Diagnosing the Climate Over at the Wall Street Journal

|

Not hardly.

The latest salvo in the debate between climate change "alarmists"* and "deniers"* over at the Wall Street Journal has been fired. It all began with a January 27 op/ed, "No Need to Panic About Climate Change," by 16 distinguished researchers who are skeptical that humanity faces an planetary emergency. In that op/ed they stated: 

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

Not surprisingly, the proponents of the one true climate science were annoyed and responded on February 1 with a long letter headlined, Check with Climate Scientists for Views on Climate Science. The 38 perturbed alarmists argued that the researchers who wrote the initial op/ed were unqualified to comment on climate science, likening it to the situation of consulting a dentist about cardiology. Contradicting the claim that global temperatures had stalled, the letter noted: 

Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming.

Thus, climate experts also know what one of us, Kevin Trenberth, actually meant by the out-of-context, misrepresented quote used in the op-ed. Mr. Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems to fully monitor warming trends in the deep ocean and other aspects of the short-term variations that always occur, together with the long-term human-induced warming trend.

In any case, I noted in my blogpost on the controversy, Climate Scientists Violate Their Own Advice, that the "real" climate scientists were themselves not above practicing a bit economic cardiology when it comes to recommending policies for addressing climate change. The 38 climate scientists stated:

It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses. In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.

I noted that none of the 38 signatories seemed to have any explicit expertise with regard to economics or public policy. 

Now, the original 16 skeptical researchers have replied to the reply with a letter headlined, Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming. They carry on with the diagnostic metaphor: 

We agree with Mr. Trenberth et al. that expertise is important in medical care, as it is in any matter of importance to humans or our environment. Consider then that by eliminating fossil fuels, the recipient of medical care (all of us) is being asked to submit to what amounts to an economic heart transplant. According to most patient bills of rights, the patient has a strong say in the treatment decision. Natural questions from the patient are whether a heart transplant is really needed, and how successful the diagnostic team has been in the past.

The letter goes on make it clear that the "concerned scientists" are unimpressed with the would-be climate clinicians diagnostic record: 

In this respect, an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is "falsified" and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.

Climate Model Trends versus Actual Temperature Trend

These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.

From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.

The Trenberth letter tells us that "computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean." The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of "missing heat" hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?

Given this dubious track record of prediction, it is entirely reasonable to ask for a second opinion. We have offered ours.

Much of the rest of the letter from the 16 "concerned scientists" is devoted to their description of what they regard as the political chicanery that has engulfed both climate science and public policy discussions of how to address climate change. It's well worth reading. 

For more background on the debate over actual global temperature trends see my January 13 post, Skeptic Wins Global Warming Bet.

*What each side calls the other

NEXT: Maybe He Just Likes Chatting With Cops

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is it getting warm in here?

  2. Also – “‘zit HOT enough for ya??!!”

  3. john|2.22.12 @ 12:29PM|#
    We will find out rather. But libel certainly does. And I am going to sue whoever is doing this. Again, if it is you, you need to stop. I doubt you have any assets. But that is okay. I wouldn’t do it for money…And constantly posting after someone with libelous material, would count as cyber stalking in most jurisdictions. Again, if it is not you, you have nothing to worry about.-..I have idea who you are and I really don’t care. And if you are not the one doing it or if it stops, I will never care. But understand if you are doing it and it does continue, I will find out who you are and it will stop. It is really that simple.
    John|2.24.12 @ 9:04AM|#I Don’t do it LH. The pictures she puts up will scar you for life. If you do read it, you can see where the white indian crap comes from and how there is no doubt she is white indian.

  4. It’s not so much the heat as it is the humidity….

    1. Unfortunately, the humility is missing.

    2. It’s not the heat, it’s the stupidity.

      1. But only New Orleans has the humility to admit it.

  5. The alarmists neatly dodge the fact that the rate of change for the past 10 or so years is pretty much zero, with their formulation that “the last decade is teh hawtest evar!”

    The denialists, of course, focus on the rate of change flattening rather than the 10 year average.

    To the extent you care, the denialists have the better of the alarmists on the failed predictive power of the models.

    1. Your point about the “hottest decade on record!” claptrap is so obvious that it begs the question: The alarmists are certainly aware that their argument is empty, yet they still make it. What does that say about their intellectual honesty? Obviously worthless. They’re not scientists, they’re political propagandists. And once that’s established, what weight does their “consensus” carry?

  6. Like David Jo (as Buster Poindexter) says, it’s gettin’ HOT, HOT, HOT!

  7. It’s so hot you could fry an egg on the sidewalk!

  8. I’m not sayin’ it’s hot, but I just saw two Eskimos up on the corner sellin’ Popsicles!

    1. HiiiYo!

  9. this whole argument is teh stupid considering 6 iceages & 6 melts prove climate change.

    1. The next Ice Age will kill millions. It’s better to be a degree warmer than mile-high glaciers on your crib.

      I’d rather have global warming than an Ice Age. Global warming is the naked Jessica Alba to Ice Age’s naked Patton Oswalt.

    2. Climate change is stipulated, as you note. The questions are

      1) do man’s actions contribute to it
      2) if so, how much
      3) whether or not it does, “can we do anything about it”
      4) and what, if anything, “should we do about it”

      Most important – “does my fucking air conditioning still work, cause I hate the hunidity more than the heat”.

    3. It doesn’t prove anthropogenic climate change, which is the real issue, orrin.

      1. AGW remains unproven, subject to continued research, until the effects of geologic climate change can be seperated-out.

      2. Well, it doesn’t prove the scale of it. I mean, a butterfly flapping its wings causes climate change.

    4. What used to be stupid was Mr. Bailey’s alarmist rhetoric. None of what has been said to refute the AGW proponents is nothing new. The data has been available for years but has been ignored by the media, including Reason. That said, I am glad that Mr. Bailey is finally backing away from the alarmist sentiment. Better late than never at all.

  10. I’ll be here all week! Whether you like it or not! HAHA!

    1. Folks, give it up for Almanian! Let’s hear it!

  11. TEAM HOT and TEAM NOT are, I think, becoming more annoying than the Israel/Palestine schmucks. I think we need some TEAM names for them too, but I’m blanking. You know, something like TEAM ZION and TEAM INTIFADA, but better, because that sucks.

    1. Team Falafel and Team Hummus?

      This idea that there’s no legitimate debate about climate–over the science and even more so over the policy–is one of the dumbest memes out there.

      1. Jinx! Sort Of!

      2. Wouldn’t it be TEAM FELAFEL and TEAM MATZOH? Maybe get TEAM GEFILTE in there.

        1. There’s Team First and Team Third.

          1. TEAM CUT and TEAM INTACT?

            TEAM FOR-SKIN and TEAM NOT FOR-SKIN

            1. That would be funny if it were true. But it’s not.

        2. You are just food obsessed right now. I think some needs to go to lunch.

          1. I think you’re right.

        3. Team Lutefisk has entered the ring.

    2. TEAM HEBE and TEAM HAMAS?

      TEAM KOSHER and TEAM HALLAL?

      TEAM CHRISTKILLER and TEAM 911?

      1. TEAM KOSHER and TEAM HALAL are good, but they kind of include all Jews and all Muslims, which isn’t fair.

        1. They all look alike…

        2. The whole point of TEAMS is that everybody is on one or the other.

          Howsabout TEAM PROFIT v. TEAM PROPHET?

          1. +1 But, you can only write about them.

          2. That’s pretty damn good.

        3. TEAM GOLD and TEAM EXPLODE?

      2. TEAM YARMULKA and TEAM BURKA?

        1. Should be TEAM YARMUKE and TEAM TAQIYAH.

      3. TEAM [that choking blachhhne sound you have to make for all those Yiddish wordss] and TEAM [that “AYIYIYIYIYIYIY!” yell that the putz Jeff Durham does for Achmed the Terrorist puppet]

      4. TEAM BEGIN and TEAM ARAFAT? (old skool)

    3. Team Deagol and Team Smeagol.

    4. “I think we need names to label you”. What utter bs.

      This is science. However annoying to your pretty head you have an opinion, which of your self-defined teams do you belong to?

  12. Heartland Institute has released the e-mails between a staffer and Peter Gleick impersonating a Heartland Institute board member. In case you had any doubts, this shows pretty conclusively that Gleick is a deceitful, lying piece of shit. Remember, this guy is now a hero to many in the pro-AGW community.

    1. And, I guess it’s not surprising, NYT is blaming Heartland’s security measures!
      Yep, that guy Gleick is a real hero for pointing out that con-men can succeed!
      http://green.blogs.nytimes.com…..ail-trail/
      On the positive side, the Pacific Institute is ‘investigating’ the matter, but somehow, I suspect he’ll get a wrist-slap:
      http://www.pacinst.org/press_c…..tland.html

    2. A guy who believed so zealously in his preconceived notions that, upon failing to find the damning evidence he sought, he simply manufactured it? Someone like that is a hero to the climate “science” community? Color me shocked.

  13. If reality isn’t conforming to these highly sophisticated computer models, it is clearly the fault of reality.

    1. Isxn’t reality whatever the experts say it is? Thew climate scientists should hold a vote on what is reality, and if a consensus forms, then we can just change that jagged line to match up perfectly with one of the IPCC predictions.

      1. That’s a good idea, Cake, but it suffers from the same drawback as any democratic vote: the losers. All the do is whine about losing. Wah wah wah, these Jim Crow lows oppress me, this war is unjust and unaffordable, the science doesn’t back up your alarming claims, etc. They don’t seem to understand that being in the minority makes them wrong.

        That’s why we need to have some consequences for being on the losing side of history. If you lose, shut up about it. If you whine about losing, you go to an isolated facility for a little reeducation. If you whine about that, you’re put to death.

        I call it Democracy+

        1. Democracy+. I like it.

          Here’s an internetz.

      2. Hey that’s how stimulus models work!

  14. Can you imagine how much worse a shape our economy would be in right now if we had adopted the Euro-style Cap-n-Trade system, thus further penalizing oil and gas companies which would raise prices even higher?

    Thank god this issue is no longer one that threatens to completely erase any progress we’ve made since the recession.

    1. Progress? Since the recession?

      Median household income is down since the recession “ended”.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10…..lling.html

      The labor force participation rate is way down.

      http://ycharts.com/indicators/…..ation_rate

      1. “Progress” is a relative term, in this context.

        As bad as it is as you rightly demonstrate, it could always -ALWAYS- be worse. And the thought of a market-disrupting cap-n-trade program just gives me chills. Fortunately, it hasn’t happened.

        Yet.

      2. Labor force, schmabor force, I am one of the greatest job creators in world history: just look at how much the official unemployment rate has gone down in the last couple of months. Furthermore, I have cut the deficit in half, drilled for more oil than anyone in history, and there is no inflation. And if you’re concerned about these rising gas prices lately, blame it all on the Kochsuckers.

        Now, please buy one of my exploding cars and help to further stimulate our economy like a good patriotic American.

      3. And don’t forget RC. Commodity prices are rising even though demand is falling. Put your gold bug hat on and consider the implications of that.

    2. Well, if you didn’t like cap ‘n trade: I know you will love this one from our brain dead ‘representatives’: http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..s_opinions

    3. Well, if you didn’t like cap ‘n trade: I know you will love this one from our brain dead ‘representatives’: http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..s_opinions

    4. Well, if you didn’t like cap ‘n trade: I know you will love this one from our brain dead ‘representatives’: http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..s_opinions

      1. Was really about securing another revenue stream all along? Color me shocked!

  15. I’m beginning to suspect the climate itself isn’t even real.

    1. You’ll change your tune real fast when the ice caps melt and flood the world. It’s going to get so hot you won’t be able to wear clothes.

  16. Team Real Pizza vs Team Deep Dish

  17. The lack of warming for more than a decade?indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections?suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.

    DENIER!!!!!

  18. From the graph 1995’s prediction was not all that bad.

    Odd that they chose a higher rate of warming in 2001 and 2007.

    1. I should point out that Mann’s “hide the decline” proxy graph came out in 1998…which marked his rise in prominence.

      I think it is safe to say that between 1995 and 2001 is when the lunatics took over the asylum.

  19. Ron, that graph contains some of the most stunningly dishonest data splices since the hockey stick came unstuck from the ice.

    Who actually drew it ?

    And Why ?

    Some preliminary fisking at :

    http://www.realclimate.org/ind…..more-11066

    A less dishonhestsort of data splice

    1. that graph contains some of the most stunningly dishonest data splices since the hockey stick came unstuck from the ice.

      You do realize that a zero degree change can fit in the error bars provided by realclimate’s graph?

      http://www.realclimate.org/images/model11.jpg

      Which is good cuz global temperatures in January 1980 are the same as January temperature in 2012….

      32 years and we have the same climate today….so much for the coming global calamity.

      me thinks you are the one being dishonest and the models have the predictive power of rolling chicken bones.

      1. You do realize that a zero degree change can fit in the error bars …

        It does…why would the TEAM NOT team not just use the model predictions with the error bars to make their point then? For someone who goes on about the “hide the decline” meme, this graph should set all of your alarm bells ringing.

        Which is good cuz global temperatures in January 1980 are the same as January temperature in 2012….

        Nice cherry picking.

        32 years and we have the same climate today….so much for the coming global calamity.

        All the energy you put into this and you don’t see the difference between weather and climate…STILL?

        me thinks you are the one being dishonest and the models have the predictive power of rolling chicken bones.

        How is he being dishonest by pointing out the poor use of data in the WSJ piece?

  20. It only took an editorial Harumph from Nature to get Mann to fix the stick with a correction in their pages.

    Instead of following that worthy example , the WSJ has doubled down .

    1. I don’t recall Mann correcting this:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

  21. Both TEAMS are annoying (those that are all about the political debate), but on this one the TEAM NOT salvo is laughably bad.

    For fun, the preemptive strike from TEAM HOT.

    Notice the use of error bars…and, oh, the actual model predictions.

    http://www.realclimate.org/ind…..mparisons/

    1. I like how realclimate used only AR4 that came out in 2007….where are AR1, AR2 and AR3 in that graph?

      In other words everything before 2007 is hindcast predictions. They predicted the past accurately….(at this point i would like to predict that Germany will invade Poland in 1939 with error bars covering 1910 to 1960)

      and only 5 years is actual prediction….and considering that the last 5 years has seen little to no warming and their error bars accommodate it one wonders if they are in fact predicting anything.

      And if you look at the forecast error graph you can have net negative temperature change and it still fits in the error bars.

      So to sum up; by omission they admit AR1, AR2 and AR3 did not forecast anything correctly and their new 2007 AR4 error bars predicted warming, cooling and no net change, but at least they seem to have predicted the past pretty well..

      TEAM HOT fail.

      1. They also look at Hanson’s 1988 prediction later in the post.

        1. scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.

          http://www.realclimate.org/images/hansen11.jpg

          Current temperatures best track scenario C, in fact they are a little below it, yet CO2 emissions were not curtailed and “net climate forcing”, at least as TEAM HOT and the IPCC defines them did not cease.

          So we are living with the temperature of a world where CO2 has stopped being emitted…despite the fact that it continues to be emitted.

          Why again is what the Wall Street Journal published such an outrageous lie?

          1. Why again is what the Wall Street Journal published such an outrageous lie?

            Again, I will just point you to the graph they use to support their claim.

            1. Lets see the facts.

              AR1, 2 and 3 are wrong as well as Hanson 1988. All three over estimate the warming.

              AR4 cannot be judged as it has only been out for 5 years…but it has a similar trend as 1-3.

              What does the graph show me?

              Those exact facts, sans Hanson, listed above.

              There is nothing wrong with the graph…you just don’t like what it is telling people.

        2. Neu Mejican|2.24.12 @ 7:35PM|#
          “They also look at Hanson’s 1988 prediction later in the post.”

          This would be the Hansen whose interviewer now ‘remembers’ it was a 40-year prediction instead of a 20-year prediction?
          Strange how memory works. Or not so strange.
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/200…..es-hansen/

      2. So to sum up; by omission they admit AR1, AR2 and AR3 did not forecast anything correctly

        That’s a bit of a leap.

        and their new 2007 AR4 error bars predicted warming, cooling and no net change, but at least they seem to have predicted the past pretty well..

        I am not sure what you are complaining about here. All of this is openly labeled and discussed by them. You act like this is some sort of revelation coming from you, rather than part of what they openly present. It is really odd behavior.

        1. It is really odd behavior.

          bah.

          If you will note i said above that 1995 ippc prediction was not that bad

          Joshua Corning|2.24.12 @ 5:04PM|#

          From the graph 1995’s prediction was not all that bad.

          If i can deduce that from the WSJ graph then i fail to see how it is “OMG LIES AND MISSDIRECTION”

          It was a line graph so they used lines….The realclimate graph uses smoothed lines for temperature yet error bars for predictions. Why not use both for both? If anything using only lines is less dishonest then using error bars for prediction and smoothed lines for real data.

          Furthermore why isn’t realcliamte talking about AR1, AR2 and AR3?

          The WSJ graph can hardly be called dishonest for the AR4 as the line is reasonable….it is the others that are being falsified by the graph. Why isn’t real climate commenting on those? are they falsified or are they not?

          1. If i can deduce that from the WSJ graph then i fail to see how it is “OMG LIES AND MISSDIRECTION”

            You can infer a lot of things from the WSJ, just not the thing they claim it shows.

            1. From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth’s temperature to CO2

              The graphs do show that.

              1. The graphs do show that.

                The graph doesn’t show the projections.
                It’s really that simple.

  22. since 2000 the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by 11%…

    Since 2000 the amount global temperatures has risen is zero.

    From 1800 to 1900 the amount CO2 has increases is zero.

    From 1800 to 1900 the amount temperatures has risen is 1 degree.

    Why is there even a debate?

    1. Corning :
      “since 2000 the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by 11%…”

      Wrong

      Since 2000 the amount global temperatures has risen is zero.

      Wrong

      From 1800 to 1900 the amount CO2 has increases is zero.

      Wrong

      From 1800 to 1900 the amount temperatures has risen is 1 degree.

      Wrong

      Why is there even a debate?

      At 0 for 4, you have answered your own question .

      1. so how much has CO2 increased since 2000?

        So how much has temperatures risen since 2000?

        So how much did temperatures rise from 1800 to 1900?

        So ho much did co2 rise from 1800 to 1900?

        Surly if you know I am wrong you can provide us with the what is right.

          1. The estimated increase in c02 emissions from 1800 to 1900 is from 8 million metric tons to 534 million metric tons…

            Not exactly the number you are claiming was zero, but it seems unlikely that the system processed that large of an increase to end up with zero change.

            1. Just reading this here and thinking…there’s no way eight million metric tons was what people were carbon dumping in, say, 1799.

              Everybody and there dog lit a wood fire every night back then. When I go camping, even a small fire burns up ten, fifteen pounds of wood easy.

              Figure hundred million fires at ten pounds of wood in diurnal period (what, five hundred million people alive back then? One fire per five per 24 hours) = BILLION POUNDS of wood going up in smoke. Once bounded to oxygen, that’s like…oh, I’d say couple billion pounds of CO2 once you burn off the volatiles. Hmmm…that equals right about a MILLION TONS a day from peeps cooking food and staying warm.

              That eight million metric tons per year is a fucking joke, right? Or am I just supposed to take that hook-line-sinker because a Scientist cooked it up?

              1. ZG,

                “Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, ***
                *** Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2008”

                1. We should count carbon. That’s the subject at hand. That eight to five-thirty-four is tiny piece of a huge busy machine plucked to look impressive as a stat.

                  1. ZG,

                    For the purposes of the blog discussion, this seemed an easy place to start. JC’s claim was “zero increase” from 1800 to 1900. One input source showed an increase from 8 to 534. More humans and more fires, also would suggest additional increase. If JC wants to back up his claim of zero increase, he’ll need to give some explanation for how these increased inputs into the system didn’t result in any increase in the overall carbon in the atmosphere. Could be true, but those numbers were not picked to be “impressive as a stat” but as a place to begin the discussion. I posted the links before looking at the numbers.

            2. “it seems unlikely that the system processed that large of an increase to end up with zero change.”
              Neu, ignoring the facts at issue, you’re flagged for begging the question.
              15 yards, loss of down.

            3. It seems unlikely that the system processed that large of an increase to end up with zero change.

              when the ocean today is exchanging 88 billion with a “b” out and 90 billion in and soils and trees and shit are exchanging in the 100+ billion somehow I think it is very likely.

              Hell the atmosphere alone has 730 billion metric tons.

              Even if the atmosphere took it all and it got 534 million tons every year for 100 years….that is only a 7% increase. Far less then the 11% we got in the past 12 years.

              Where the hell is the warming???

              And where the hell did the 1800 to 1900 warming come from?

              1. So, Joshua,
                Where are your numbers coming from then?

                Human inputs during the period you posit saw no change increased 67 times. You presented your citation free facts as if they meant something (“Why is there even a debate?” remember).

                But, of course, the human inputs during the period you cite were increasing rabidly. (and that, as ZG points out above) ignores other human sources that are harder to estimate.

                You are always questioning the motives of those that claim the science says something you disagree with…what is your motive in pulling fake numbers out of your ass as if they were some sort of trump card on the issue?

                1. Human inputs during the period you posit saw no change increased 67 times.

                  I can pour a bucket of water into the ocean…then i can an pour 67 buckets into the ocean. Won’t make a damn bit of difference.

                  Anyway I used one of the those carbon cycle drawings that had numbers on them. Feel free to look up your own numbers for the carbon cycle…they are all in the range of numbers i used.

                  I will also point out you did not cite your numbers either.

                  1. I provide a link to the raw data for the numbers I cite Joshua. Right before pulling some numbers into the discussion.

                    And the numbers you leave unsourced are the ones in your initial claim…https://reason.com/blog/2012/02/24/diagnosing-the-climate-over-at-the-wall#comment_2865558

                    You claim carbon increases of zero from 1800 to 1900. I provided you with some estimates of the increased human inputs during that time frame (67 times greater in 1900 than 1800).

                    What is your source for the original claim that this number is actually zero?

                    You presented it as the trump card in the debate on this topic. Did it come to you in a dream?

                  2. Just for fun, since you like fair comparisons. You use buckets of water in the ocean as an analogy for metric tons of carbon in the atmosphere.

                    The ocean has 36,614,237,300,000,000,000,000 buckets of water in it – that’s 1.35 x 10 to the 18th metric tons of water.

          2. Seriously? The ‘Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center’ is ‘hosted’ out of a bomb lab? Wow, porky-pork-pork-pork.

            Between the underlying physics code for heat transport and other effects, gaggles of old white guys with beards who can’t get laid (Dr. ‘Grapenuts’ Gleik is out of central casting), and dining on my tax money there are strange confluences between the Carbon Clowns and Mad Bombers.

            One crowd thinks the world is warming up, the other crowd desperately wants to help it along. So different, yet so much the same.Bizarre.

  23. The zeitgeist has been known to blow up as well as down and sideways-

    CO2 from the cardox reaction
    ( liquid oxygen plus charcoal = boom!)
    is a big time mining and quarrying explosive.

    1. What are you getting at with the chem-trivia?

  24. Explosives are what bomb labs do, along with the atmospheric science of the clouds they raise

    1. Yeah, and I’d bet all those guys drink coffee, too!
      WIH are you ‘hinting’ at?

    2. Oak Ridge does radiobomb stuff.

      If you dig into GCM models – into documentation and code – you find them derived from experiments and measurements (written in Fortran…holy shit) for 60’s H-bomb-effects sims. Re-compiled in the 80’s for RISC-y Crays. Then re-compiled again to run on mad Intel x86 stacks. There’s probably ARM version floating around to run on my iPhone. Hey Carbon Clowns, there’s an app for that coming soon!

      The code the Clowns use is derived from punchcard-programs McNamaras of long ago used figuring how-many-megatons to wipe out a village in Tajikistan SSR way-bak-when. How far away a kid had to stand from the flash not to spontaneously combust. If the Clowns were serious with their version of Windows Vista, they’d at least double-check the physics. Roasting kids with 300,000k miles-wide fireball versus driving my truck demand at least a little adjustment, yes?

      1. My Dad wrote a lot of that bomb code. He’s looked at the way they are using it in climate science and doesn’t find it inappropriate.

        A lame ass appeal to authority fur sure…but I don’t see that you have shown why the way they have developed the models is invalid with the way you’ve presented the argument here. In fact, unlike your typical posts on the issue, you’ve gone into hyperbole and personal attacks. Punch cards? So?

        1. The cost of a Clown Confab in Cancun or Durban alone is more than enough to do something useful like calibrate both ground and satellite network. An integrated collective sensor seeing same places two different ways.

          And use that heat-transport calibrated code in the big pretty video game. Instead of numbers derived using much different instruments looking at million-degree fireball several thousand yards away. Derived from algorithms built in a dead digital language. Fortran to C is like speaking Latin in China.

  25. “Climate science” is one of the new postmodern sciences, and it?s galling to hear them say they are experts who should not be questioned. They refuse to release their data, “lose” their raw data (cardinal sin for real scientists) and spend most of their time applying for subsidies and giving press conferences.

    They?re like a Rand caricature of scientists. Only it?s true.-

  26. I think the denial side should be called TEAM Science and tbe Alarm side should be called TEAM Science Fiction. Seen this movie to many times.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.