say the last 40 years.
    Explain how they differentiaite with the sources of co2 and methane by type and how they quantify this.

  190. T-m L-mb-rt
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 1:42 AM | Permalink

    I think it’s clear that it’s John A who has been censoring my comments. When he was away I was able to comment but now he’s back my comments just seem to vanish the same way they were earlier.

    Michael Jankowski: relying on Steve V or John Brignell for statistics is most unwise. You really should check with someone competent.

    John Hunter: Steve has the same duoble standard on taunting as he does on censorship — it’s wrong for others to do, but it’s just fine when Steve or John A does it.

  191. Tom Brogle
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 2:19 AM | Permalink

    John Hunter
    If you allowed more wieght for solar effects and less for CO2 in the model for the last 1000 years then you would reveal realistic MWP and LIC instead of the pale imitation in the HS reconstruction.This would still take account of all the dominant forcings such as greenhouse gases, solar variations
    In order to foist their CO2 theory on us all Mann and co had to minimise temperature variations over the last 1000 years.
    If I write a paper on this it will not get published ,so don’t tell me to do that again.

  192. Peter Bickle
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 3:04 AM | Permalink

    Stop whinging Tim Dimbert, you wiped one of my posts off the other day.
    Come and debate the stats Tim.
    Regards
    Peter Bickle

  193. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 4:56 AM | Permalink

    #190. You’re right that John A has responded to your taunts in kind. Quite frankly, I get sick of both sides of these stupid exchanges. In the past, I’ve deleted some of John A’s reactions to you, in the hope that letting you have the last word would end some of these ridiculous exchanges, but that has seldom accomplished anything.

    On sea level, this is not a topic that interests me. Business auditors do not expect to find problems. 99% of the time, they don’t find problems. Millions of dollars are spent every year on business audits that don’t find any problems. Does this mean that the audit process is a waste of time? Of course not. I didn’t expect to find any problems with Mann’s work. I was surprised that it had never been checked and, since no one else had checked it, I thought that it would be an interesting personal exercise rather like doing a giant crossword puzzle. In this respect, the only salient personal criticism is why I have pointless personal hobbies.

    I discouraged John A’s interest in examining your work. If he wants to remain private, out of all the climate science topics in the world, I could hardly think of a worse topic than yours, given your pugnacious and unpleasant character. It turned out that your data was not archived. It seems that, during the course of the Sea Level thread, you archived your data. I am uncertain as to whether the information is publicly available from the archives or whether your permission is required for access. But out of all the problems in cliamte science, that’s not one that bothers me. If the thread did nothing other than prompt you to archive your data, then it was nto a waste. Yes, yes, I know that you’d said that you were going to archive it on your own time and your own schedule, but as far as I know, you hadn’t. You might have been run over by a bus and now you’ve archived it, so something’s been accomplished.

    Your criticism of commenters here is extremely tiresome. Even if realclimate allowed me to post there, I’m not going to go over there and tell some commenters that I disagree with that they’re stupid.

    The level of knowledge of commenters varies. Your assesment says more about you than about them. That you should praise Peter Hearnden who does not engage in scientific commentary, while failing to note the extremely valuable comments from Jean S, for example, or interesting exchanges with Eduardo Zorita and Gerd Bürger is little short of astonishing.

    Some forms of feedback are helpful to me. For example, I find it reassuring that James Lane and Spence_UK, to merely pick two of the more statistically accomplished commenters, have been able to pretty much exactly understand the nuances of what we’ve said. I realize that there are many issues in the world to deal with and climate scientists have no obligation to familiarize themselves with our work. However, it is remarkable to me (or perhaps it shouldn’t surprise me) that nearly all climate scientists have little understanding of what we actually said and have formed their opinion through the disinformation prism of realclimate, without actually reading what we read, and think that we said something quite different from what we actually said – the “straw man” version of M&M. This quickly crystallizes into a "consensus". While the exposition of our articles could undoubtedly have been improved, it’s reassuring to me that the exposition was not so obscure that it was inaccessible to at least two unbiased readers. This is useful feedback to me.

    Yes, I respond in kind to taunts from time to time, but my ratio of taunts to comments is, in all fairness, miniscule. I also distinguish between criticizing published articles and exchanges with other posters. I also distinguish between "civilians" and professionals. I don’t believe that you can find a single unkind word from me to a "civilian" (and I don’t regard you and Lambert as "civilians".) You, on the other hand, seem to be drawn to petty exchanges with civilians.

    In one of your very first posts here, I noted that you had an unpleasant habit of including an unpleasant aspect to even a farily simple observation. I suspect that this habit is so deeply ingrained now that you are unaware of it. You need to try being pleasant for a while. .

  194. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 5:45 AM | Permalink

    Steve, can you point me to where John Hunter praises me, because, after a quick search, I think that comment has been expunged from the record. That you thus refer to a post about me that John A has delelted (I’ll watch for it’s reinstatement btw) say’s it all really…

  195. cytochrome sea
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 6:55 AM | Permalink

    Lee, (156?) From the first link, now I understand what you meant by the oceans with higher CO2 content. (granted, I’ve read probably less than a dozen Keeling papers, but always admired his transparency, and thorough caveats) However, without reading your second link, I’m assuming you mean greater (measured) CO2 levels in the mixed layer. Initially (in my head) I played Devil’s advocate and thought, wait a sec., most of the modelling I’ve seen done expects more rapid upwelling near coastal regions, but then I saw figure 1? of your reference and I think my initial knee-jerk was wrong on that one :)

    Yet, I think it’s pertinent to be quite cautious of measurements taken near coral reefs, and other tropical shallows.
    ———————————————
    Steve M, I think you might find some interest in this:

    http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/files/Nichols.pdf

    I’m out.

  196. TCO
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 6:57 AM | Permalink

    Steve, the blog is getting thin on statistics…don’t get drawn into all this petty crap. Deal with my petty crap instead.

    Lee, Hunt if you want some interesting discussion join the real threads. This is one of the most trivial ones and one where you are taking on the weakest opponent. Complaining about the quality of play when you go after the largest handicap oppponents is paradoxical.

  197. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 8:10 AM | Permalink

    #197. He must have mixed that praise with some other odious tauns and I accordingly deleted it. I don’t plan to restore it, but in any event, out of all the commenters here, Hunter singled you and Lee as having particular merit. Don’t let that go to your head. I think that you should actually try to engage on a scientific topic from time to time, rather than simply get into rancorous exchanges.

    #199. TCO, I shouldn’t have risen to the bait. I should have regarded this thread as the new ghetto and ignored it.

    Lee, I think that the issue of why the earth’s temperature is somewhat stable (i.e. hasn’t turned into Venus or Mars) over very long periods to be hugely interesting and seldom discussed. I’ve had some notes partially written up on a very interesting article about this topic, which I’ve thought about posting up. (It’s by authors that approach earth not as being in a thermodynamic “equilibrium” but as being in somewhat “steady state” in which entropy is always increasing). I’ll take a look at it and post it up. It’s not an area that I have firm views about other than the topic is interesting. I think that TCO’s advice to you is apt here.

  198. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 8:38 AM | Permalink

    TCO and Steve,
    It’s the petty/iffy stuff that’s getting into my children’s science books. And other great/good/honest/accurate/worthy/unbiased stuff (like Steve’s work and his open discussion) gets silenced or snubbed.

    Like I said, I watched the Gore trailer made for kids on MTV. I know what I speak of. Please don’t call a mother weak! ;-) I am a civilian, yet give me some kudos here I am smart enough to pay attention to this site for a long while now. I even kind of understand the statistics from reading so long. ;)

    I for one appreciate any degree of person who uses logic and not emotion to discuss these things. If they can see propaganda or bad science masked in a cloak of the so called “consensus”, please let them speak! I never get offended by ANY blog comments. I laugh or I skip it. The truth rings, or it don’t. The likes of Hunter, Lee, Peter, the people at RC (Mann et al) have the podium in the mainstream though. You can’t deny that.

    How they protest discussing and or reading reviews as “tripe” for nation-wide (globally?) released movie proclaiming truth is “a picture is worth a thousand words” kind of revelation.

    If it is “petty crap” to discuss any aspect of this movie (the topic here) and “beneath the level of this blog” I understand the implications on many levels. It also confirms my own observations. I know the answer.
    I understand why Steve wants to stay away. Move on Steve! LOL

    Thanks for this ghetto thread and allowing me to say something. I discuss all this with a real expert at home too, mr welikerocks, and it was nice to debate others.

    #188 Kim, your comments are the best. The humor in them takes the anthro out of the dreaded senerio, and replaces it with the human-being. :-)

  199. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 8:52 AM | Permalink

    #201. welikerocks – I got interested in this topic from a geologist. I like rocks too.

    I wouldn’t mind discussing the movie when I’ve seen it and have my own views. I don’t want to do so through the filter of other people’s reactions. For example, I suspect that glacier retreat looms large in the movie. Glacier retreat seems to be the new Hockey Stick. But we’ve recently seen that the Venezuela glaciers only formed in the LIA. The Rocky Mountain glaciers are less than 4500 years old. Quelccaya is only 1500 years and is 3 times as thick as Kilimanjaro. I raised questions about whether the Kilimanjaro glacier is really 10,000 years old. That conclusion rests on very insecure evidence as far as I’m concerned. How do we know that Kilimanjaro glacier is actually that old? That’s the line of questioning that I’ll be inclined to take.

  200. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 9:13 AM | Permalink

    Good Morning Steve,
    I totally understand and thank you. :)

    My husband says he only has a real good understanding of the Eastern Sierra’s glaciar history, but they were really old (and melted 10,000yrs ago) . He says the movie would be too painful to watch and he’s got to watch his blood pressure. Seriously!

    It is all so very very complicated. I can’t for the life of me understand how anybody can proclaim we know for sure what the scientific truth right now is.

    For instance, my husband and I got into a discussion because of Hans’ cool chart he posted up there. That led us to talking about the moon (my husband and daughter are surfers, tides are mucho important) The moon was closer to the earth in the past, so that expanded our talk to all kinds of things. LOL

    Never a dull moment!

    Cheers!

  201. TCO
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

    Surfing is cool. Brian Bilbray (surfer from the right) just got elected in San Diego. I want to be in OB right now…:(

  202. TCO
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

    :( test

  203. Lee
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 9:18 AM | Permalink

    200.

    Steve, I’d be interested in those articles and notes. Coming out of a biology background, a field in which historical accident is clearly a major ‘explanatory’ factor in the details of evolution and the current state space of living organisms, my first knee-jerk impulse is to ask “why not accident?”

    It appears at a first naive glance that sequestration of C and reduction of atmospheric CO2 has roughly accompanied increasing solar output. But it is easy to imagine a world in which much less carbon was sequestered in the carboniferous, as just one example, simply by positing the earlier evolution of lignin-digesting organisms, or some diofferences in the details of tectonic movements leading to less peat accumulation, so that the massive accumulations of undigested vegetable matter into coal beds was reduced. This alone could lead to a world in which we have both our current insolation and much higher atmospheric CO2.

    This would have presented a much different world of today, one in which it seems reasonable to speculate, for example, that the ice ages of the last 40 million years would not have happened, and neither the savannahs of Africa, and we wouldn’t exist. Yeah, this is hand-waving “just-so sttory” analysis, but the point is that its hard to imagine any a priori reason why there couldn’t have been a perfectly reasonable and feasible alternative history, leading to much different present world climates and environments, given some different “historical accidents” over the last few hundred million years.

    The paper you mention sounds interesting and worth reading; I agree that the question of what has kept us within liveable bounds, even with potential wide variation, is interesting. But I never like to miss an opportunity to point out that chance can account for a lot, too.

    On you last point: I’ve explained before, Steve, that I’m here reading and learning; I don’t feel qualified, as Ive said, on the time-series statistics or dendro/reconstruction methodology, although I’m starting to put a picture together, and my goal is to learn enough to decide if I want to invest the time and effort into learning the relevant staatistics, or to decide that one side or the other or some blend is correct based on what I can read, or decide that dendroclimatology can be simply ignored in the large question of AGW and move on.

    I’m working on that, and reading a lot here. But while I’m here, I occasionally run into statements that are so blatantly at odds with what I’ve learned on the general AGW issues, and are being accepted so readily without critical thought by a lot of people, that I can’t help but respond on them where I DO have some relevant useful knowledge (if far from expertise). I have to say it, and not with any intent to taunt but as my real belief, that JohnA’s original post was precisely such a thing, and that I was shocked that a site that self-proclaims its adherence to rigorous and careful examination would post such a thing. Your rewrite helped, but the conversation started with John’s original post.

  204. Lee
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 9:25 AM | Permalink

    re 188:
    kim,

    Sure, lets let some carbon back out to offset sequestering over the last 400 million years. While we’re at it, lets reverse solar evolution back by 400 million years to 4% lower output, to go along with the carbon de-sequestration.

  205. TCO
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 9:27 AM | Permalink

    Lee, you could still intervene at a more intermediate level.

  206. Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 11:54 AM | Permalink

    Oh, charming. Steve’s justification for his abuse of Hunter and me is that we are not "civilians". Apparently the operational definition of "civilian" is someone that Steve doesn’t feel like abusing.

    Peter Bickle: Your comment was deleted because you used a sock puppet. But I think you knew that.

  207. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 12:04 PM | Permalink

    And Lee,
    You say:

    ________I occasionally run into statements that are so blatantly at odds with what I’ve learned on the general AGW issues, and are being accepted so readily without critical thought by a lot of people, that I can’t help but respond on them where I DO have some relevant useful knowledge (if far from expertise)._______

    AGW is a theory. People make huge assumptions on the pro side and jump around just as these reviews do.

    You have right to claim frustration I suppose but clearly understand, that someone like my husband with a Masters in Environmental Geology; when reading some of theseAGW/your hypothesis; are just as frustrated. Not all JohnA’s requests to you were out of line either.

    Chill out and ask a question sometimes instead of googling and dictating.

    (You had no idea that some ice ages were considered “global” yet not “universal” and glaciar striations of South America and Africa.. until I brought it up after you yelled at JohnA about an ice ball) (I asked you if you did and you passed up my question, and you googled!!!!!)

    This last post about the Ordovician globe makes you a expert now I guess and is taking that ice ball and running with it. Not that I mind. I can’t compete.

    Go for it. Heck have a ball :) My husband finds it not so ok, much assumption and on some very HUGE time scales.. very frustrating.

    Cheers!

  208. TCO
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

    Lamb, all you seem to want to debate is who got a post deleted and why. How about getting into the subjects?

  209. Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 12:35 PM | Permalink

    TCO, I did, but my comment got deleted. On my blog I have two posts getting into the science on the articles cited in this post.

  210. ET SidViscous
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 12:37 PM | Permalink

    “I could hardly think of a worse topic than yours, given your pugnacious and unpleasant character.”

    That’s the whole problem Steve. The likes of John, Peter, Lee and Mann bank on the fact that by being pugnacious, unpleasant, insulting and condescending that the majority of people will just let them continue on because it’s easier then getting in the mud pit with them and being personally harassed, as you have been/are being, by them. For John A to walk away and not examine John H work is a victory for John H, because he does not want his work looked at. Same with Mann as I think you’ve found out.

  211. TCO
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 12:50 PM | Permalink

    At some point, JohnA needs to evaluate the risk/reward. I get the impression that Hunter will try to hurt him in his business life.

  212. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 2:51 PM | Permalink

    re: #213

    Dr. Hunter has explicitly denied any intention to hurt John A, but I certainly wouldn’t trust him if I were John A. Trust requires some degree of positive interaction and it just isn’t there. In this case it doesn’t matter for Dr. Hunter, but in the long run one needs to be aware of when a “game” is positive sum, zero sum or negative sum and also whether it will be “played” once or many times.

    I think this is part of the problem in general with the Mannians. They don’t see skeptics like Steve as more than one-time irritants and therefor think swatting them is a better solution than luring them into a trap.

  213. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 3:01 PM | Permalink

    Re #212, I’m speechless.

    Re #213, TCO, why descend to such levels? You’ve not an iota of evidence for such a slanderous claim. Quit the bottle and sober up man!

  214. TCO
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 3:09 PM | Permalink

    Oh, sorry Dard and Pete. Honest, I had missed that. Thought that he was just staying mum, which was ominous. But if he has said that he would not try to hurt the man and the bread he earns for his family, that makes me feel better. Ok, ok…

    Can I keep drinking, now?

  215. TCO
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 3:11 PM | Permalink

    Dardie:

    Keep talking all that game theory stuff. It turns me on. I read COOPETITION by Naglebuff.*

    *And don’t get all tough on me. Never had a class on that either. I just go with snippets…

  216. Jeremy
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 3:13 PM | Permalink

    This thread is way too confusing, having come in late. I suggest it be deleted as it is effectively unreadable, even to sort out who is arguing with whom. I looks as though posts were deleted from it and the numbers do not match up anymore.

    Even as a politicized science thread, this one ranks low in terms of signal-to-noise. I mean no offense to this blog/site as a whole when I say that.

  217. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 3:17 PM | Permalink

    Re #216, TCO you planted an nasty little seed back there – why the FU*K would you even pen that he might wish John A harm? What twisted view of people like John Hunter do you have? Sheeshh, do have have to make so pronouncment of my good character so I’m not to face similar character assination?

    OK.

    I’m in almost permanent disagreement with John A. Do I wish him harm? I now state explicitly, and in the strongest terms, OF COURSE I DO NOT.

  218. TCO
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 3:18 PM | Permalink

    I’m sorry.

  219. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 3:21 PM | Permalink

    OK. Good enough :). So to bed.

  220. Lee
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 4:16 PM | Permalink

    re 218,

    Jeremy,

    I’d rather the thread stayed. I’d also rather JohnA’s original post were archived as part of the thread.

    Yes, it shows me at my snarky worst – I’m willing to own that. It also has several honest and substantive sub-discussions, a couple of which I’m in, and I’d like those preserved as well, my own and others.

    Also, JohnA is often castigating others for their weak science (and no, Steve, I’m not trying to taunt here; this is my honest observation), and I think the examples of John’s own understanding, as displayed here , should remain as well (in JohnA’s own words from this thread, “However you haven’t shown any scientific understandings on my part” – and yes, I will apologize for *that* one, Steve).

    Remember, John started this thread, with a post that Steve completely rewrote AFTER several strong responses to it, for reasons I wont presently speculate on. Leave it here, call it a ghetto if you must, and move on to more substance than John’s thread inspired.

  221. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 4:23 PM | Permalink

    re # 219

    Peter, why would someone require someone’s name before allowing him to have data? Be specific and avoid the exact thing you’re complaining about.

  222. Hans Erren
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 5:21 PM | Permalink

    In the old days, data was published as a table or annex in a publication. Everybody visiting a university library could use it without having to write to the author.

  223. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 7:18 PM | Permalink

    Dave (#222):

    > why would someone require someone’s name before allowing him
    > to have data?

    Well, you should ask that question of the many data centres around the world which do require such information.

    (And your sexism is showing — it is not always a “him” who asks for data.)

  224. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 7:24 PM | Permalink

    TCO (#212):

    > I get the impression that Hunter will try to hurt him in his
    > business life.

    Please provide your evidence for this – it sounds just like a continuation of John A’s lame excuses for anonymity. If you have no evidence for this, please withdraw the accusation — or else, Steve, please censor TCO for good.

  225. TCO
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 7:26 PM | Permalink

    I withdraw.

  226. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 7:30 PM | Permalink

    ET SidViscous (#211):

    > For John A to walk away and not examine John H work is a victory
    > for John H, because he does not want his work looked at.

    It seems to be the day for unsubstantiated claims by the cheerleaders. As should be quite clear from the thread “John Hunter on Sea levels”, anyone who emails me, provides me with their true identity (a quite standard and reasonable condition) is welcome to my data — and they can “check” it as much as they like.

  227. TCO
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 7:34 PM | Permalink

    Why do you want to know it? And if the answer is that other people want to know it, why do they?

  228. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 7:40 PM | Permalink

    maksimovich (#192):

    > Could you rate these from say very high level of understanding
    > to little knowledge?.

  229. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 7:53 PM | Permalink

    maksimovich (#192):

    > Could you rate these from say very high level of understanding
    > to little knowledge?.

    The onus is not on me to answer such a question (I don’t actually know the precise answer at the moment, but could find out if I wanted to spend the time). John Reid came up with what he himself described as a “first-order model” and, while providing no quantitative justification, said things like “if we look at the radiative forcing due (to) observed CO2 increases in the atmosphere it is also insignificant” (#134). I responded that a sophisticated model containing all the effects John Reid was talking about , and many more, indicates a significant AGW effect. Surely the onus is now on John Reid (or yourself) you indicate where the physics of sophisticated climate models differs from Reid’s “first-order” model, and how you would put it right. You are the ones challenging the climate models — so it is up to you to show QUANTITATIVELY where they are wrong, and to show how, when fixed up, they support your own theories of weak or non-existent AGW.

  230. TCO
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 7:57 PM | Permalink

    “No” would have been just as good and shorter.

  231. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 8:02 PM | Permalink

    TCO (#229):

    > Why do you want to know it? And if the answer is that other
    > people want to know it, why do they?

    I would have thought that this is one of the craziest questions ever to be asked on a blog called “Climate Audit”! Do you think ANY auditing standard in the world allows for transfer of information to unidentified people — so that the “audit trail” is immediately broken? Steve — you answer this one — would you consider it acceptable business practise to provide importatnt information to anonymous people? Is this how you worked in business, Steve?

  232. TCO
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 8:21 PM | Permalink

    so why?

  233. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 8:55 PM | Permalink

    LOL TCO

    would you consider it acceptable business practise to provide importatnt information to anonymous people?

    Business? Or science?

    Steve does. provides info all the time for my family, here on this site. He know us for squat.

    Hunter, Steve auditor for the stars asked for your data. You won’t send it right??. You say because of the annonymous JohnA. I think maybe: not the whole truth.

    My husband over my shoulder here says: BS !
    ( He’s going off reading this)

    In California (BIG environmental state) where he works as a senior scientist for a private environmental geotech corporation. His data is everywhere for anyone to read for: “the public”. It MUST be. Newspapers, library, internet…HIS true contact information must be there to access, not visa versa. This is before it’s accepted, stamped, finalized..etc etc etc as well.

  234. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 8:57 PM | Permalink

    BTW he says:

    the quote from the professional environmental industry:

    THE DATA, “IS WHAT IT IS”

  235. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 9:10 PM | Permalink

    #234 – When I asked the Australian archive whether they had Hunter’s data, they sent the inquiry to Hunter who then sent me the data under condition that I not send it to anyone else. Hunter refused to let me forward it to John A. Now I actually hadn’t asked for the data and didn’t want it. I merely wanted to know whether the data had been archived there. Obviously the archive did not treat the inquiry as confidential since they provided my contact information to Hunter.

    Hunter is in a different category than Briffa (say) who has refused to even identify the sites used in his study used by IPCC. I’m interested in bigger fish and Hunter’s nowhere near the top of my list. Mostly he’s just wasting people’s time and being a jerk.

    He’s done a couple of cute manoueuvres in this discussion. During the middle of the Sea Level thread, it appears that Hunter archived his data and then acted all wide-eyed and innocent. Later when I insisted that he give a public url for the data either at an archive or at his own website as a condition for posting here – as a small effort to support John A – he provided a url to an archive, so I didn’t block his posts. However it turns out that the data is not presently available online from the archive in question. So Hunter did not comply with the terms of my request after all.

    Right now I can’t be bothered with the issue any more. So please – no more discussion of Hunter’s archiving or non-archiving. He’s made his position clear.

  236. TCO
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 9:22 PM | Permalink

    I thought that was what we did in the ghetto?

  237. MrPete
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 9:51 PM | Permalink

    #232 “would you consider it acceptable business practise to provide importatnt information to anonymous people? Is this how you worked in business, Steve?”

    John H — I refer you to http://www.guidestar.org, where 100% of all non-profit organization tax returns (990 form) are archived for anonymous public access. These are IMPORTANT financial information, required by law to be made available to anyone who asks.

    Until recently, an inquirer at least had to contact the organization to ask for it. But with the advent of the Internet, it became easy to arrange public disclosure of the US tax database of ALL NGO tax returns.

    I think the analogy is quite apt.

    We don’t live in a paper-only age any more. John, your work is part of the foundation for public policy decisions. It carries weight. The supporting data should be made as available as possible. Yes, even to those who might misuse it. That’s the risk, on all sides, of a free and democratic society.

  238. maksimovich
    Posted Jun 17, 2006 at 9:57 PM | Permalink

    re 230 It seems some what peculiar that you say “they did this well back at the time of the IPCC TAR in 2001 and they do it better now” of the various models accuracy and the mechanisitc process of for want of a better word “exogenous variables”

    As you admit you have no knowledge of the level of understanding acknowledged by the IPCC these variables,how can you objectively state that the models correctly reflect both observation and experiment.

    You would expect that the errors would be adjusted to reflect the observations for the AR4 climate models yes?

    Not a present In say the area of volcanic aerosols none of the models corectly followed the observations for tar 2001.Of the 19 gcm for ocean atmospheric interface in the IPCC databank as of February 2005,only 9 had some treatment of volcanic emissions.2 were discounted immediately ,the remaining 7 each showed different realizations for the historical runs.

    The models did not show the quantitaive radiative forcings during the historic runs.

    So we seem to have an anomaly with you saying the improved models show accurate performance ie a high level of probability or understaning and the IPCC saying different hmm.

  239. Hans Erren
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 2:14 AM | Permalink

    observed greenhouse energy (downwelling infrared spectrum);

  240. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 4:53 AM | Permalink

    welikerocks (#234):

    > Hunter, Steve auditor for the stars asked for your data. You won’t send
    > it right??.

    Before you sound off, you could at least learn the facts. I provided our Port Arthur data to Steve before he even requested it from me (see #244 of thread “John Hunter on Sea levels”).

    As regards:

    > In California (BIG environmental state) where he works as a senior
    > scientist for a private environmental geotech corporation. His data is
    > everywhere for anyone to read for: “the public”. It MUST be. Newspapers,
    > library, internet…HIS true contact information must be there to access,
    > not visa versa. This is before it’s accepted, stamped, finalized..etc
    > etc etc as well.

    as I said in #166 of “John Hunter on Sea levels”:

    ” ….. many organisations (for example our own National Tidal Centre) (a) don’t provide any data without users registering first and/or (b) don’t even indicate on the web that some data exists. In other words, you write to them telling them who you are and asking whether they have the data you want.”

    Now your hubby may well be a “senior scientist” and he and the State of California may well do things one way (according to you), but other organisations choose to do things differently — and so do I — so you may well get used to it.

  241. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 5:08 AM | Permalink

    Steve (#234): You say:

    > Obviously the archive did not treat the inquiry
    > as confidential since they provided my contact
    > information to Hunter.

    This may be good creative reporting on your part, but you know as well as I do that NTC copied their response to me so that I could send you the data myself, which I did immediately.

    > Hunter’s nowhere near the top of my list. Mostly
    > he’s just wasting people’s time and being a jerk.

    No comment to he who demands there are no taunts …..

    > it appears that Hunter archived his data and then acted all wide-eyed and
    > innocent.

    Again, creative reporting on your part — you very well know that I said I would archive the data in my own time, which I did.

  242. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 5:20 AM | Permalink

    <blockquote><br />Before you sound off, you could at least learn the facts. I provided our Port Arthur data to Steve before he even requested it from me (see #244 of thread “John Hunter on Sea levels”).

    As I said in #236, I actually never requested data from Hunter and do not want it personally. The Australian archive did not treat my request for data as confidential and instead forwarded the information about my request to Hunter, leading to the events described above.

    gt;#236. #234 – When I asked the Australian archive whether they had Hunter’s data, they sent the inquiry to Hunter who then sent me the data under condition that I not send it to anyone else. Hunter refused to let me forward it to John A. Now I actually hadn’t asked for the data and didn’t want it. I merely wanted to know whether the data had been archived there. Obviously the archive did not treat the inquiry as confidential since they provided my contact information to Hunter

    However think about Hunter’s phrase and attitude – &quot;you might as well get used to it&quot;. This is the attitude of Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Michael Mann and worse offenders than Hunter, who are really who we should be discussing. Let’s de-personalize the situation from Hunter who, at this point, is a misdemeanour offender to the more serious offenders. Phil Jones won’t archive station data – &quot;you might as well get used to it&quot;. Briffa won’t identify the sites used in Briffa et al 2001 and by IPCC – &quot;you might as well get used to it&quot;. Briffa won’t supply measurement data to support tree ring chronologies used in Briffa 2000, Osborn and Briffa 2006 and many other studies. Sciencemag won’t make him – &quot;you might as well get used to it&quot;. Lonnie Thompson didn’t archive any Himalayan dO18 data for up to 18 years – &quot;you might as well get used to it.&quot; SOAP tree ring data is still confidential – &quot;you might as well get used it&quot;.

    When I asked IPCC for data to support unpublished studies, they refused; I asked the authors who also refused and complained back to IPCC; IPCC said that they would expel me as a reviewer if I ever asked an unpublished IPCC author for supporting data. They had procedures which had &quot;served them well&quot; – &quot;you might as well get used it&quot;. In my opinion, sunlight is the best disinfectant for this poisonous attitude.

    But a little sunlight is starting to penetrate and they &quot;might as well get used to it.

  243. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 5:30 AM | Permalink

    maksimovich (#239):

    These types of arguments are crazy. I was responding to John Reid (#134), who admitted he only had a “first order model” and yet, with no quantitative sunstantiation could say things like “if we look at the radiative forcing due observed CO2 increases in the atmosphere it is also insignificant”. I would naturally prefer to trust the “IPCC-class” of models, which include many processes that are completely ignored in John Reid’s “model”. For you to come back, criticising the way in which volcanic aerosols are treated in the IPCC-class models — factors that certainly not even remotely considered in John Reid’s “model” — completely misses the point. It is, as I’ve said before, another example of:

    “Item by item, he picks holes in “his’ screen character “¢’‚¬? the lawyer’s tactic of finding flaws in a case to persuade a jury to reject it all.”

    Perhaps you could make some headway in this argument, if you really believe that the IPCC-class models have it all wrong, by getting one of their models (one of the simplified ones would probably do), “correcting” it as you see fit, re-running it and showing us that you don’t get AGW. This is now quite feasible with a slimmed-down model and a fast PC.

  244. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 5:38 AM | Permalink

    Steve (#244): Stop twisting things in order to make your own political points. When I said “you might as well get used to it”, I was referring to the perfectly normal and perfectly proper policy adopted by many organisations who desire to have a record of where their data is going. I find it both exceptional and obnoxious that I am expected to share data with someone who refuses to reveal his identity, qualifications or affiliation.

  245. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 5:46 AM | Permalink

    > Obviously the archive did not treat the inquiry > as confidential since they provided my contact > information to Hunter. This may be good creative reporting on your part, but you know as well as I do that NTC copied their response to me so that I could send you the data myself, which I did immediately.

    My observation is not "creative reporting". It is a matter of fact that they did not treat my inquiry as confidential , otherwise they would hardly have sent my particulars to you. Why they copied their response to you is a different issue entirely. The most likely reason for not them not treating my request as confidential is that they didn’t think about it. If they wanted to keep the particlars confidential, there were many ways to do so and no pressing need to contact you with my particulars.

    > it appears that Hunter archived his data and then acted all wide-eyed and > innocent.

    Again, creative reporting on your part “¢’‚¬? you very well know that I said I would archive the data in my own time, which I did.

    If you’d announced that you archived your data in a straightforward way, then I’d have a little sympathy for you. But you played this stupid game taunting people that it was in the archives as though it had been there all along. When it turns out that you’d just put the data in (and even then not available except through you.)

    In the intersts of civility, I’ve edited back some earlier rhetoric. Look, I think that it is unrealistic for John A to attempt to do serious work on your material and remain a private citizen mostly because you’ve made it clear that you will not permit him to do so and have already made inquiries to organizations attempting to identify him. If he wants to work in peace, he should look at readily available data at WDCP rather than get entangled with a pugnacious person like yourself. But don’t use this as an excuse for Jones, Briffa, Mann, IPCC – they are playing on a big stage.

    If you want to influence policy, you’re going to be increasingly asked to show your data and methods – “you’d better get used to it:.

  246. TCO
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 6:28 AM | Permalink

    I. So why do you need the name of the person who gets a copy of the data?
    A. That (some) archives ask for it, is not an answer, since:
    1. why do they want it?
    2. why do you copy that practice?
    B. Are you going to not give it to some people, when they reveal themselves?
    C. What about publication of data? This is often done in journals as a regular practice. Lots of articles have data tables in them. Lots of SIs have data in them. Why don’t you emulate that practice?
    D. Why did you send people looking for the archive, when you hadn’t even gotten your data into it yet and when you still directly shipped them data anyway. Do you see how butt-childish that is?
    E. Are you a moron? Or just twisted?

  247. kim
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 6:53 AM | Permalink

    Lee, #207, might not carbon be overly sequestered now? You don’t know.
    ==================================

  248. Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 8:25 AM | Permalink

    Dear Steve, please explain your conduct with respect to my comments in this thread. You deleted all of my comments and then after some time restored some of them.

    [snip of another pointless Lambert taunt.]

    Steve: Tim, "I" did not delete any of your comments, let alone “all” of your comments. There are dozens of comments of yours on this site, nearly all of them trolling. I happened to notice some comments by you had been spanked by the spam filter and restored them. I don’t know why it did this, but the insight of the spam filter sometimes amazes me. By the way, Tim, when’s your long-awaited Mann Screws It Up Again article coming? Or do you find that question abusive? What’s your justification for "we did not calculate the r2 statistic, that would be silly and incorrect"? Is that abusive? Or what’s your justification for the latest episode – Mann’s misrepresentation of the windowing in MBH98 Figure 7?

  249. kim
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 8:30 AM | Permalink

    Tell me what you think about carbon, Tim.
    =========================

  250. kim
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 8:34 AM | Permalink

    Does the amount of carbon sequestered over the ages fill the Daddy Bear bowl, the Baby Bear bowl, or the just right in the middle, Mama Bear bowl?
    =========================================

  251. Lee
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

    254:

    kim, it “fills the bowl” that created the climate in which we evolved, along with teh otehr sepecies and species assemblages on the planet, over the loast several tens of millions of years. Now, do you have a point to make, or more relevant, do you huave sa substantive response to the detailed pints I’ve made above, or are you just here to cast information-null taunts?

  252. David Smith
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 1:08 PM | Permalink

    Dr. Hunter, can you explain why you, and many archiving organizations, don’t offer stored data to anyone who asks for it?

    “Just because I don’t” is weak and not reasoned.

    Thanks in advance.

  253. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 1:15 PM | Permalink

    Lambert previously complained about one of his posts being temporarily in Spam Karma limbo. He then sent in a post, arguing about whether or not someone had manually spanked one of his posts and challenging my integrity. No one had manually spanked the first post. However, I have just marked his last post as spam.

    Tim, even TCO is tired of your whining. If you want to talk about a statistical or scientific topic, you’re welcome to do so. If you want to defend your Mann, you’re welcome to do so. No one’s going to mark it as spam – never have. But you’re not entitled to come on here to spew venom and challenge my integrity.

  254. fFreddy
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 2:11 PM | Permalink

    Re #259, Incoherent blather

    … where you can also order or register interest in doing so, the obtaining of a propagation from the …

    Is this enough of a commercial solicitation to justify being marked as spam ?

  255. Hans Erren
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 2:43 PM | Permalink

    re 255

    there is not an ability to “direct’ photons “downward’ even if one simply notices the gravitational stratification of atmospheric density that is trending motion of suspended photons as “outward’

    LOL Peter Hartlod, Please enroll on a physics basics course.

  256. John M
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 3:09 PM | Permalink

    #261

    Are you telling fFreddy to go sand his Wollemi Pine in front of a mirror? What bio-form is he supposed to notice while he’s doing this?

    (Sorry Steve, I couldn’t resist.)

    Seriously, Harlod(tm), I honestly don’t understand what you’re saying, and I suspect most people reading your posts here and elsewhere don’t either.

  257. Reid
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 3:42 PM | Permalink

    Re #260: “Re #259, Incoherent blather”

    That’s not incoherent blather. Even a civilian can recognize an informed opinion expressed in quasi-postmodern prose.

  258. Reid
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 3:55 PM | Permalink

    Re #259: It sounds like you have something important to say. But until you translate your postmodern writing style into understandable English it will justifiably be considered incoherent blather.

  259. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 4:42 PM | Permalink

    Steve (#249):

    > Look, I think that it is unrealistic for John A to attempt to do serious
    > work on your material and remain a private citizen mostly because you’ve
    > made it clear that you will not permit him to do so and have already made
    > inquiries to organizations attempting to identify him.

    Firstly, we are all “private citizens” — it is only John A who insists on working under a cloak of anonymity.

    Secondly, you have absolutely no justification for saying that I “have already made inquiries to organizations attempting to identify him” — this is an outright lie — please withdraw this claim and apologise.

    Thirdly, as for “if you want to influence policy, you’re going to be increasingly asked to show your data and methods” — you may have missed this, Steve, but I HAVE provided the data to you. I have provided the data to others. I simply ask for those “others” to be identified.

  260. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 4:45 PM | Permalink

    TCO (#250): Ignoring questions which I have answered many times before, and taunts which Steve has failed to censor ….. if you want my data , then tell me who you are and I’ll send it to you — what’s so hard about that?

  261. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 5:08 PM | Permalink

    David Smith (#257):

    > Dr. Hunter, can you explain why you, and many archiving organizations,
    > don’t offer stored data to anyone who asks for it?

    I can’t speak for other organisations, although one obvious reason is to control “mischievous” requests (you can interpret that how you will). If you made a Freedom of Information request, would you expect to be able to do that anonymously? Would you expect to be able to get any response from government if you did it anonymously?

    For my own part, as you will have gathered, I object to John A’s “position of power” in which he can say what he likes on here, being as abusive as he likes, and yet no one knows who he is. He (and you) may want me to play his game and provide him with whatever he wants, but I’m afraid I’m just not going to play.

    At the risk of attracting a stream of invective from the cheerleaders, let me say something else. There has been a clear movement by vested interests (including the fossil fuel industry), certainly in the USA and in Australia, to denigrate the science of AGW. It is also clearly in their SHORT-TERM interests for them to do so — indeed, some would argue that it would be dereliction of their duty to shareholders if executives DID NOT act in this way. So I am interested in where people come from and who is backing them. I understand pretty well where Steve is coming from (even though he can be a bit covert at times) but I haven’t a clue where John A is coming from — while he hides under a cloak of anonymity and while he often make such preposterous claims against AGW (his original posting on this thread, now deleted, serves as a testament to this), the suspicion must remain that he is just a stooge of vested interests.

  262. maksimovich
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 5:45 PM | Permalink

    Re 247 Try to be objective,and limit the rhectoric across the lateral arabesque,your limitations of knowledge become apparent when you do,indeed your defensive nature flashs UNSURE.

    Firstly I am merely reviewing the mechanastic sytems that are used to both construct datasets,and the models that are produced.

    As an exercise in quality control I have been re reading the IPCC models and structures and indeed the knowledge base in certain areas an accepatance sample if you like.This includes the methods and procedures of the IPCC,the constructs of datasets and the quality and signficance of the base datasets and the mechanistic process,

    The area of investigation is with emissions both wmgg,voc and aerosols,and the quantitative measurements,sampling methodology and the qualitative attributes that were used to test differentials between thermogenic,abiogenic,and biogenic emissions.IE the constructs that were used to find the base sets for emissions and the estimated differential of naturaly sourced,and antropogenic emissions.

    Here a number of interesting issues arise,firstly the levels of understanding of the IPCC of exogenous variables both emissions and otherwise.Secondly the qualitaive measurement of emissions (namely the extrapolation of benchtop models to the physical enviroment and the ambiguous properties of specific hydrocarbons.

    Indeed the chairs of the WCRP identified the limitations of understanding of the chemistry and effects of the variables quite succintly in may this year.The WCRP has now started the review of emission models, the understanding of the chemistry of natural forcing and antropogenic forcing ,archiving of the WMGG datasets and models for the IPCC for the FIRST time and the quantification of natural forcings and their application for climate models.Completion date 2009.

    There are some differences with the WCRP who are undertaking the research and the IPCC TGNES group who are already developing scenarios and outcomes prior to the commencement of the research programme.

    This from thie final report

    Category 1: long-term, global emission scenarios (time horizon of 100 years and more) for a limited number of regions and sectors

    based on a few story lines with appropriate reflection of socio-economic drivers

    in order to assess the impacts on the climate system of possible emission trajectories and its impacts on human and natural systems and the possible adaptation and mitigation requirements.

    Now what I am using is only IPCC,and WCRP information the Volcanics emission models is from their review team for AR4.It is not for me to improve identified models INACCURACIES from the AR4.That is their role and what they are paid for.I wonder if this will be shown in 2007?

  263. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 6:15 PM | Permalink

    maksimovich (#269): Sorry, you are wasting your time. I am not interested in addressing all your “auditing” issues regarding the IPCC models — I have my own work to do. The discussion was simply about whether there is enough positive feedback in the system to yield a climates sensitivity which is consistent with AGW. I have been convinced that there is, based both on the heat balance during the last glacial cycles and the success of the IPCC-class models in simulating 20th century warming. The treatments of volcanic aerosols and “long-term, global emission scenarios” seem largely irrelevant to this discussion, however much you may want to divert it.

  264. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 7:14 PM | Permalink

    kim, My vote is for : big bowl o’ fruit loops!!

    Steve, thanks for your reply to the “get used to it” post.
    (I could not believe my eyes)

    Peter Anderson,
    Was there a PBS special on them?
    I think I may have seen it. Very cool.

    kudos maksimovich,
    It’s a point of contention with my husband too, ever since read the very first IPCC report in school.

  265. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 7:37 PM | Permalink

    welikerocks and others (#271): Perhaps you should have a little background to our Port Arthur work. Firstly, we published our findings in two papers, so the results are freely available to all. Secondly, a significant amount of the work was done in our own spare time. The analysis of Lempriere’s data (which is the main thing that John A has been asking to “audit”) was done almost entirely in David Pugh’s own time over a couple of years — in that sense, the digitised form of Lempriere’s data is “his” property to distribute as he chooses. In fact, he asked me to be responsible for putting it on standard databases, which I have done. The data is freely available to anyone who asks and who says who they are.

    If someone anonymously asked you for data which was largely the result of your own private work, wouldn’t you feel justified in putting certain reasonable conditions (like openeness on the part of the recipient) on provision of this data?

  266. Tim Lampoon
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 8:01 PM | Permalink

    John Hunter- are you going to answer these questions or not?

    I. So why do you need the name of the person who gets a copy of the data?
    A. That (some) archives ask for it, is not an answer, since:
    1. why do they want it?
    2. why do you copy that practice?
    B. Are you going to not give it to some people, when they reveal themselves?
    C. What about publication of data? This is often done in journals as a regular practice. Lots of articles have data tables in them. Lots of SIs have data in them. Why don’t you emulate that practice?
    D. Why did you send people looking for the archive, when you hadn’t even gotten your data into it yet and when you still directly shipped them data anyway. Do you see how butt-childish that is?
    E. Are you a moron? Or just twisted?

  267. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 8:03 PM | Permalink

    #272

    Not if I were published and the data was used to publish.

    Hint: Published means “to make public”

    You made public twice.

  268. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 8:12 PM | Permalink

    #274 – I think that what Hunter meant to say was: “I’ve got tenure and you don’t. Get used to it.”

  269. kim
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 8:21 PM | Permalink

    Well, Lee, re #256, you make an obvious point, sure it’s sufficient for now. Is too much carbon sequestered to keep the earth from cycling into a permafreeze, and not recovering? You don’t know, and your other argument is teleological.
    ===============================

  270. John Reid
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 8:22 PM | Permalink

    John Hunter 189:
    To answwer your last question first – yes I am that John Reid.

    >dropping such phrases may impress …

    This blog would work much better if people stopped attributing motives to their adverseries. You appeared to have suffered from this more than anyone so let’s not do it, okay? The reason I mentioned it is because I genuinely believe it to be a reasonable theory of ice-ages. The idea comes from circuit theory. The Vostok ice core data looks like the output from an astable multivibrator.

    I am not a Luddite. I believe that computers and the numerical models that run on them are one of the greatest aids that science has ever had. However I have grave misgivings about OAGCMs (ocean atmosphere general circulation models). These are as follows:
    1. They are inaccessable. Unlike simple models like box models I cannot set up such a model on my own machine and check it out. I don’t have access to a super-computer even if someone would provide me with the code. I haven’t got 10 man years or so to write the code myself nor to debug some else’s code.
    2. They are fundamentally unstable. You and I have both run numerical models and should know what the pitfalls are. It takes months to get even a small model to the stage where it doesn’t blow up and then further time to tweak it to match the data from thermistors, current meters and the like. Models are unstable because they are discrete aproximations to continuous equations. They have to be rigged up with non-physical values of damping terms such as eddy-diffusion and when this is done they rapidly part company with the real world observations. OAGCM’s have a necessarily large grid size in order to be fast enough to run and this shortens the time for which they provide realistic predictions of the future. This prediction time is around 9 months for OAGCMs and is about the same as the models used to predict El Nino.
    Despite this the modellers routinely make public pronouncements about the catastrophes likely to befall us at the end of the century.

    My computer is misbehaving. Bailing out.

  271. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 8:24 PM | Permalink

    #266. Hunter said:

    Secondly, you have absolutely no justification for saying that I “have already made inquiries to organizations attempting to identify him” “¢’‚¬? this is an outright lie “¢’‚¬? please withdraw this claim and apologise.

    Maybe it was another John Hunter that sent the following inquiry attempting to identify John A? If so, sorry about that.

    From: john hunter
    Date: May 30, 2006 3:28 PM
    Subject: Please tell me the identity of the recipient at this email address.
    To: climateaudit AT gmail.com

    Hello,

    Please tell me the identity of the recipient at this email address.

    Regards,

    John Hunter

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    + John Hunter, email: johnroberthunter@yahoo.com +
    + Hobart, Australia +
    + www: http://www.trump.net.au/~jhunter/ +
    + or: http://www.trump.net.au/~greenhou/ +

  272. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 8:33 PM | Permalink

    #275
    Well..
    I’ve got rhythum.
    I’ve got sunshine.
    I’ve got blue skies!
    Who could ask for anything more? ;)

  273. TCO
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 8:33 PM | Permalink

    John, I don’t want your f***ing data. I just think your wanting to keep track of who has it is bizarre.

  274. TCO
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 8:41 PM | Permalink

    I think Tim is very silly and tiresome in his concentration on arguments of who gets comments deleted and similar level stuff versus digging into the science. Plus he’s a wimpy liberal. Still he is respectful in posting and does not clog the boards, so I vote for allowing him to continue to post even though his posts are wrong.

  275. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 8:52 PM | Permalink

    Steve (#275): You’re losing the plot, Steve, sounding just like the cheerleaders.

    > I think that what Hunter meant to say was: “I’ve got tenure and you don’t.
    > Get used to it.”

    [snip of inflammatory comment ] I’m not on tenure — I’m on contract.

  276. John Reid
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 8:55 PM | Permalink

    #277 continued

    (see paper by M.Collins for 9 month value and Gerry Browning: Numerical Climate Models this blog).

    3. Almost all of OAGCMs referred to by IPCC TAR require non-physical “flux corrections” in order to be stable and to give outputs which resemble the observations. Some of these corrections are massive. The heat flux corrections alone range from 25 to 40 w/m2 which is ten times the CO2 radiative forcing signal we are trying to detect !!! The models are a joke.

    4. Despite all this, assuming I do the work and run a model and account for what is wrong with it, after all that work I would be told “Oh that model has been superceded – the newer models don’t have that problem” and I would have to start all over again.

    Under the circumstance I think it is the job of the OAGCM modellers to convince ME that their models are reliable predictors of future climate. So far they have failed to do so.

    BTW I do not have the same reservations about box models. If someone can show me a good working box-model which takes into account observed changes in sea and atmospheric temperatures and which gives the observed ratios of C13, C14 and other tracers I will be convinced. The box models I have encountered so far assume that the ocean is steady-state which is not the case (eg Bindoff and McDougall).

  277. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 9:02 PM | Permalink

    #283. Something almost exactly like that happened to Kaufmann. He and associates analyzed TAR GCMs and demonstrated that they did not out-perform a simple linear model with the same forcing parameters. Their journal submission was tied up for a long time and then a referee rejected it because it did not consider a new model.

    Kaufmann posted up about this at realclimate and Gavin said that the failure to out-perform simple linear models didn’t matter because they’d moved on from trying to project temperature – that was a “done deal” – to projecting regional distributions. He asked Kaufmann to take the discussion offline. Too bad, a serious discussion almost broke out at realclimate.

  278. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 9:08 PM | Permalink

    Steve (#278): Shall we get real here? John A has always given climateaudit AT gmail.com as HIS email address. Believe it or not, I assumed that he would NOT respond to my request by saying something like:

    “I work under the pseudonym of John A because I fear retribution if anyone finds out who I really am. However, now that you have shown the initiative to contact me on my email address, I can reveal myself as blah blah blah …..”.

    Come on Steve, give us a break. At the time you were pretending that John A was NOT the person who maintained ClimateAudit and that he just helped from time to time (in fact he is allowed to make postings without you even seeing them first). I was trying to ascertain if John A would reply to that email, or whether you would. In fact nobody replied.

    However, your posting #278 does show that both you and John A use the same email address — which once again ties you both together pretty firmly.

  279. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 9:13 PM | Permalink

    Steve (#284): Again, you’re losing the plot. Statements like “too bad, a serious discussion almost broke out at realclimate” make you just sound stupid, and yout postings not worthy of a response.

  280. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 10:17 PM | Permalink

    re #286,

    Statements like “too bad, a serious discussion almost broke out at realclimate” make you just sound stupid, and yout postings not worthy of a response.

    No they don’t and I can’t imagine why you think it does? Do you really believe that RealClimate allows serious discussions? Do you have any idea what a serious discussion would even look like?…. Well sure you do, there have been several on this site. There’s an ongoing one between Steve and Gerd.

    Stop making yourself sound stupid and actually join a scientific discussion here. I just made an opening bid to Steve Bloom on another thread. Join that one. Everyone may learn something.

  281. TCO
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 10:28 PM | Permalink

    I’m Steve also…;) mwhahahahaha

  282. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 10:31 PM | Permalink

    John Reid (#277, #283): Good to chat with you again — we should have dinner some time. You should also come to the lecture by Ian Lowe at the Uni tonight (7:00 PM, Stanley Burbury Theatre), entitled “A BIG FIX – Change for Sustainable Communities”– it’ll just be evil wimpy liberal greenie stuff, but I think you’ll handle it!

    As for your comments:

    > The Vostok ice core data looks like the output from an astable
    > multivibrator.

    I think most people would agree, with the rider that it appears to be synchronised with the relatively weak Milankovitch cycles. Also, from looking at the glacial and interglacial states, and taking account of ice cover, you can derive the climate sensitivity. I’ve noted this before, but you should read the excellent article by Hansen at:

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/newschool_text_and_slides.pdf

    > They are inaccessible. Unlike simple models like box models I
    > cannot set up such a model on my own machine and check it out.

    Yes you can. For example, see http://edgcm.columbia.edu/.

    > Almost all of OAGCMs referred to by IPCC TAR require non-physical
    > “flux corrections” ….. the models are a joke.

    Models presently running, and run for the IPCC AR4, now have small or non-existent flux corrections. Saying “the models are a joke” is just descending into “cheerleader-speak”.

  283. John Hunter
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 10:44 PM | Permalink

    Dave Dardinger (#287): If you had read the posting at the top of this thread before Steve sanitised it, you would have seen stuff that embarassed him so much that he completely rewrote it. If you look at the early posts, you will see that, until I responded (#12) there had been no serious attempt to address the scientific issues — much space was spent on grumbling about browsers!

    So if you don’t think my postings #12, #14, #18, # 30, #43 etc were part of a “scientific discussion”, then I don’t know what is. The way I read it, it was only my comments, and the comments of people like Lee, that convinced Steve to go into damage-control mode at #80 and re-write the piece.

  284. TCO
    Posted Jun 18, 2006 at 11:41 PM | Permalink

    English birds put out much more readily then Australians. Discuss.

  285. John Reid
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 1:45 AM | Permalink

    Re #289 – saying “the models are a joke” was intended as a comment by one numerical modeller to another but I take your point.

    I will certainly look up those references, thanks. But right now I am more interested in box-models in which CO2 flux is a function of temperature. Rising sea levels imply that the sea is getting warmer. How does that affect the partitioning of CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean given that there are many different water masses, each with its own time constant?

    Sadly I cannot make it to the Ian Lowe lecture. We now live in Cygnet (6295 0468) and it’s a bit far to drive especially at night in the winter.

  286. L Nettles
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 10:13 AM | Permalink

    John Hunter has been mentioned in another publication. Climatescience.org.nz

    http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/20066181457430.TruthAboutTuvalu.pdf

  287. welikerocks
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 10:16 AM | Permalink

    #295 Peter K,

    Re: #271 where your name is mentioned: the trees you linked to. They are the same trees I saw a public television program on. Very interesting and I wouldn’t mind trying to tend to one.

    The reference to the IPCC was directed to #269 not to you. I was confusing. (I agree with you about the IPCC)

  288. John A
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 10:18 AM | Permalink

    However to give a benefit of doubt, Reid I am speaking English if you need, ask a sensible question and you might learn something also.

    It seems the PC of Peter K. Anderson has the same grasp of English syntax as Yoda

  289. John A
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 10:54 AM | Permalink

    I can’t speak for other organisations, although one obvious reason is to control “mischievous” requests (you can interpret that how you will). If you made a Freedom of Information request, would you expect to be able to do that anonymously? Would you expect to be able to get any response from government if you did it anonymously?

    If I were to make a request to government, I would have an expectation of confidentiality to not pass on that information to third parties. So what has this got to do with your refusal to put your data on a public archive? None. I haven’t requested sole and complete access to your data – I simply asked that you do as Steve McIntyre has consistently advocated and practiced – give full and complete disclosure so that results can be tested, citations can be checked and scientific work replicated by anyone.

    For my own part, as you will have gathered, I object to John A’s “position of power” in which he can say what he likes on here, being as abusive as he likes, and yet no one knows who he is. He (and you) may want me to play his game and provide him with whatever he wants, but I’m afraid I’m just not going to play.

    Actually my own position of power is such that I have the same rights as anyone else to express myself, plus the added bonus of being able to post occasional articles at the whim of the blog owner. You also have the ability to express yourself, the same as anyone else. Steve McIntyre has deleted comments and threads of mine that he did not want to host, so what is the difference? It’s a personal blog of STeve McIntyre, paid for by Steve McIntyre, hosted at the behest of Steve McIntyre. No-one except Steve McIntyre has the right to post or comment on anything, except as Steve McIntyre has allowed.

    The difference is that John Hunter cannot make the invective truly personal, which is the explanation for the continued whinging at my refusal to go public. The reason why is explained in the next section.

    At the risk of attracting a stream of invective from the cheerleaders, let me say something else. There has been a clear movement by vested interests (including the fossil fuel industry), certainly in the USA and in Australia, to denigrate the science of AGW. It is also clearly in their SHORT-TERM interests for them to do so “¢’‚¬? indeed, some would argue that it would be dereliction of their duty to shareholders if executives DID NOT act in this way. So I am interested in where people come from and who is backing them. I understand pretty well where Steve is coming from (even though he can be a bit covert at times) but I haven’t a clue where John A is coming from “¢’‚¬? while he hides under a cloak of anonymity and while he often make such preposterous claims against AGW (his original posting on this thread, now deleted, serves as a testament to this), the suspicion must remain that he is just a stooge of vested interests.

    The real reason that I refuse to go public on the Internet is neatly illustrated by this post. It illustrates clearly that to Hunter, anyone who criticises the AGW hypothesis is part of some cunning conspiracy run by shadowy figures in powerful positions – the classic symptoms of paranoia from a psychopathic personality.

    Even when I stopped posting here for a couple of weeks, there were endless posts demanding that Steve “bring me back” and even an e-mail demanding to know who I was.

    I couldn’t possibly be an ordinary guy with a family trying to make a living in computers – to the paranoid mind of John Hunter I must be a “stooge of vested interests”. It doesn’t matter that AGW is an unphysical and unfalsiable hypothesis – the mere fact that John Hunter believes it (and a coterie of his friends) is enough to launch wave after wave of invective against anyone, me included, who questions the basis of this so-called “science”

    If John Hunter was really interested in science he might stop being a stooge for vested interests who make huge amounts of money in environmental alarmism. But then, that would never do would it? It doesn’t matter that those vested interests have received large amounts of money from fossil fuel companies (like Enron) because the purity of the belief in AGW washes away all nasty oily sins. I don’t even own a car, using my feet, public transport and a bicycle to go to customer sites and mainly workin from home – but I must be a “stooge of vested interests” in a deep undercover operation, at least to the transparently and obviously paranoid mind.

    There are no cheerleaders on this blog, but there are plenty of people who publicly and privately have expressed concern about the gaping logical and empirical holes in this “AGW science” and some of them are an awful lot better qualified to say so than Dr John Hunter, University of Tasmania, would like to admit.

  290. Lee
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

    re 297:

    Steve, if you are serious about not wanting to allow taunting and personal attacks, would you please squelch this stuff, posted fresh by a guy who happens, despite his denials of the obvious, to be your co-moderator and co-host on this site?

    Or at the very least, insist that he tone it down, too? If you are going to allow your co-moderator to behave like this, I see no reason that anyone should listen when you insist that anyone else behave any differently.

  291. John A
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 11:13 AM | Permalink

    Lee,

    There are no words in there that are taunts. There appear to be no limits to what John Hunter says that you will condemn, and no words that I use in considered reply that you will not try to get Steve McIntyre to delete for spurious reasons.

    Get over yourself.

  292. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 11:21 AM | Permalink

    #298. Lee,

    John A is not a “co-moderator”. This is my blog.

    I find all this crap with Hunter to be very tiresome. Hunter initiates tasteless comments about “stooges”, gets a rise out of John A and the cycle continues. The problem here is that I probably should have snipped Hunter’s post, but when I got up this morning, there was a whole lot of crap already. If I’m going to let Hunter’s previous post stand, then why can’t John A respond? It’s probably both or neither.

    You guys tell me – I HATE this sort of ridiculous catfight. I’d be happier with neither.

  293. Lee
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 11:24 AM | Permalink

    John, I didnt say that Hunter’s stuff is OK. Steve has specifically asked JH to tone it down. (BTW, he asked me too, and I have complied.

    You responded in kind to JH’s post, using his words in return, in fact. If nothing in your post is a taunt, then perforce it was nto a taunt in JH’s post, because you used the same language. You are a moderator and principle on this site, deny it as you will, and if you engage in this behavior even in response to someone else, rather than working to tone it down, then you are contributing rather than trying to improve.

    I’ve said my piece; it’s up to Steve now, and we’ll see if he means it when he says he doesnt want taunting. If you want to take the opportunity for a last word on this issue you can, “but only if you’re pathetic.” (see post 179 for the reference for that quote)

  294. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 11:29 AM | Permalink

    #301. Lee, would you do me a favor. Would you tell me which posts in the most recent flurry you think should be snipped or deleted – being fair to both protagonists? I’ll be quite happy to do it.

  295. John A
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

    Lee,

    John, I didnt say that Hunter’s stuff is OK.

    Then I must have missed the implied criticism. Which lines should I be reading between? I do note that you don’t respond to Hunter’s invective, but to my reply. That says something about you but not me.

  296. Lee
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

    Steve, with all due respect…

    JohnA has the power to post articles without even first consulting you, as he clearly did here. He has the power to moderate, to remove posts (I’ve seen him on other blogs announcing that he has done so to a post here). He posted, on his own initiative and authority, the original post that started this whole kerfuffle. You can’t have it both ways; he can’t be just another participant, AND have the power to top post and moderate as a representative of you and your site. If you dont want him to be seen as a representative of this site, then you must remove his authority to top post and moderate. If he has that authority, then he is a representative of and acting on behalf of your site.

    I can’t and won’t speak for JH, but you have asked me to tone it down, and I have and will, even if I were to get hammered by another participant. But I’ll tell you, if a representative of this site (which JohnA clearly is by any meaningful functional definition) continues to behave that way, then I will see no reason to refrain from responding in kind.

    Now, back to the issues; I’ve said my piece.

  297. John A
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 12:04 PM | Permalink

    Lee,

    I exercise my moderating powers at Steve McIntyre’s behest, often putting posts that I suspect Steve will not want to host into a moderation queue – sometimes they come back and sometimes they go in the bin. At other times, troll posts get marked as spam. Steve sometimes recovers those, but most of the time he doesn’t.

    He posted, on his own initiative and authority, the original post that started this whole kerfuffle.

    There was no kerfuffle until you and John Hunter started posting. None at all. More importantly the original post, simply stated that the articles were out there, and that I found some specific comments interesting – nothing more.

    Here’s the bottom line that I’m sure Hunter would agree with

    If you dont want him to be seen as a representative of this site, then you must remove his authority to top post and moderate. If he has that authority, then he is a representative of and acting on behalf of your site.

    I translate: don’t allow John A to post any articles that question AGW even when its by scientists.

    You appear to be desperate to prevent me from expressing my opinion or even posting, which is why you began this thread by calling the expressed opinions of scientists to be “complete tripe”, “garbage” and “absolute ***”, while at the same time expressing an opinion about the amplifying feedback of CO2, an effect never seen in four billion years and calling it “dual causality”.

    The whole tone was an attempt to shame Steve into peremptorily deleting the post. It failed. Now you are trying to get Steve to censor my posts (note: nobody else’s just mine). I think you’re just looking for an excuse to push the invective button again.

  298. Lee
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 12:27 PM | Permalink

    John, I have specifically said, in this thread, that I DONT want Steve to delete this thread. Please refrain from lying, about me or anyone else; you do it far too often and it doesnt reflect well on you or on Steve’s blog.

    I also havent asked that you be censored; I said that as long as he allows you to use this blog for top posts, then your actions reflect on this blog. If you consider that to be a request to censor you, then perhaps you agree with me about the impact of your posts on this blog, and are worried that Steve might remove your authority for that reason? I also havent called for any of your thread posts to be removed. Although as I re-read it, I can see that ‘squelch this stuff” could be read that way. I’ll clarify; I was asking Steve to insist that you AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THIS SITE conform to the behavior he is asking of participants here.

    There was no kerfuffle until JH, I and others pointed out that your top post was scietntifically embarassing. Steve jumped in and completely rewrote it, in large part to point out that he didnt see any scientific weight to your cited stuff, so apparently he agrees.

    Now, do you have something substantive to say, or are you going to continue to insist that your original top post didnt mean anything, and to misattribute to me motivations that are opposite to what I’ve explcilty asked Steve to do?

  299. John A
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 12:56 PM | Permalink

    There was no kerfuffle until JH, I and others pointed out that your top post was scietntifically embarassing.

    To whom? The scientists who were being quoted or John Hunter because he can’t be bothered to refute it except with insults?

    Since when do you get to decide what is scientifically embarassing for this weblog? Isn’t it amazing that the kerfuffle is not the responsibility of the people who caused it, but the originator of the post? You could have written to the scientists themselves and told they how embarassing it was to hold the opinions they hold, or to the authors of the articles, or the publications who published those articles – but instead it’s scientifically embarassing when it’s linked to on a private weblog?

    Although as I re-read it, I can see that ‘squelch this stuff” could be read that way. I’ll clarify; I was asking Steve to insist that you AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THIS SITE conform to the behavior he is asking of participants here.

    What is he asking of participants here? That they stop posting and stop moderating? No. That applies only to me.

    You nowhere near the first person to try to get Steve to delete a post or a comment of mine on the grounds that leaving it will somehow damage his credibility to even discuss a point, regardless of its merits. And you’re not the first person to try to raise the invective to fever pitch to get Steve to back down. You’re not even the first person to try to convince Steve that I must be a liability for making comments without first clearing it through Toronto first.

    And you won’t be the last.

  300. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 12:58 PM | Permalink

    Re #297 “the classic symptoms of paranoia from a psychopathic personality.” This kind of character assination is, surely, unnecessary taunting?

    “I don’t even own a car, using my feet, public transport and a bicycle to go to customer sites and mainly workin from home – but I must be a “stooge of vested interests” in a deep undercover operation, at least to the transparently and obviously paranoid mind.”

    Actually I’m quite happy to believe the former (as best I can ascertain, like me, John A is a committed private citizen unfunded by anyone other than himself but from an opposite pov to myself). Therefore the latter does not apply to me and is, I guess, another attack on John Hunter.

    However, it remains the case that it’s really odd that John A lives in such fear of people like me. Frankly I find it really offensive that he does – it offends, my, and others, good character. I truly wish he’d see and acknowledge this :(

    Perhaps as a compromise John A could state (in the kind of way I did further up) that HE doesn’t fear specific active contributors here, but perhaps just inactive one?

  301. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 1:03 PM | Permalink

    Hunter is simply a mean person. I say, permanently ban him. Whatever we’d lose due to losing his knowledge and participation would be more than compensated by what we’d gain in terms of order and decency. Doing so would not be “censorship” as practiced at RC. It would simply be an extraordinary tactic to deal with someone who is extraordinarily rude and nasty.

  302. Peter Hearnden
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 1:08 PM | Permalink

    #309, another highly personnalised and unpleasant post…

  303. John A
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 1:16 PM | Permalink

    Peter H,

    “the classic symptoms of paranoia from a psychopathic personality.” This kind of character assination is, surely, unnecessary taunting?

    No it isn’t. I happen to know quite a lot about the symptomatic behavior of people with clinical paranoia – it is not a taunt, but a considered opinion based upon experience. I am also confident that a fair psychologist reading John Hunter’s posts, website and other output would come to a similar conclusion. Classic paranoid behavior is to attribute opposition to one’s own personal beliefs from sinister organizations or conspiracies – which is exactly what John Hunter has done and why I refuse to put my family’s welfare anywhere near somebody like that.

    “I don’t even own a car, using my feet, public transport and a bicycle to go to customer sites and mainly workin from home – but I must be a “stooge of vested interests” in a deep undercover operation, at least to the transparently and obviously paranoid mind.”

    Actually I’m quite happy to believe the former (as best I can ascertain, like me, John A is a committed private citizen unfunded by anyone other than himself but from an opposite pov to myself). Therefore the latter does not apply to me and is, I guess, another attack on John Hunter.

    No it isn’t. It’s a statement that John Hunter attributes an impression of me that could not be further from the truth, as if he cared. Nevertheless "stooge of vested interests" is Hunter’s expression, not mine.

    However, it remains the case that it’s really odd that John A lives in such fear of people like me. Frankly I find it really offensive that he does – it offends, my, and others, good character. I truly wish he’d see and acknowledge this :(

    I don’t fear you so much as I dislike personal visibility on the Internet, particularly as it has so many clearly mentally unstable people on it. Try not to take it personally.

    Perhaps as a compromise John A could state (in the kind of way I did further up) that HE doesn’t fear specific active contributors here, but perhaps just inactive one?

    I have no idea what this means. I am a very private person. I don’t seek fame or notoriety, which is why I keep my professional and personal life well away from the Internet, because it is no-one’s business but my own.

  304. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 1:27 PM | Permalink

    Re: #310 – Oops, I forgot, modernity’s rules state that rendering value judgements is extremely politically incorrect. So sorry, I am way out of line. Please report me to the pyramid. Big brother is love.

  305. jae
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 1:29 PM | Permalink

    SUMMARY 06/19/06. It looks to me like there is still no definite proof of AGW. Many, if not most, of the proxy boys and girls won’t share their raw data, presumably because they are afraid Steve will expose their bad statistics and science. And the models are next to worthless, as it appears most modelers even agree. And we can’t get the raw data from Jones on the SAT. Where the hell are the FACTS? What a sad state of affairs. Meanwhile, the media continues the frenzy. LMAO.

  306. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 1:47 PM | Permalink

    OK, enough already. The only reason why John Hunter is so fascinated with John A is the hope that he can find some connection of John A to Big Oil in the hopes that that will embarrass me, since Hunter seems either incapable or uninterested in responding to any issue that I bring up here. John A is not Myron Ebell in disguise. He’s just a computer consultant in England. If it turned out (unknown to me) that John A was Myron Ebell in disguise, then I’d be quite surprised, but it would not disprove any point that I’ve made about multiproxy studies. John A, please do not rise to Hunter’s baiting. It’s better to just ignore him.

    However, speaking of John “Get Used To It” Hunter, I must say that I see red when Hunter says “Get Used To It” as an excuse for playing silly bugger with data access. I tried to deal with this once before and got tricked somewhat. I had previously noted that Hunter’s archiving was not high on my own interest level, but said that if he wanted to continue posting here, his next post would contain a URL to the data in question.

    In his next post, he provided URLs to two data archives. I thought that he had complied with my condition. Unfortunately, I did not specifically check the URLs at the time. It turns out that neither URL was a URL to the data. As Hunter has pointed out, he has emailed me the data and I can confirm that the size of the data set is not large and, accordingly, there is no obstacle to Hunter posting the data at his own website, pending public availability of the data at one of the national archives.

    So I’ll try once again to deal with “Get Used to It” Hunter. If you want to continue posting here, your next post to appear here will contain a working URL to the data; any others will be marked as spam. This time I will check the URL to verify that it contains the data that you sent me. If you don’t like it, then, as you say, get used to it.

  307. jae
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 1:58 PM | Permalink

    Re: 314. Steve, thanks for ending this stupid game.

  308. Lee
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 2:40 PM | Permalink

    Steve, I see that, in response to several recent posts with JohnA becoming increasing more unpleasant, you post that you are banning John Hunter? WTF?

    BTW, your “maintainer,” who as I’ve pointed out is by any reasonable working definition a co-moderator, has been dishonest and is continuing to be dishonest in his responses to me (one of many examples is outlined below), and has mischaracterized much of this thread, including completely ignoring substantive responses to his, (and yes, I’ll say it) dishonest tripe. Yes, that is a bald assertion; read JohnA’s last several posts, including the fact that he came in swinging this weekend and ignored several good and substantive subthreads relevant to things he was arguing last week, and tell me why he deserves any more.

    But here is some evidence anyway, one piece of many in this thread: JohnA posted a graph which he reported showed that there was no correlation between CO2 and temp. When I said that I wasnt convinced that there was no correlation and could he report the numeric correlation result, he repeatedly refused to do so and blasted me for using what he called a “squint test” to “find a correlation.” When I pointed out that I was not making a claim that there was a correlation, merely saying that it looked a sif there might be and asking him for a quantitative demonstration that the graph showed what he claimed, continued several times to falsely blast me for eyeballing a correlation… and then, JohnA admitted that in the paper from which that graph came, it states that THERE IS A CORRELATION, again without actually reporting the numbers, but then claimed there obviously was no correlation anyway, from looking at it.. and then contined to blast me for using a “squint test” to find a correlation. IOW, JohnA was dishonest from the start in claiming that the graph demonstrated there waas no correlation, he was dishonest in attackng me for making claims about the corelation, while HE was such c;aims and I was not, he attacked me for using a “squint test” methodology that HE was using to deny the REPORTED correlation, and now he continues to attack me and others for daring to comment on the bad science in what he posted… bad science that you, Steve, distanced yourself from early on. And he contines to attack me and others, in quite unpleasant ways, for daring to state that something scientists said was tripe and garbage – STeve, I shouldn’t need to remind you that finding garbage claims by scientists is the purpose of your blog. Adn he has the ability to post top articvles, and to moderate.

    And so, you ban JH. Good on ya, Steve.

  309. Hans Erren
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 2:46 PM | Permalink

    re 292

    Peter Hartlod, the only references to “Photonic remittance” on the internet point to you.

    No I don’t have a clue what you are writing about, but hey, I’m just a simple geophysicist, what can you expect.

    Please don’t reply to this message.

  310. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 2:56 PM | Permalink

    Lee, John Hunter is not banned and the data access issue is distinct from his catfight with John A. All he has to do to post here is provide a working URL to the data in question, which he may do at the Road Map thread. The Get Used to It taunt was raised before the present kerfuffle with John A. I meant to deal with it earlier as it irritated me quite independently. I wish that I’d done so people would not confuse the two.

    Lee, taunting and fighting are a different issue. The taunting and fighting on this thread have long out-lived any conceivable purpose. This thread is now closed. Any attempt to continue the fight on other threads will be deleted.

  311. fFreddy
    Posted Jun 19, 2006 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

    Lee, penalising Hunter for being a prima donna with his data is entirely consistent with what Steve has been doing on this blog. It is entirely irrelevant to your arguments with John A.

    John A, I’m beginning to get curious about the number of relatively new posters on this thread who are trying to pick a fight between you and Steve. Are you able to see the IP addresses from which they are posting ?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,419 other followers

%d bloggers like this: