======================================================
Open letter to Dan Pangburn
Regarding your "Historical Data on Global Warming provided by U.S. Government Agencies" op-ed"
Dear Dan Pangburn,
You've written to me over at my citizenschallenge.blogspot.com and offered links to your work. I have read more of your blogs and posts and various comments around the web. Well, it's fired me up with a desire to write you a letter asking some heart to heart questions and sharing my perspective with you and your compatriots. I'm doing it here because WUWTW seemed a more appropriate location.
You've written to me over at my citizenschallenge.blogspot.com and offered links to your work. I have read more of your blogs and posts and various comments around the web. Well, it's fired me up with a desire to write you a letter asking some heart to heart questions and sharing my perspective with you and your compatriots. I'm doing it here because WUWTW seemed a more appropriate location.
I'll base my letter on that piece you keep plugging, your March 15, 2008 op-ed:
"Historical Data on Global Warming provided by U.S. Government Agencies"
I will include your direct quotes from that paper followed by comments and further links to sources that support my arguments.
You write: "I have been researching the global warming issue for months. I am a licensed Mechanical Engineer with an MSc in Mechanical Engineering. The following is a brief verbal description of some of my sources and findings with graphics that show these findings..."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
First off, what's up with that title?
It's sweeping and somehow authoritative sounding, as if it originated in a government office. Why did you choose to give it that semi-official sounding name?
Then consider how you establish your authority.
You seem to believe that as a mechanical engineer you've got the background to master climatology with a few months of personal study. As if that lends you the genius to leapfrog scientists who have spent many years studying and mastering this topic.
Aren't you claiming a bit too much? What about those experts who have spent years wrestling with the formulas, data, models and their complexities?
How does mechanical engineering prepare you to understand the natural world?
Your world of buildings and bridges and mechanical forces is filled with the laws of physics in their most simplified form. It's a world full of constraints and absolutes - whereas our planet's natural systems work on an altogether different level.
How is it that after a few months of study you feel qualified to so absolutely dismiss long standing "consensus" science and practice? You complain about papers not being accepted for publication.
What that lot of unpublished papers that were basically substandard? Ds and Fs so to speak... why should seriously flawed papers deserve to be published?
Even from reading your replies at various discussions you reply to knowledgeable folks and their critiques... it seems evasive and willfully ignoring significant complaints.
I wonder, can you explain the difference between mechanical and Earth studies?
I'm serious, can you come up with a short descriptive comparison?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
You write: "The assertion that humans have or ever can have a significant influence on climate such as by limiting the use of fossil fuel (a.k.a. limiting human production of carbon dioxide) is not supported by any historical record."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What does this mean? The human population has never been as large or resource consuming as today - so of course, there are no historical comparisons.
Do you seriously question whether humans can have a significant influence? - please explain that.
What about the evidence that humans have become a unprecedented major geologic force on this planet? Centuries of struggling to tame and subdue the biosphere have succeeded with a vengeance... don't you think?
I'll be honest with you, to me, believing humans can't possibly have major global impacts makes as much sense as believing our universe was formed 6 thousand years ago in one frenzied week... oh yea, silly me, half the US population does believe that god created Earth in a week long frenzy.
~ ~ ~
For those who are curious human impacts the evidence overwhelming, here's a sampling:
Dawn of the Anthropocene Epoch? Earth Has Entered New Age of Geological Time, Experts Say
Mar. 26, 2010 — Geologists from the University of Leicester are among four scientists- including a Nobel prize-winner -- who suggest that Earth has entered a new age of geological time.
~ ~ ~
Living in the Anthropocene: Toward a New Global Ethos
Paul J. Crutzen and Christian Schägerl
~ ~ ~
A man-made world -
Science is recognising humans as a geological force to be reckoned with.
~ ~ ~
A Global Map of Human Impacts to Marine Ecosystems
~ ~ ~
A major international conference focusing on solutions to the global sustainability challenge.
~ ~ ~
As you can see, honest curiosity and a sincere effort reveals a plethora of evidence of human's major disruptive impacts upon our planet. There's much more out there then I'll ever have the time to dig up.
Faith can't erase that reality.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
You write: "The temperature1 has varied substantially while the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere2 exhibits a smooth progressive rise. Note on this graph that prior to about 1910, and again from 1944 to about 1976, temperature showed a decreasing trend while atmospheric carbon dioxide level was increasing. . . "
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
You are deliberately misrepresenting the science. For a more complete treatment view these examples:
What caused early 20th Century warming?
IPCC Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report
2.2 Drivers of climate change
You also confuse "Trend and variation,"
here's a simple video explaining what you've omitted:
here's a simple video explaining what you've omitted:
"Trend and variation"
Uploaded by TeddyTVNorge on Jan 4, 2012
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
You write: "In the previous graph it appears that since 1976 the increasing carbon dioxide level has caused the average global temperature to rise. However, a close look at the graph below reveals the fact that, typically in the past, global average temperature rose or fell before the carbon dioxide level changed."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dan you ignore too much of the story. What about this information:
CO2: The Biggest Control Knob on Earth's Thermostat
Professor Richard Alley
~ ~ ~
Ben Santer: Crushing the Myth of Global Cooling
(considering signal and noise)
~ ~ ~
(CO2) A Natural By-Product of Nature
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
You write: "This graph shows that the average global temperature 400 years ago was significantly higher than now and the recent rate of temperature change is not unusual."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
That graph does not represent the global temperature, nor does any one graph definitively do that. They are building blocks of learning. Why are you ignoring the accumulated knowledge scientists have built up regarding the MWP and other temperature fluctuation over the past thousands of years?
Do a search for "Medieval Warm Period" over at SkepticalScience.com (that internet repository of climate science papers), the list of informative information is impressive and clearly shows that temperature fluctuations are considered and understood.
Results "Medieval Warm Period"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
You write: "For most of earth’s history carbon dioxide level has been several times higher than the present8,9. The planet plunged in to the Andean-Saharan ice age 440 million years ago10 when the carbon dioxide level was over ten times higher than now.The conclusion from all this is that carbon dioxide change does NOT cause significant climate change."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What a sad, even pathetic, deception you are playing here. It's worth repeating, no climatologist has ever claimed CO2 was the driving factor in every climate swing Earth has experienced !
Comparing today's globe and biosphere with what existed 440 million years ago is as disingenuous as it gets.
You willfully ignore that our global heat distribution engine is a product of evolution and that it has reached a special sweet spot during the recent geologic era. One that has been most conducive to society's development; one that we are dependent on; one deserving of much respect and appreciation. After all our society is dependent on predicable stable weather conditions.
~ ~ ~
YouTube's "ThinkAboutIt" has put together an excellent < 8 minute video reviewing the past 600 million years of our climate's evolution. It valuable information presented in a timeline fashion and filled with fascinating details you seem obvious to.
Man Made Climate Change in 7 Minutes
(The last 600 Million years of our climate's evolution in 7 minutes)
(The last 600 Million years of our climate's evolution in 7 minutes)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
You write: "Actions to control the amount of non-condensing greenhouse gases that are added to the atmosphere are based on the mistaken assumption that global warming was caused by human activity. These actions put freedom and prosperity at risk. "
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
You reveal your agenda... and it doesn't sound like its got anything to do with understanding our planet. I'm thinking you are one of those folks committed to that "free-corporate-market" philosophy, more interested in retaining assets and power than understanding how our planet behaves.
You talk of "freedom and prosperity" but ignore how dependent every aspect of our society is on stable reliable weather patterns. The very thing our rampant ever increasing CO2 injections into our thin atmosphere is promising to disrupt.
Have you seriously considered you might be wrong and this course you are advocating, of ignoring Earth Observation evidence and expert opinions, will prove destructive to our younger generations?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mr. Pangburn, I wonder what you think of Spencer Weart's words in his essay:
Guest commentary by Spencer R. Weart, American Institute of Physics
"I often get emails from scientifically trained people who are looking for a straightforward calculation of the global warming that greenhouse gas emissions will bring. What are the physics equations and data on gases that predict just how far the temperature will rise? A natural question, when public expositions of the greenhouse effect usually present it as a matter of elementary physics. These people, typically senior engineers, get suspicious when experts seem to evade their question. Some try to work out the answer themselves (Lord Monckton for example) and complain that the experts dismiss their beautiful logic.
The engineers’ demand that the case for dangerous global warming be proved with a page or so of equations does sound reasonable, and it has a long history. The history reveals how the nature of the climate system inevitably betrays a lover of simple answers. . . link"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
FYI:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm
Basic Radiation CalculationsThe foundation of any calculation of the greenhouse effect was a description of how radiation and heat move through a slice of the atmosphere. At first this foundation was so shaky that nobody could trust the results. With the coming of digital computers and better data, scientists gradually worked through the intricate technical problems. A rough idea was available by the mid 1960s, and by the late 1970s, the calculations looked solid — for idealized cases. Much remained to be done to account for all the important real-world factors, especially the physics of clouds. (This genre of one-dimensional and two-dimensional models lay between the rudimentary, often qualitative models covered in the essay on Simple Models of Climate and the elaborate three-dimensional General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere.) Warning: this is the most technical of all the essays. K
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps
We often get requests to provide an easy-to-understand explanation for why increasing CO2 is a significant problem without relying on climate models and we are generally happy to oblige. The explanation has a number of separate steps which tend to sometimes get confused and so we will try to break it down carefully. . .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
34 comments:
Thanks for pointing out this assessment, now well over 4 years old. It reminds me that I started examining this issue over 6 years ago. I started out at the then-popular notion that added atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) would lead to extensive temperature rise for the planet. What I discovered demonstrated that the notion was wrong and the paper shows why that notion is wrong.
It said then what remains true now that “…[atmospheric] carbon dioxide change does NOT cause significant climate change.”
According to credible agencies (NOAA, UAH, GISS, RSS, Hadley Center) that report this stuff on the web, the CO2 level has continued to increase on a smooth trend while the average global temperature (agt) trend since 2001 (some say about 4 years earlier) has been flat.
Since that March, 2008 paper I have discovered what actually did cause the agt trajectory since 1895 (well, there is that 12% that the equation doesn’t explain, but EVERYTHING ELSE must find room in that 12%). The equation, detailed description of the method and links to the source data are all included in my later papers, all available on the web.
As to those papers by others that you list above, most, if not all, were funded by folks who were frightened into believing that there was a looming catastrophe (unfortunately for human prosperity, many, especially many politicians and people in the ‘main stream media’ still do) that needed to be researched. Surprise, surprise, all of their papers concluded that there was a looming catastrophe and that they would need more funding to research it.
I am unfunded.
As the CO2 level continues to go up and agt doesn’t, the lack of a catastrophe will become evident to more and more people. Apparently, the separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising agt will need to get much wider for the AGW mistake to become evident to you.
It is already evident to most scientists (and at least one engineer) whose technological knowledge extends beyond meteorology (and who are not corrupt, i. e. not motivated by funding) that have actually examined the issue.
Are you claiming because you are unfunded you are correct and everyone that's funded to do these observations and studies are liars or stupid? ...sure sounds that way
~ ~ ~
What average global temperature (agt) trend are you looking at?
Where are the warming oceans reflected in your thinking? Are you claiming there has been no warming in our oceans. What about the planet's cryosphere? Are you claiming it hasn't been melting or that the melting isn't significant? What about the increasing atmospheric moisture content that's tied to agt?
What you've discovered is that you can tinker with your own models to your own delight. Incidentally, it seems like you have pdf's scattered all over the place - have you collected your math and conjectures into a coherent whole?
I've run out of time again... but I'll be back.
Incidentally, you've inspired another post that looks at this nonsense about no global warming happening...
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-ipcc-got-it-wrong-further.html
No, I just mean that I am unfunded. All my stuff is on the web so anyone can check it. And no I don't think anyone is stupid but I do know now that a lot of them have made a mistake.
agt is defined in the legend on Figure 4 in the pdf made public 10/24/12 (and elsewhere).
My assessment (mostly based on the 110 meter effective depth number from NOAA) is that the thermal capacitance of the oceans is about 30 times everything else. That means that about 30 times as much heat goes into the oceans as goes in to everything else. The cryosphere is part of everything else.
Any influence that atmospheric moisture content has on agt has to find room in that unexplained 12%.
There is nothing to tinker with, no way to tinker. All of the pdfs are in chronological order at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true
Reply to Dan's above comment:
===========
¶2
Actually your 9/24/11 article has this:
"The equation posits that average global temperature (agt) can be calculated from (1) the timeintegral of sunspot numbers (a proxy that correlates with energy retained by the planet), (2) predefined effective sea surface temperature (ESST) and (3) the measured atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) level. The influence of CO2 can be zeroed out by setting the coefficient ‘d’ to zero."
~ ~ ~
At (1)"A proxy that correlates with energy "retained" by the planet" -
you are suggesting that sunspots impact the % of heat retained by Earth. How does that work physically?
I'm not asking if you can create/find some correlations... I'm curious if you can explain the physics behind how sunspots teleport heat retention capacity to our atmosphere?
===========
¶3
And there's the rub, you ignore the thermo sequestering rest of the ocean. Leaving one to question how many other fudge factors you've manipulated to create your story, er model.
New Comparison of Ocean Temperatures Reveals Rise Over the Last Century
Apr. 1, 2012 — A new study contrasting ocean temperature readings of the 1870s with temperatures of the modern seas reveals an upward trend of global ocean warming spanning at least 100 years.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120401135345.htm
Journal Reference:
Dean Roemmich, W. John Gould, John Gilson. 135 years of global ocean warming between the Challenger expedition and the Argo Programme. Nature Climate Change, 2012; DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1461
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dry Lands Getting Drier, Wet Getting Wetter: Earth's Water Cycle Intensifying With Atmospheric Warming
May 20, 2012 — A clear change in salinity has been detected in the world's oceans, signalling shifts and an acceleration in the global rainfall and evaporation cycle.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120521104631.htm
Journal Reference:
P. J. Durack, S. E. Wijffels, R. J. Matear. Ocean Salinities Reveal Strong Global Water Cycle Intensification During 1950 to 2000. Science, 2012; 336 (6080): 455 DOI: 10.1126/science.1212222
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Humans Are Primary Cause of Global Ocean Warming Over Past 50 Years, Research Shows
June 11, 2012 — The oceans have warmed in the past 50 years, but not by natural events alone.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120611153234.htm
Journal Reference:
P. J. Gleckler, B. D. Santer, C. M. Domingues, D. W. Pierce, T. P. Barnett, J. A. Church, K. E. Taylor, K. M. AchutaRao, T. P. Boyer, M. Ishii, P. M. Caldwell. Human-induced global ocean warming on multidecadal timescales. Nature Climate Change, 2012; DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1553
=========
¶4
Can you explain what you mean; what you think it signifies?
============
"... explain the physics behind how sunspots teleport heat retention capacity to our atmosphere" its explained on page 13 of the pdf made public 11/24/11.
"...how many other fudge factors" look at the equation. There are no fudge factors. The coefficients only serve to determine the fraction of the agt rise that is attributable to each of the three primary contributors.
"...upward trend of global ocean warming spanning at least 100 years" agt is overwhelmingly determined by average ocean temperature. This is consistent with the agt rise as measured and as calculated by my equation. But the agt trend has been flat for over a decade now.
"...change in salinity has been detected in the world's oceans, signalling shifts and an acceleration in the global rainfall and evaporation cycle" this is nonsense. Both evaporation and rain are salt free processes. Besides, it took over 4 billion years to get up to the 4% or so average salt content of the oceans. Any change in a century would be undetectable. It looks to me that they searched until they found the correlation that they were looking for and then made that finding public.
"Humans Are Primary Cause of Global Ocean Warming Over Past 50 Years, Research Shows" They are wrong. See my pdf made public 10/24/12
page 13 of the pdf made public 11/24/11:
The mechanism sequences appear to be:
Fewer sunspots; reduced solar magnetic shielding; increased galactic cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere; increased low-level clouds; lower average cloud altitude; higher average cloud temperature; increased cloud-to-space radiation; lower agt.
Fewer sunspots; reduced solar magnetic shielding; increased galactic cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere, increased low-level clouds, increased albedo, less energy absorbed by the planet, lower agt.
The opposite, more sunspots, results in higher agt.
Total Solar Irradiance, TSI, is complementary but a much smaller contributor.
Others have looked at just amplitude or just time factors for sunspots and got poor correlations with agt. The good correlation comes by combining the two, which is what the time-integral does. It appears that this has not been done previously.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dan you are talking correlation and not explaining any physics.
It's like your whole argument comes down to you finding some correlation, but that isn't causation!
Furthermore: your correlation doesn't hold up under real world scrutiny.
Worst you seem to think it's fair to over simplify.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Unfortunately, it takes a good faith effort to learn these things.
Water levels correlate with sunspots...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sunspots-and-water-levels.htm
~ ~ ~
What does Solar Cycle Length tell us about the sun's role in global warming?...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm
~ ~ ~
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
~ ~ ~
What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cloud-proves-cosmic-rays-causing-global-warming.htm
===========
¶2 That was a poor choice of words. Rather than "fudge factors" I should have pointed out that you approach all of this with a certain writer's license.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
¶3 Just saying so don't make it so.
Where have you incorporated the amount of heat being added to our oceans?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
¶4 So Dan, this sounds like full blown Dunning-Kruger... with a swat of your opinion - you've shown just how poorly you understand the complex dynamics at work in our global heat distribution engine. Sure you manipulated numbers to find a correlation you were searching. Yet, you show an arrogant disregard for the physical dynamics at work between oceans and atmosphere.
Research Expedition to Explore Ocean Salinity, Climate - Briefing Materials...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/salinity-trip-briefing.html
~ ~ ~
Global ocean salinity changing due to anthropogenic climate change
December 18, 2012...
http://phys.org/news/2012-12-global-ocean-salinity-due-anthropogenic.html
~ ~ ~
Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis 5.2.3 Ocean Salinity...
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-2-3.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
¶5 "They are wrong." you sound pretty sure, are you sure it's not your politics driving your thinking? How do you know they are wrong? When have you become acquainted with that science?
I would suggest that instead of willfully trying to ignore it, you'd think seeing such millennial scale changes happening in decades, ought to raise some alarm.
But, it sounds like you just want to swept it under the rug, as they say.
Come on, enough with sending people off goose chases. Try explaining your reasoning here.
"...you've shown just how poorly you understand the complex dynamics at work in our global heat distribution engine." If by this you mean how energy moves around the planet, aka weather, that is not the subject (but is indicative of some of the minutia that most Climate Scientists have gotten mired in) and is not particularly relevant to agt. The subject is agt and it is a simple problem in radiation heat transfer. That is something that I understand quite well.
The mechanism by which EMR is absorbed by the atmosphere (the crux of the AGW idea) is called thermalization. I searched the IPCC reports for this word and even the British spelling of it. It is not there. I describe how thermalization works in the pdf made public 8/11/10.
Another factor that most Climate Scientists appear to be oblivious to is glint. What EMR does when it encounters a water surface has been known since Freznel came up with his equations of reflection and refraction. Bottom line, open water in the far north will reflect most EMR so it can't heat the water. But its emissivity remains at over 99%.
The equation resulted from an application of the first law of thermodynamics (that's physical law stuff). The equation, when calibrated to measurements prior to 1965 and using actual sunspot number data has matched (within +/- 0.06 C degrees) the agt trend since then.
That is a match for 47 years. How much longer will it need to match before you concede that there is no such thing as significant AGW?
All of that salinity stuff is grasping at straws. Since the planet isn’t getting warmer, they (the Warmers) had to come up with something else. For a while there it was increasing ocean acidity but maybe the word spread (Woods Hole report http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726) that there is about 50 times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans as exists in the atmosphere.
Dan regarding your 12/22/12 comments to me.
I told you I won't allow repetitive comments...
Also considering that you consistently ignore my questions - why should I keep playing your game?
Your gimmick is pointing us to these great pdf's you've "published"
And I keep wondering - why won't you just clearly explain it?
For instance., you've ignored the critique of my pal.
Why not take that as a starting point... try explaining it, you know like a science teacher or something.
~ ~ ~
"It's the Sun, Stupid!" ~ further conversations with Dan Pangburn {#C}
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2012/12/its-sun-stupid-further-conversations.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Incidentally, as for your suggestion of "EMP Glint"... "Fresnel equations" and who know's what not... are you serious?
I did various searches; nothing interesting, another wild goose chase...?
Tell you what, explain it in a coherent fashion;
I'll post it.
=============================
see you at:
"It's the Sun, Stupid! ~ further conversations with Dan Pangburn {#C}"
"...your suggestion of "EMP Glint"... "Fresnel equations" " I don't know what EMP (Electromagnetic pulse) glint means either. I said EMR (Electromagnetic Radiation). The glint that you see is sunlight (EMR) reflecting from water. Wikipedia has a pretty good article on Fresnel.
This is going nowhere.
Try tracking the agt, I do. Just when do you expect the trend to start being significantly up again?
I see no point in making comments when you do not post them.
There's no point in posting repetitive comments!
You repeat yourself endlessly but other than your insistence that you are correct and everyone else is wrong you don't add anything of interest.
Oh well, guess I'm being over dramatic since you tossed out this new theory: 'EMR glint is perhaps the culprit' (sorry about the typo on that.).
Sounds a tad WOO to me, but go ahead explain it.
~ ~ ~
As for tracking agt - you are extremely selective in what you choose to track.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Here's what some actual experts have to say about that:
http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2012/09/01/american-meteorological-society-issues-updated-statement-on-climate-change/
Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level.
Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally.
Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records
Peter, I think it funny you label Dan a denialist. Are you a history denialist?
Nothing funny about it.
What Dan's written and claimed is contemptible contrarian nonsense. If you disagree, provide some details to consider.
As a matter of fact, considering I've had a keen interest in the topic of understanding our planet's climate system along with her evolution since about 1970, you could say I'm a historian of sorts of climate science denial and the tactics they employ.
Oh and yes, global warming is caused by humanity increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases. It really is that simple!
Even if Pangburn doesn't think so.
Can't any of you guys come up with another phrase other than "willfully ignore?" It seems that anyone who disagrees with man made climate change narrative then they "willfully ignore."
Well if you depend on lies and ignoring reams of valid evidence to make your case than willfully ignoring evidence is just what it is!
Another way I put it, Willful Ignorance
If you don't like the descriptive improve your game.
Now, if you have anything constructive to say or ask or take issue with about the facts I present, or the narrative I present,
then do so.
Stick to the issue at hand, not idiot distractions.
PS. Denial = willfully denying clear and present facts.
cheers
Show one claim that is contemptible contrarian nonsense and make your case.
After that, explain why it is you think rising co2 levels have raised global temps by whatever amount you think they have risen.
Why? Would you think about it with any seriousness?
For starters it not what "I think" ! But then, confusing the issue is what folks like you are all about.
Ain't it?
Seriously though, it's what I have learned from scientists and the evidence. (What do you know?)
While l may dismiss Voltaire's comment as a crazy-making clown shouting nonsense,
those who would like to seriously consider the question, I invite you to look at a couple summation i put together at my new blog:
CO2 Science - Blue team: "Pruitt, it's certain as certain gets! It's the physics. Don't you know?
https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/01/pruitt-agw-certain-as-certain-gets.html
CO2 Science - Pruitt, proof is in the pudding! Impossible Modern Marvels
https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/01/pruitt-proof-isin-modernmarvels.html
Voltaire, how about you? Why not point out something I wrote in this post that you take issue with.
Then explain why.
Let's see if you can do it.
Honestly! I long for some science contrarian that can hold up a serious discussion.
All I get is cheap shots and then youz people go back into hiding.
The Middlebury link no longer works but the article can still be seen at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350530743_Historical_Data_on_Global_Warming_provided_by_US_Government_Agencies
Average global water vapor has been increasing faster than possible from just average global temperature increase. This WV increase can fully explain all of the average global temperature increase attributable to humanity. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Hello Mr. Pangburn, so you've published a paper "Water vapor vs CO2 for planet warming 2021". It seems to fly in the face of simple physics, but what else do you have to do.
I'm going sit on your comment, it ain't worth shit, since an over view seems to reveal more fraud than science. But, I will do a little homework and try find some authoritative information to see if my first guesses as to your game are correct.
Mind you I've been paying attention for over a half century, your self-serving science my rhetoric and trickery, doesn't account for what we're witnessing across the global. On the other hand, simple sober climate science as taught by the experts does explain it all too well. It also explains why the horrors are just beginning.
Dan Pangburn you villain, may you rot within your miserable fraud against humanity and this biosphere that served humanity, so well, for so long, but that's being destroyed before our eyes. thanks to the efforts of sociopaths like you. ...........
Citizen challenge: I have read with interest your decade long debate with Dan. You seem to have gone off the deepened somewhere along the way and lost all objectivity. You are coming across as someone who glues their hands to pavements rather than someone who understands the science.
But, you can't offer any specifics. Am I supposed to impressed?
Dan Pangburn, regarding your message of April 27, 2022
That is such a deceptive piece of misinformation and deliberate deception that I'm not posting it as a comment.
Perhaps, I'll build an education post dissecting your wordsmithing, but right now, I'm rather busy with spring chores and such, so we'll see.
The Water Cycle and Climate Change - UCAR
http://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/climate-change-impacts/water-cycle-climate-change”
A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture—about 7 percent more per 1.8°F (1°C) of warming
http://www.climatesignals.org/climate-signals/atmospheric-moisture-increase”
It's simple geophysics, the fact that there are other sources of moisture, doesn't detract from that fundamental reality.
All you are capable of is deceiving through misdirection - in order to argue over chump change - that you want to pretend is majorly important.
You're a disgusting fraudster, intellectual criminal and traitor to our children.
Responding to Simonsays June 21, 2022. (COMMENT REJECTED, ON GROUNDS OF EMPTY NAME CALLING)
Don't talk to me about "unhinged", if you can't come up with a serious issue to critique.
Complain about what I've written, cause your empty opinion and name-calling doesn't mean squat and I won't humor it with being your billboard.
FYI
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/state-of-global-climate-observing-system-2021
I don't remember what I wrote, but the reference was probably to the last line your wrote to Dan Pangburn. Your blog is interesting in that you actually try and engage and refute other opinions on AGW. It is the blog debate where the most can be learnt as the areas of actual contention get discussed.
Gavin Schmidt recently updates his 6steps.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/07/the-cos2-problem-in-six-easy-steps-2022-update/
This all faintly straight forward, but a typical contranian position posted was http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12
For me this is the root of the debate, the standard AGW science has had the same estimates for decades for warming ECS etc, but the contrarian view question the basic estimates and conclude in general its all overblown. They then point to the obervational data, UAH, USCRN, etc don't support the alarmists theories.
Question is if the science is so settled why these massive discrspecies in the basic science? Is one right, One wrong, are both right or is this really a case of we just don't know but the debate has become acromis nobody will back down.
"They then point to the obervational data, UAH, USCRN, etc don't support the alarmists theories. "
Seriously, you write as though you know nothing of current events in our world. This is July 2022,
look up major heat waves, major wildfires, across the world and as far north as Alaska and Siberia, England, Europe, Asia, Africa.
How is it possible none of that is impacting your "skeptical" view?
Also I tried high and low to get more information on this paper by David Coe et. al, (www.ijaos.org...) - turns out to be quite the rabbit hole, with no mention in serious climate science sources, and rampant on the typical contrarian snow job sites, such as the one time climate scientist Judith Curry.
MA Rodger at 23:19 PM on 13 September, 2021 responds to Eclectic @625,
_____
But the proof of the pudding and all that....
Whatever tha nature of a piece of work's origin, it is its usefulness to the science that is the proper measure of it. A look at google scholar for Wijngaarden & Happer (unpublished) 'Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases' shows today just four citations, which is pretty rubbish. And one of those is a reference from a further Wijngaarden & Happer paper posted @arXvi which is but an updated version of the same while accounting for two more GHGs, CF4 & SF6. Of the remaining three, one explicitly styles itself a working paper. (I note its reference list is stuffed full of denialist nonsense: Koonin & Jon-boy Christy, Lewis & Dicky Lindzen, McIntyre & McKitrick & Monckton, Svensmark & Woy Spencer.) The final two citations do initially appear to be by published work. But in tracking down both ♣Pascal Richet (2021): 'Climate and the temperature-CO2 relationship An epistemological re-examination of the ice core message', History of Geo- and Space Sciences, Vol 12, pp97-110.
and ♣David Coe; Fabinski, Walter & Weigleb, Gerhard (2021): 'The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other "Greenhouse Gases" on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures' Int J. Atmos. & Oceanic Sci.,Vol 5, Issue 2, pp29-40. I see either a blank space in the pp97-110 page-numbering or the pages pp29-41 taken by another paper.
So it appears that the final two citations have failed to gain publication; not so uncommon with denialist works which both these final two citing paper evidently are. (An on-line French version of the first of these two simply presents a common climate myth while a posting of the second's Abstract still visible on a denialist website shows its finding is an ECS=+0.5ºC.)
....turns out to be a large bowl of rather-sticky humble pie.
( https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?t=c&Search=97% )
_____
It's a garbage paper, don't believe every headline you read.
Simonsays, may I suggest brush up on your Critical Thinking Skills.
https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2021/02/critical-thinking-skills-student.html
Simonsays, you're a malicious deliberate idiot - your comment about Antarctica supposedly being colder than ever, or whatever, was only possible because you have never actually looked at the evidence, nor learned about the dynamics down there.
Time is past for humoring your fraudulent dishonest butt. Take your lies and shove them where the sun don't shine.
Don't take my word for it:
https://www.colorado.edu/today/2022/06/13/report-antarctic-changing-dramatically-global-consequences
https://www.hurtigruten.com/en-us/expeditions/stories/changing-climate-in-antarctica/
https://www.eumetsat.int/state-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-2021
Oh Yeah. Simonsays, your comment rejected !
Simonsays, your 2nd comment is also rejected for more shear stupidity and malicious lies, plus slander!
You've obviously never actually studied the dynamic of warming in the Antarctic.
You don't even grasp the difference between isolated weather events and global weather patterns.
I imagine if I say: "global heat and moisture distribution machine" you won't have a clue what I'm actually referring to.
Do some objective homework.
Your cynicism towards the importance of climate and weather to our lives and economy indicate an utter ignorance on that topic.
You can call names all you want but you can't come up with specific errors.
Then you have the nerve to treat Dr. Mann's 1998 graph as though it were a fraud. NO IT IS NOT ! You malicious know-nothing!
All you got is slander, not one shred of grown up evidence or information or serious - except for Dennis Harper's geo-physics insanity.
Get outside of your bubble before calling others names.
Simonsays-whatever the Republican propaganda machine tells him to say. comment with something I can take seriously enough to share.
Let's Debate William Happer's CO2 Delusion
https://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2020/01/debate-wil-happer-co2-delusion.html
The Happer files - What a Kangaroo Judge looks like.
https://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2019/04/william-happer-climate-files.html
Detailing William Happer’s Fraud Against Humanity
https://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2020/01/william-happers-fraud-against-humanity.html
Judge rules: Drs. Spencer, Lindzen, Happer are not credible expert witnesses!
https://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/spencer-lindzen-happer-not-credible.html
Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/02/peabody-coals-contrarian-scientist-witnesses-lose-their-court-case
7 Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense
Evidence for human interference with Earth’s climate continues to accumulate
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/7-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Contrarians.html
You damned right Simonsays, words as maliciously and deliberately stupid as your's are - I don't have the time for anymore!!!
You are an ignorant so-and-so who lets others do their thinking for you.
You have obviously never ever seriously looked into climate science or what's happening within our climate system and how humans are driving those changes.
If you had an intelligent challenge or question I'd love to post it and dissect your questions and offer you some education -
but your words have been too pointless to do anything with.
You're a troll, go away. >>> Or get an education and try again.
"Simonsays" tell me William Happer is one of his science hero.
Attacking climate science for hire is who William Happer is:
In Happer’s case, the physicist declined any personal remuneration for his work but wanted his fee donated to the CO2 Coalition. Happer wrote in an email that his fee was $250 an hour and that it would require four days of work – a total of $8,000. “Depending on how extensive a document you have in mind, the time required or cost could be more or less, but I hope this gives you some idea of what I would expect if we were to proceed on some mutually agreeable course,” he wrote.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science
https://skepticalscience.com/William_Happer_arg.htm
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/search?q=Happer
https://climatesafety.info/the-bad-news/climate-change-denial/
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2020/01/william-happers-fraud-against-humanity.html
In line with W.Happen the one time physicists, pretending to know Climate Science, but in reality turned science fraudster extraordinaire for fame and fortune,
Next I could well imagine "Simonsays" writing me that, 'Donny trump was the most honest & greatest American President, since, since, well since Jesus, by gum.'
Wouldn't surprise me one bit.
https://www.jeffreybennett.com/debating-climate-science-uncovering-the-truth-behind-william-happer-and-the-more-co2-is-better-claim/
"... This brings us to the question of how Happer and Idso can support such an extreme belief, and their argument basically boils down this: They claim that higher carbon dioxide concentrations will enhance plant growth and therefore enhance agriculture and allow us to grow more food for a growing global population. ..."
"It’s also worth a brief note about the “NIPCC” itself. First and most obviously, the name seems clearly chosen to sow confusion between it and the IPCC, the international organization charged with summarizing the state of climate science. But the two groups could hardly be more different.
The IPCC involves thousands of people, including hundreds of active researchers in climate science, all working in a completely open and transparent way. In contrast, the NIPCC keeps many of its major funding sources hidden, and the NIPCC author list shows only a little more than 100 contributors in total. Moreover, I took a bit of time to look up the backgrounds of those contributors, and here’s what I found:
Only 37 of the NIPCC contributors have any kind of scientific credential at all.
Only 15 of these have ever engaged in anything that might conceivably be considered original research related to climate.
11 of those 15 are retired.
And in searching the publication lists of the remaining 4 (which include Mr. Idso), I could find no evidence of any publications representing original climate research in at least the past decade, though they have written numerous articles claiming that everyone else is wrong.
In other words, the NIPCC is nothing more than a small group of people who do no actual science for themselves, but love to criticize those who do.. ..."
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/a-tale-of-two-hockey-sticks/
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/earth-day-and-the-hockey-stick-a-singular-message/
Siimonsays write: "You keep playing the man rather than the ball without any evidence to back up your ramblings."
Nonsense, you're the one playing the idiot and ignoring the well known and easily understood physical evidence.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-climate-change/fact-check-hockey-stick-graph-of-rising-global-temperatures-is-accurate-depiction-of-climate-change-idUSL1N2S112H
https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/iconic-graph-center-climate-debate/
History of atmospheric CO2, from 800,000 years ago until January 2021.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr84tEbCQSg
For more information on the CO2 measurements, visit https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/weather-climate
https://www.edf.org/climate/climate-change-and-extreme-weather
But you got some right wing nut who couldn't careless about the future - and you who's too stupid to honestly look into any of that information I've shared links to.
Sorry no more patient for malicious willful idiots and trolls.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world/
Post a Comment