Lord Monckton...hero of Denialism

Would you prefer that I call your comments short sighted? It's not meant to be an insult, but your comments clearly are lacking a view of the larger picture.

That's not a pandemic. And it is effecting all ecosystems.

Your view isn't legalistic. The law has a burden of proof, and you can't throw out a decision without showing that the lack of independence that you argue is there, had a demonstrable effect in the outcome of the case. You haven't shown that, though I have asked.

Your view is on optics, as I said already. Appearances don't count in an appeal, facts do.

Dissent is Avros enemy therefore Avro is the enemy of dissent and doubt, two absolutely necessary qualities to conduct sound science. When he argues against deniers he argues against science and for naked authority.

Deniers and skeptics are two different animals beave.

You are neither....you're just plain looney.

Yep, heard you the first hundred times.

Then show how you came to these conclusions by telling us who in all the panels including the one just completed is connected to Mann and Phil Jones.

Keep in mind that these panels found flaws in the methods they were using as far as information sharing but has in no way affected the science which all institutions and scientists conclude is sound inside and outside of the CRU.

Intent and perception are subjective. I would prefer that you not mention me or any personal characteristic. Mentioning me or my characteristics is reasonably susceptible to interpretation as perjorative. Care is required to avoid offending others. We focus on the issues. Notice that I never say anything about you as an individual. The larger picture is not what you and I have discussed. I am focused on the appearance of a flaw in the Tribunal.

What do you mean?

I am not asserting anything other than that there is a flaw in the Tribunal's composition that creates the appearance of a lack of independence or bias if you will. I am not reaching the question of whether the Tribunal rendered a valid judgment. I have satisfied the burden of going forward with the evidence by pointing out the flaw in the composition of the panel. Now the burden of going forward with the evidence has shifted to you, and you have not gone forward with the evidence. Instead you have addressed the panel's judgment which is not the subject of our debate.

Substance and form both count. Neither can be dismissed.

Climate sensitivity describes how sensitive the global climate is to a change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere (a.k.a. a radiative forcing). For example, we know that if the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere doubles from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 560 ppmv, this will cause an energy imbalance by trapping more outgoing thermal radiation in the atmosphere, enough to directly warm the surface approximately 1.2°C. However, this doesn't account for feedbacks, for example ice melting and making the planet less reflective, and the warmer atmosphere holding more water vapor (another greenhouse gas).

Climate sensitivity is the amount the planet will warm when accounting for the various feedbacks affecting the global climate. The relevant formula is:

dT = λ*dF

Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W m-2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing, which is discussed in further detail in the --.

Climate sensitivity is not specific to CO2


It's important to note that the surface temperature change is proportional to the sensitivity and radiative forcing (in W m-2), regardless of the source of the energy imbalance. The climate sensitivity to different radiative forcings differs depending on the -- of the forcing, but the climate is not significantly more sensitive to other radiative forcings besides greenhouse gases.

Figure 1: Efficacies of various radiative forcings as calculated in numerous different studies (--)

In other words, if you argue that the Earth has a low climate sensitivity to CO2, you are also arguing for a low climate sensitivity to other influences such as solar irradiance, orbital changes, and volcanic emissions. In fact, as shown in Figure 1, the climate is less sensitive to changes in solar activity than greenhouse gases. Thus when arguing for low climate sensitivity, it becomes difficult to explain past climate changes. For example, between glacial and interglacial periods, the planet's average temperature changes on the order of 6°C (more like 8-10°C in the Antarctic). If the climate sensitivity is low, for example due to increasing low-lying cloud cover reflecting more sunlight as a response to global warming, then how can these large past climate changes be explained?

Figure 2: Antarctic temperature changes over the past 450,000 years as measured from ice cores

What is the possible range of climate sensitivity?


The -- summarized climate sensitivity as "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values."

Individual studies have put climate sensitivity from a doubling of CO2 at anywhere between 0.5°C and 10°C; however, as a consequence of increasingly better data, it appears that the extreme higher and lower values are very unlikely. In fact, as climate science has developed and advanced over time , estimates have converged around 3°C. A summary of recent climate sensitivity studies can be found --.
A study led by Stefan Rahmstorf concluded "many vastly improved models have been developed by a number of climate research centers around the world. Current state-of-the-art climate models span a range of 2.6–4.1°C, most clustering around 3°C" (--). Several studies have put the lower bound of climate sensitivity at about 1.5°C,on the other hand, several others have found that a sensitivity higher than 4.5°C can't be ruled out.

A 2008 study led by James Hansen found that climate sensitivity to "fast feedback processes" is 3°C, but when accounting for longer-term feedbacks (such as ice sheet disintegration, vegetation migration, and greenhouse gas release from soils, tundra or ocean), if atmospheric CO2 remains at the doubled level, the sensitivity increases to 6°C based on paleoclimatic (historical climate) data.


What are the limits on the climate sensitivity value?

Paleoclimate

The main limit on the sensitivity value is that it has to be consistent with paleoclimatic data. A sensitivity which is too low will be inconsistent with past climate changes - basically if there is some large negative feedback which makes the sensitivity too low, it would have prevented the planet from transitioning from ice ages to interglacial periods, for example. Similarly a high climate sensitivity would have caused more and larger past climate changes.

One recent study examining the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 million years ago), during which the planet warmed 5-9°C, found that "At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5°C of the warming inferred from proxy records" (--). This suggests that climate sensitivity may be higher than we currently believe, but it likely isn't lower.
Recent responses to large volcanic eruptions

Climate scientists have also attempted to estimate climate sensitivity based on the response to recent large volcanic eruptions, such as Mount Pinatubo in 1991. -- found:

"Comparisons of observed and modeled coolings after the eruptions of Agung, El Chichón, and Pinatubo give implied climate sensitivities that are consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) range of 1.5–4.5°C. The cooling associated with Pinatubo appears to require a sensitivity above the IPCC lower bound of 1.5°C, and none of the observed eruption responses rules out a sensitivity above 4.5°C."

Similarly, --concluded as follows.

"A climate feedback parameter of 2.3 +/- 1.4 W m-2 K-1 is found. This corresponds to a 1.0–4.1 K range for the equilibrium warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide"

Recent responses to the 11-year solar cycle


-- noted that

"the annual rate of increase in radiative forcing of the lower atmosphere from solar min to solar max happens to be equivalent to that from a 1% per year increase in greenhouse gases, a rate commonly used in greenhouse-gas emission scenarios [Houghton and et al., 2001]. So it is interesting to compare the magnitude and pattern of the observed solar-cycle response to the transient warming expected due to increasing greenhouse gases in five years."

Tung and Camp were thus able to use satellite-based solar data over 4.5 cycles to calculate an observationally-determined model-independent climate sensitivity of 2.3-4.1°C for a doubling of CO2.
Other Empirical Observations


Gregory et al. (2002) used observed interior-ocean temperature changes, surface temperature changes measured since 1860, and estimates of anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing of the climate system to estimate its climate sensitivity. They found:

"we obtain a 90% confidence interval, whose lower bound (the 5th percentile) is 1.6 K. The median is 6.1 K, above the canonical range of 1.5–4.5 K; the mode is 2.1 K."

Examining Past Temperature Projections


In 1988, NASA climate scientist Dr James Hansen produced a groundbreaking study in which he produced a global climate model that calculated future warming based on three different CO2 emissions scenarios labeled A, B, and C (Hansen 1988). Now, after more than 20 years, we are able to review Hansen’s projections.


Hansen's model assumed a rather high climate sensitivity of 4.2°C for a doubling of CO2. His Scenario B has been the closest to reality, with the actual total radiative forcing being about -- than in this emissions scenario. The warming trend predicted in this scenario from 1988 to 2010 was about -- whereas the measured temperature increase over that period was approximately 0.18°C per decade, or about 40% lower than Scenario B.
Therefore, what Hansen's models and the real-world observations tell us is that climate sensitivity is about 40% below 4.2°C, or once again, right around 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. For further details, see the --


Probabilistic Estimate Analysis


-- investigated various probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity, many of which suggested a "worryingly high probability" (greater than 5%) that the sensitivity is in excess of than 6°C for a doubling of CO2. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, this study concluded that

"the long fat tail that is characteristic of all recent estimates of climate sensitivity simply disappears, with an upper 95% probability limit...easily shown to lie close to 4°C, and certainly well below 6°C."

Annan and Hargreaves concluded that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is probably --, it may be higher, but it's probably not much lower.
--

Figure 3: Probability distribution of climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2
Summary of these results

Knutti and Hegerl (200 presents a comprehensive, concise overview of our scientific understanding of climate sensitivity. In their paper, they present a figure which neatly encapsulates how various methods of estimating climate sensitivity examining different time periods have yielded consistent results, as the studies described above show. As you can see, the various methodologies are generally consistent with the range of 2-4.5°C, with few methods leaving the possibility of lower values, but several unable to rule out higher values.



Figure 4: Distributions and ranges for climate sensitivity from different lines of evidence. The circle indicates the most likely value. The thin colored bars indicate very likely value (more than 90% probability). The thicker colored bars indicate likely values (more than 66% probability). Dashed lines indicate no robust constraint on an upper bound. The IPCC likely range (2 to 4.5°C) and most likely value (3°C) are indicated by the vertical grey bar and black line, respectively.

What does all this mean?


According to a --, we're currently on pace to reach this doubled atmospheric CO2 level by the mid-to-late 21st century.



--
Figure 5: Projected decadal mean concentrations of CO2. Red solid lines are median, 5%, and 95% for the MIT study, the dashed blue line is the same from the 2003 MIT projection.

So unless we change course, we're looking at a rapid warming over the 21st century. Most climate scientists agree that a 2°C warming is the 'danger limit'. Figure 5 shows temperature rise for a given CO2 level. The dark grey area indicates the climate sensitivity likely range of 2 to 4.5°C.


Figure 6: Relation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and key impacts associated with equilibrium global temperature increase. The most likely warming is indicated for climate sensitivity 3°C (black solid). The likely range (dark grey) is for the climate sensitivity range 2 to 4.5°C. Selected key impacts (some delayed) for several sectors and different temperatures are indicated in the top part of the figure (--) If we manage to stabilize CO2 levels at 450 ppmv (the atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv), according to the best estimate, we have a probability of less than 50% of meeting the 2°C target. The key impacts associated with 2°C warming can be seen at the top of Figure 6. The tight constraint on the lower limit of climate sensitivity indicates we're looking down the barrel of significant warming in future decades.
As the scientists at --

"Global warming of 2°C would leave the Earth warmer than it has been in millions of years, a disruption of climate conditions that have been stable for longer than the history of human agriculture. Given the drought that already afflicts Australia, the crumbling of the sea ice in the Arctic, and the increasing storm damage after only 0.8°C of warming so far, calling 2°C a danger limit seems to us pretty cavalier."

Yes, you are focused on what might have happened in one investigation. Missing the bigger picture.

That global warming isn't analgous to a pandemic. I used obesity as an analogy because in both cases, the result is due to an imbalance in a system. If energy burned is less than the dietary energy consumed, the net impact is a gain in weight. If less energy leaves the planet than comes in, the net impact is the temperature must rise.

An Example of the Little-Moron Logic & Mendacity of BOOP:
The Carbon Isotope Ratio Nonsense.†

J. F. Kenney‡
Gas Resources Corporation


According to the program, I am supposed to explain the spontaneous generation of natural petroleum in 15(!) minutes. This subject is one which involves, in detail, the statistical mechanics of chemical thermodynamic stability theory. Fifteen minutes would be inadequate to give even an introduction to the subject.
For the moment, please understand first that the unnecessary and misleading adjective “abiotic” should be dropped as a modifier of the term natural petroleum. Natural petroleum is generated spontaneously only at high pressures. The high pressures necessary for the generation of petroleum occur at depths in the Earth where the temperatures are sufficiently high that any biological molecule would have thoroughly decomposed at a much shallower depth.
Many misguided persons have attempted during the past 75 years to demonstrate in laboratories a spontaneous generation of petroleum from biological detritus. All such attempts have failed utterly, - although many have been fraudulently misreported.

There is no information about petroleum generation that I can give to you which will be of any value to you, or which you will be able to use effectively, until you have taken a measure of the imbecility of the notion that natural petroleum is some sort of “fossil fuel” that has come into being through some (miraculous but unspecified) transformation of biological detritus in the regimes of temperature and pressure of the near-surface crust of the Earth. You must realize that the notion of a biological origin of petroleum is not only unscientific but also just plain humbug. [Hereafter, the phrase “biological-origin-of-petroleum” will be referred to by its acronym: BOOP]. Without such understanding or lacking such measure, even when given a clear description of the chemical processes by which natural petroleum spontaneously evolves, you will likely fall into one or more of the erroneous perspectives:
○ “Oh yes, the abiotic generation of petroleum is an interesting alternate view of oil and gas,” or
○ “Well, there may be some oil that has resulted from abiotic processes, but such must be only a negligible small amount,” or even,
○ “Modern petroleum science is rigorous alright, but, of course, all oil fields come from decayed organic matter (!!!)”.

Considering such errors and before going further:
○ Modern petroleum science is not an “alternate perspective” to BOOP, as astrophysics is not an alternate perspective to astrology, nor is cranial neurology to phrenology, nor chemistry to alchemy.
○ The quantity of natural petroleum which has been spontaneously generated abiotically according to the laws of physics and chemistry in the depths of the Earth exceed 1015 metric tons.1
○ All petroleum deposits are comprised of hydrocarbon compounds that have been generated abiotically at high pressure and in absence of any biological molecules.

†“Prepared as an invited paper for the Deep Carbon Cycle Workshop, Carnegie Institute, Washington, D. C., 15-17 May 2008”
‡J.F.Kenney@GasResources.net

©Gas Resources Corporation, 2008

I. The Little-Moron logic of the claims about the stable carbon isotope ratios.
The assertion that natural petroleum (“crude oil”) is a “fossil fuel” somehow evolved by a miraculous process of transformation from biological detritus in the thermodynamic regime of pressures and temperatures in the near-surface crust of the Earth, is a nonsensical, child’s fairy-story, supported by Little-Moron Logic and defended by lies. No aspect of the assertion that natural petroleum is of a biological origin demonstrates the Little-Moron Logic, and also the lies, more than do claims that the ratios of the stable isotopes of carbon, 12C and 13C, represent “evidence” for BOOP. These claims, and the moronic quality of the illogical arguments supporting them are here reviewed.
A common variety of Little-Moron Logic that runs through BOOP is the type that logicians designate “Affirming the Consequent.” In formal logic, affirming the Consequent is set forth by the following fallacious illogic. The formal proposition and its consequent:

Given an accepted syllogism or fact, -
oIf A, then B.
Then following an observation related to the syllogism or fact, -
oB.
There proceeds theneafter the illogical affirmation of the consequent, -
othen A.

Here are given three demonstrations of Little-Moron Logic that apply Affirming the Consequent.

1)Affirming the Consequent, - Marilyn Monroe/Hollywood Style:
oMarilyn Monroe is a woman with blonde hair
oThat woman has blonde hair.
oTherefore that woman is Marilyn Monroe.

2)Affirming the Consequent, – Lucy/Peanuts Style:
(taken from the comic strip of that name).
oAll cats are mortal.
oSocrates is mortal.
oTherefore Socrates is a cat.

3)Affirming the Consequent, - Barbara-Lollar/BOOP Style:
oBiological matter manifests 13C/12C isotope ratios in the range more negative than – 18.0% on the Peedee Belemnite standard.
oSome natural petroleum manifest 13C/12C isotope ratios in the range more negative than – 18.0% on the Peedee Belemnite standard.
oTherefore natural petroleum comes from biological matter.

All of which are recognized to be pure Little-Moron Logic. Upon such are based all the claims that natural petroleum is supposedly derived from biological detritus because of its ratios of the stable carbon isotopes.

II. The technical inadequacy of the carbon isotope ratios as indicators of origin.
The claims made concerning the carbon stable-isotope ratios, and specifically such as purport to identify the origin of the material, particularly the hydrocarbons, are especially recondite and outside the experience of most persons not knowledgeable of the physics of hydrogen-carbon [H-C] systems. Furthermore, the claims concerning the carbon stable-isotope ratios most often involve methane, the only hydrocarbon which is thermodynamically stable in the regime of temperatures and pressures of the Earth’s crust and almost the only one which spontaneously evolves there.
The carbon nucleus has two stable isotopes, 12C and 13C. The overwhelmingly most abundance stable isotope of carbon is 12C, which possesses six protons and six neutrons; 13C possesses an extra neutron. (There is another, unstable isotope, 14C, which possesses two extra neutrons; 14C results from a high-energy reaction of the nitrogen nucleus, 14N, with a high-energy cosmic ray particle. The isotope 14C is not involved in the claims about the isotope ratios of carbon). The carbon isotope ratio, designated δ13C, is simply the ratio of the abundance of carbon isotopes 13C/12C, normalized to the standard of the marine carbonate Pee Dee Belemnite. The values of the measured δ13C ratio is expressed as a percentage (compared to the standard).
During the 1950’s, increasingly numerous measurements of the carbon isotope ratios of hydrocarbon gases were taken, particularly of methane; and too often assertions were made that such ratios could unambiguously determine the origin of the hydrocarbons. The validity of such assertions were tested, independently by Colombo, Gazzarini, and Gonfiantini in Italy and by Galimov in Russia. Both sets of workers established that the carbon isotope ratios cannot be used reliably to determine the origin of the carbon compound tested.

Columbo, Gazzarini, and Gonfiantini demonstrated conclusively, by a simple experiment the results of which admitted no ambiguity, that the carbon isotope ratios of methane change continuously along its transport path, becoming progressively lighter with distance traveled. Colombo et al. took a sample of natural gas and passed it through a column of crushed rock, chosen to resemble as closely as possible the terrestrial environment.2 Their results were definitive: The greater the distance of rock through which the sample of methane passes, the lighter becomes its carbon isotope ratio.
The reason for the result observed by Colombo et al. is straightforward: there is a slight preference for the heavier isotope of carbon to react chemically with the rock through which the gas passes. Therefore, the greater the transit distance through the rock, the lighter becomes the carbon isotope ratio, as the heavier is preferentially removed by chemical reaction along the transport path. This result is not surprising; contrarily, and is entirely consistent with the fundamental requirements of quantum mechanics and kinetic theory.
Pertinent to the matter of any claim that a light carbon isotope ratio might be indicative of a biological origin, the results demonstrated by Colombo et al. establish that such a claim is insupportable. Methane which might have originated from carbon material from the remains of a carbonaceous meteorite in the mantle of the Earth, and possessing initially a heavy carbon isotope ratio, would have that ratio diminished, along the path of its transit into the crust of the Earth, to a value comparable to common biological material.

Galimov demonstrated that the carbon isotope ratio of methane can become progressively heavier while at rest in a reservoir in the crust of the Earth, through the action of methane-consuming microbes.3 The city of Moscow stores methane in water-wet reservoirs on the outskirts of that city, into which natural gas is injected throughout the year. During summers, the quantity of methane in the reservoirs increases because of less use (primarily by heating), and during winters the quantity is drawn down. By calibrating the reservoir volumes and the distance from the injection facilities, the residency time of the methane in the reservoir is determined. Galimov established that the longer the methane remains in the reservoir, the heavier becomes its carbon isotope ratio.
The reason for the result observed by Galimov is also straightforward: In the water of the reservoir, there live microbes of the common, methane-metabolizing type. There is a slight preference for the lighter isotope of carbon to enter the microbe cell and to be metabolized. The longer the methane remains in the reservoir, the more of it is consumed by the methane-metabolizing microbes, with the molecules possessing lighter isotope being consumed more. Therefore, the longer its residency time in the reservoir, the heavier becomes the carbon isotope ratio, as the lighter is preferentially removed by methane-metabolizing microbes. This result is entirely consistent with the fundamental requirements of kinetic theory.

Furthermore, the carbon isotope ratios in hydrocarbon systems are also strongly influenced by the temperature of reaction. For hydrocarbons produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process, the δ13C varies from
-65% at 127 C to –20% at 177C.4,5 No material parameter, the measurement of which varies by almost 70% with a variation of temperature of only approximately 10%, can be used as a reliable determinant of any property of that material.

The δ13C carbon isotope ratio cannot be considered to determine reliably the origin of a sample of methane, - or any other compound, and no ethical and competent scientist or engineer would try to use them as such, excepting very unusual circumstances.


III. The Black Swan Effect & the Tuchman Phase-3 Phenomenon: The Mendacious Defense of the Little-Moron Logic about the Assertions that the Stable Carbon Isotopes Identify a Biological Origin of Petroleum [BOOP].
The phrase “Black Swan effect” has its origins in the scientific dictum that holds that a single exception disproves any putative claim,- i.e., the observation of a single black swan destroys any assertion that “all swans are white,” and does no matter how many white swans may have been observed. The Black Swan effect is a phenomenon recognized in mathematics and the hard sciences, and their associated engineering disciplines, whereby any single observed exception to a putative rule destroys that rule, irredeemably. In mathematics, a single demonstrated counter-example destroys any proposed theorem. The hard sciences provide many examples, such as:
oWhen A. H. Michaelson first measured the transverse variation of the velocity of light, using the interferometer that he invented and which bears his name, and destroyed immediately the “undulating-ether” theory of light.
oWhen E. Rutherford measured the scattering of alpha-particles in thin metallic films and destroyed at once the Thomson model of the atom.
oWhen Mme Wu measure the asymmetry of beta-decay and destroyed the dictum of parity conservation in fundamental nuclear interactions.
oWhen the young American from Woburn, Massachusetts, Benjamin Thompson, cranked up his cannon-boring machine and destroyed in an afternoon the caloric theory of heat which had been held previously to be true for half a century.

The Black Swan for the claims that the stable carbon isotope ratios might distinguish methane as of biotic or abiotic origin was the direct observation by Giardini & Melton6 that such cannot be considered a reliable criterion for ascertaining the origin of petroleum. Giardini & Melton took a primoridial natural diamond of 8.65 carats and measured the carbon isotope ratio of the CO2 entrapped in its inclusions. The results were an isotope ratio of –35.2% on the standard PeeDee scale. Previously the carbon isotope ratios more negative than – 18.0% had been assigned a biological origin. The diamond tested by Giardini & Melton was measured to be of an age of crystallization of at least 3.1 x 109 years, well before any record of biological life on Earth. The observation by Giardini & Melton destroyed any claimed validity of the carbon isotope ratio as a determinant of the origin of petroleum, - and probably of any other carbon compound.




Of course, an intelligent 12-year old schoolboy might be expected to ask, “why wasn’t the light-end limit of the carbon isotope ratios ever measured for the abiotic molecules before all the claims were made. After all, just because the heavy-end limit of the biotic molecules ends at – 18.0%, there stands no reason why the light-end limit of the abiotic molecules should coincide with this value.” The BOOPies have never asked this question.

Similarly, during the past forty years, a number of scientists, both in the former U.S.S.R. and in the U.S.A., have tested the validity of the assertions that a ratio of the abundances of the stable carbon isotopes can give a valid indication of the origin of the material from which the carbon material was obtained. Without exception, these scientists have demonstrated that the carbon isotope ratios can not give any reliable indication of the origin of the material of which the carbon atoms were obtained. These negative results have been shown to hold incontestably for any measurements which yield isotope ratios “lighter” than –18.0% by the PeeDee Belemenite standard and which have been often claimed to give “evidence” of a biotic origin. Samples of carbon fluids which manifest carbon isotope ratios “heavier” than –18.0% by the standard scale are usually (although not necessarily) “identified” as being of an abiotic origin. As the experiments of Galimov et al have demonstrated, such “identification” can easily be spurious. However, in circumstances in which the carbon fluids came from a high-temperature source and was characterized by a high flow rate, - as, for example, from a deep ocean vent, - then a “heavy” measure of the stable carbon isotope ratio may be taken as consistent with (not“proof of”) a deep, abiotic origin of such carbon fluids.

The Tuchman Phase-3 Phenomenon identifies the impetus behind the claims for the carbon isotopes ratios. When one acknowledges the discrediting of claims that a measurement of the relative abundances of stable carbon isotopes might give a valid determination of the origin of whatever fluid from such were taken, and particularly whether that fluid was of biotic or abiotic origin, the question stands: Why do some persons persist in asserting such scientifically insupportable claims? This question intrudes particularly when one notes that the assertions about the carbon isotope ratios were discredited more than twenty years ago.
The answer to this question has been given clearly by the historian Barbara Tuchman in her book “The March of Folly: From Troy to Viet Nam.”7 Tuchman poses the question: How do men of weak moral fiber react when confronted with information that threatens their social status, or their financial circumstance, or their professional position, or their status as an expert or guru in one area or another, or their political power? Borrowing from the behavioral sciences, Tuchman explains that such men invariably manifest the behavior identified as cognitive dissonance. The behavior of cognitive dissonance involves three phases which Tuchman describes as follows:
○ Phase I: Characterized by denial, usually with an attitude of “Don’t bother me with facts; my mind is made up.”
○ Phase II: Characterized by waffling and attempts to denigrate or minimize the significance of the unwelcome facts, usually with expressed claims like, “Oh, we already know all about such and so, and it’s really not relevant or important,” and often, “If you really possessed all the information that we do, you would understand that such and so is not as you think it to be.” And so on.
○ Phase III: Characterized by outright lying. In this phase, the moral weakling can no longer deny the unwelcome facts, and his contemporaries or the general public know that he knows such, - and he knows that they know he knows it. In this phase, the fellow descends to outright lying; he makes pronouncements that he knows to be false, and hopes to brazen it all out.
Phases I, II, and III are not mutually exclusive. A man can operate simultaneously in any two, or even all three. In this decade of this century, the purveyors of BOOP who try to proclaim that any measurement of the ratio of the abundances of the stable carbon isotopes gives a definite determination of
the origin of whatever compound or fluid has been tested, or of whether a hydrocarbon compound is of biotic or abiotic origin, are operating well into Tuchman’s Phase III. That the carbon isotope ratios cannot give any reliable determination is well known.

Such is the purveyance of BOOP: Transparent lying to defend little-moron logic in the service of imbecility. All of which does not provide a viable basis for a nation’s energy policy; and none of which ought to continue to be supported with public tax payers’ money.

1Giardini, A. A., Melton, C.E., Mitchell, R.S., (1982), J Pet. Geo., 5, 2, 173-190;
2U.Colombo, F.Gazzarini and R. Gonfiantini, “Die Variationen in der chemischen und isotopen Zusammenstzung von Erdgas aus Suditalien”,Leipzig, 1967, vol. Vortrag ASTI-67;
3E. M. Galimov, Isotope Zusammensetzung des Kohlenstoffe aus Gassen der Erdrinde, Leipzig, 1967;
4,5P. Szatmari, “Petroleum formation by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis in plate tectonics”, Bull. A.A.P.G., 1989, 73, 989-996
6Giardini, A. A., Melton, C.E., (1982), J. Pet. Geo, 4, 4, 437-439, “Evidence that stable carbon isotopes are not a reliable criterion for distinguishing biogenic from non-biogenic petroleum.”
7Tuchman, Barbara (1984), Ballentine Books, Random House, New York, New York, The March of ††Folly: From Troy to Viet Nam

Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment

Peer review is critical to maintaining the scientific database free of all known errors, and it only takes one improperly done peer review to contaminate the scientific database resulting in critical decisions being made on faulty science as is the case for human caused global warming.
In 1981 SCIENCE published a peer reviewed paper:
Climate Impact of Increasing
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff
P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell
which contained the critical error:
“Carbon dioxide absorbs in the atmospheric “window” from 7 to 14 micrometers which transmits thermal radiation emitted by the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. Increased atmospheric CO2 tends to close this window and cause outgoing radiation to emerge from higher, colder levels, thus warming the surface and lower atmosphere by the socalled greenhouse mechanism (5). The most sophisticated models suggest a
mean warming of 2° to 3.5°C for doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm (6-.” SCIENCE, VOL. 213, 28 AUGUST 1981
CO2 only has an effect over the 13 to 17.5 micrometer range of the Earth’s radiative spectrum which is saturated to the point that it is a physical impossibility for a doubling of CO2 from 300ppm to 600ppm to cause any more than 0.4°C of additional greenhouse effect making the model output of 2°C to 3.5°C stated in this paper completely false.
Had a proper peer review been done by SCIENCE the CO2 forcing parameter used by Hansen which is still producing faulty output from climate models would have been identified as being based on energy not available to CO2 and this paper would have been rejected from publication. Without this paper there would be no AGW issue today because human caused global warming is entirely based on a non existant correlation of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and global temperature increase and the only support for this false conjecture is this false output from the climate models (sic). --

Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated

What the science says...

Observed sea levels are actually tracking at the upper range of the IPCC projections. When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres.


The two main contributors to sea level rise are thermal expansion of water and melting ice. Predicting the future contribution from melting ice is problematic. Most sea level rise from ice melt actually comes from chunks of ice breaking off into the ocean, then melting. This calving process is accelerated by warming but the dynamic processes are not strongly understood. For this reason, the IPCC didn't include the effects of dynamic processes, arguing they couldn't be modelled. In 2001, the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) projected a sea level rise of 20 to 70 cm by 2100. In 2007, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) gave similar results, projecting sea level rise of 18 to 59 cm by 2100. How do the IPCC predictions compare to observations made since the two reports?



Figure 1: Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (--).
Observed sea level rise is tracking at the upper range of model predictions. Why do climate models underestimate sea level rise? The main reason for the discrepancy is, no surprise, the effects of rapid flow ice changes. Ice loss from --, -- and -- are accelerating. Even --. Considering the importance of rising sea level to a human population crowded around coastlines, how can we predict sea level with greater accuracy?
An alternative way to predict future sea level rise is a semi-empirical method that uses the relationship between sea level and global temperature (--). Instead of modelling glacier dynamics, the method uses model projections of global temperature which can be calculated with greater confidence. Sea level change is then derived as a function of temperature change. To confirm the relationship between sea level and temperature, observed sea level was compared to reconstructed sea level calculated from global temperature observations from 1880 to 2000. Figure 2 shows the strong correlation between observed sea level (red line) and reconstructed sea level (dark blue line with light blue uncertainty range).




Figure 2: Observed rate of sea-level rise (red) compared with reconstructed sea level calculated from global temperature (dark blue with light blue uncertainty range). Grey line is reconstructed sea level from an earlier, simpler relationship between sea level and temperature (--).


The historical record shows the robustness of the relationship between sea level and global temperature. Thus, global temperature projections can be used to simulate sea levels into the future. A number of different emission scenarios were used, based on how carbon dioxide emissions might evolve over the next century. Overall, the range of projected sea level rise by 2100 is 75 to 190 cm. As you get closer to 2100, the contribution from ice melt grows relative to thermal expansion. This is the main difference to the IPCC predictions which assume the portion of ice melt would diminish while thermal expansion contributes most of the sea level rise over the 21st Century.



Figure 3: Projection of sea-level rise from 1990 to 2100, based on IPCC temperature projections for three different emission scenarios. The sea-level range projected in the IPCC AR4 for these scenarios are shown for comparison in the bars on the bottom right. Also shown in red is observed sea-level (--).


Figure 3 shows projected sea level rise for three different emission scenarios. The semi-empirical method predicts sea level rise roughly 3 times greater than the IPCC predictions. Note the IPCC predictions are shown as vertical bars in the bottom right. For the lowest emission rate, sea levels are expected to rise around 1 metre by 2100. For the higher emission scenario, which is where we're currently tracking, sea level rise by 2100 is around 1.4 metres.

There are limitations to this approach. The temperature record over the past 120 years doesn't include large, highly non-linear events such as the collapse of an ice sheet. Therefore, the semi-empirical method can't rule out sharp increases in sea level from such an event.

Independent confirmation of the semi-empirical method is found in a kinematic study of glacier movements (--). The study examines calving glaciers in Greenland, determining each glacier's potential to discharge ice based on factors such as topography, cross-sectional area and whether the bedrock is based below sea level. A similar analysis is also made of West Antarctic glaciers (I can't find any mention of calculating ice loss from East Antarctica). The kinematic method estimates sea level rise between 80 cm to 2 metres by 2100.

Recent observations find sea level tracking at the upper range of IPCC projections. The semi-empirical and kinematic methods provide independent confirmation that the IPCC underestimate sea level rise by around a factor of 3. There are growing indications that sea level rise by the end of this century will approach or exceed 1 metre.

cognitive dissonance for sure, call 911 err never mind, maybe he will chuck it up by hisself

Don't worry, the Earth is going to cool down: --

Yeah I saw that earlier today, that is crazy **** for sure.

Medieval Warm Period was warmer
The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current conditions. This means recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made......Not Really a Lord Monckton.

While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions. ....science and facts.

The Medieval Warm Period spanned 950 to 1250 AD and corresponded with warmer temperatures in certain regions. During this time, ice-free seas allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland. North America experienced prolonged droughts. Just how hot was the Medieval Warm Period? Was the globe warmer than now? To answer this question, one needs to look beyond warming in a few regions and view temperatures on a global scale.

Prior temperature reconstructions tend to focus on the global average (or sometimes hemispheric average). To answer the question of the Medieval Warm Period, more than 1000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres were used to construct a global map of temperature change over the past 1500 years (--). The Medieval Warm Period saw warm conditions over a large part of the North Atlantic, Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North America. In these regions, temperature appears to be warmer than the 1961–1990 baseline. In some areas, temperatures were even as warm as today. However, certain regions such as central Eurasia, northwestern North America, and the tropical Pacific are substantially cooler compared to the 1961 to 1990 average.


Figure 1: Reconstructed surface temperature anomaly for Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 A.D.), relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable.
How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current conditions? Here is the temperature pattern for the last decade (1999 to 200. What we see is widespread warming (with a few exceptions such as --)



Figure 3: Surface temperature anomaly for period 1999 to 2008, relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable (NOAA).

The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. Globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today.

Go shovel your mom's driveway.

You look crazy.

I see,so you believe in CO2 driven global warming when there is no scientific proof and I'm just plain looney. I can't argue that with you but I can suggest deworming and distemper shots may help with your symptoms. I hope it isn't rabies.

Which one is the beave?

I say Daffy.

Monckton....

It's cooling

"Global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable." (source: --)

What the science says....

To say we're currently experiencing global cooling overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are only one small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). Global warming is by definition global. The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.

This analysis is performed in -- which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. To calculate the Earth's total heat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 metres. They included heat content from deeper waters down to 3000 metres depth. They computed atmospheric heat content using the surface temperature record and the heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (the energy required to melt ice) were also included.


Figure 1: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (--). Ocean data taken from --.

A look at the Earth's total heat content clearly shows global warming has continued past 1998. So why do surface temperature records show 1998 as the hottest year on record? Figure 1 shows the heat capacity of the land and atmosphere are small compared to the ocean (the tiny brown sliver of "land + atmosphere" also includes the heat absorbed to melt ice). Hence, relatively small exchanges of heat between the atmosphere and ocean can cause significant changes in surface temperature.

In 1998, an abnormally strong El Nino caused heat transfer from the Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere. Consequently, we experienced above-average surface temperatures. Conversely, the last few years have seen moderate La Nina conditions which had a cooling effect on global temperatures. And the last few months have swung back to warmer El Nino conditions. This has coincided with the warmest June-August sea surface temperatures on record. This internal variation where heat is shuffled around our climate is the reason why surface temperature is such a noisy signal.

Figure 1 also underscores just how much global warming the planet is experiencing. Since 1970, the Earth's heat content has been rising at a rate of 6 x 1021 Joules per year. In more meaningful terms, the planet has been accumulating energy at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.

How do we find out what's happened from 2003 until now? Unfortunately, there is no time series (that I know of) of the planet's total heat content up to present time. However, we do have the next best thing. -- analyzes ocean temperature measurements by the Argo network, constructing a map of ocean heat content down to 2000 metres. This is significantly deeper than other recent papers that focus on upper ocean heat, only going down to 700 metres. They constructed the following time series of global ocean heat:


Figure 2: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Joules per square metre.

Globally, the oceans continued to accumulate heat right to the end of 2008. Over the last 5 years, the oceans have been absorbing heat at a rate of 0.77 Watts per square metre. Combined with the results of Murphy 2009, we now see a picture of continued global warming.

How does this value compare to other estimates of energy imbalance? Willis 2004 combines satellite altimetry with ocean heat measurements to find an ocean warming rate of 0.85 Watts per square metrefrom 1993 to 2003. --, using ocean heat data, calculated the planet's energy imbalance in 2003 to be 0.85 Watts per square metre. -- examined satellite measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation for the March 2000 to May 2004 period and found the planet accumulating energy at a rate of 0.9 Watts per square metre.

These results all find broad agreement and all find a statistically significant positive energy imbalance. Our climate is still accumulating heat. Global warming is still happening.

The skeptic argument...


There's no tropospheric hot spot

The IPCC confirms that computer modeling predicts the existence of a tropical, mid-troposphere “hot spot” about 10km above the Earth’s surface. Yet in the observed record of the Hadley Centre’s radiosondes, the predicted “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic greenhouse warming is entirely absent (source: --)

What the science says...


Satellite measurements match model results apart from in the tropics. There is uncertainty with the tropic data due to how various teams correct for satellite drift. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program conclude the discrepancy is most likely due to data errors.

Part 1: The “Hotspot” as an Alleged Fingerprint of Anthropogenic Warming

A great deal of the confusion surrounding the issue of temperature trends in the upper troposphere comes from the mistaken belief that the presence or lack of amplification of surface warming in the upper troposphere has some bearing on the attribution of global warming to man-made causes.
It does not.
Attribution of anthropogenic origins of the current climatic changes can be tested from many different directions. On of the most clear examples for those with some familiarity with the Earth’s atmosphere is the issue of stratospheric cooling. If the sun were to suddenly increase its output by 2%, we would rightfully expect the atmosphere as well as the surface to warm up in response. This can be examined, for instance, by looking at the response in a GCM like GISS ModelE:
2% increase in solar forcing (via RealClimate)


Likewise, if we were to double preindustrial levels of CO2, we would expect the surface and the lower atmosphere to warm. However, unlike the case of increasing solar influence, we would not expect the lower atmosphere to warm through at all levels. Increasing the greenhouse effect should warm the surface and troposphere, but cool the lower stratosphere.
Doubling of CO2 (via RealClimate)


In the doubled CO2 scenario, there is a pronounced cooling of higher altitudes, i.e. the stratosphere, and this feature is entirely absent in the +2% solar scenario.

This stratospheric cooling is a fingerprint of increased greenhouse (as opposed to solar) warming. For a more in depth discussion of why the stratosphere cools under enhanced greenhouse warming, see discussions at -- and --. In other words, the difference in the two simulations is not the presence of a "hot spot" in one and its absence in the other, it's the stratospheric cooling apparent in the increased CO2 simulation.

In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), historical forcings were simulated in the Parallel Climate Model, and and the zonal mean temperature responses to each were broken out in separate panels. There was some increase in solar irradiance during the period, which shows up as a modest amount of warming throughout the atmosphere, with some amplification in the upper troposphere (the sort of greenish-yellow and yellow patterns respectively in panel a). As we all know, there was a significant change in GHG forcing during that time, which manifests as surface warming, amplified upper troposphere warming, and stratospheric cooling (panel c), and the net effect of all forcings was shown (panel f).

-- Fig 9.1: Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) well-mixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km. (--)


So far so good. Right? Well, this is actually where things went off the rails.

Climate “skeptics” apparently became convinced that the “hot spot” in Figure 9.1c was the fingerprint of anthropogenic warming the IPCC was referring to, rather than stratospheric cooling coupled with tropospheric warming.
As he so often does, Monckton serves as a useful example of getting things wrong, --:

the models predict that if and only if Man is the cause of warming, the tropical upper air, six miles above the ground, should warm up to thrice as fast as the surface, but this tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot” has not been observed...

This unequivocally incorrect claim was also made in the NIPCC "skeptic" report (--), which was signed off on by such supposedly "serious" contrarians as -- -- and -- -- --.

The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period. Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well. Stratospheric cooling is the real "fingerprint" of enhanced greenhouse vs. natural (e.g. increased solar) warming.
Part 2: The Existence of Amplified Warming in the Upper Tropical Troposphere

So, does the “hot spot” actually exist? That is to say, is the tropsosphere actually warming as expected? Unfortunately, the answer to this is much less cut and dry.

There is a good theoretical basis for this expectation of amplification in the upper troposphere relative to the surface. We expect that an increase in radiative forcing would result in a moist adiabatic amplification of warming with altitude, i.e. that the troposphere would warm faster with height. This also appears as an emergent property in climate models, which show a similar vertical profile of warming to that expected under the moist adiabatic lapse rate.

Unfortunately, actually determining what is happening in the real tropical troposphere has proven to be quite difficult. Perhaps the largest reason for this is the quality of data from the main source of our information from this region for long time periods- radiosonde networks.

Although on seasonal and annual scales, some radiosonde records are in relatively good agreement with theoretical and modeling expectations, on decadal timescales, they show less warming or even cooling of the upper troposphere. However, the tropics, especially at higher altitudes, are a notorious problem area for most if not all of the older radiosonde networks. And attempts to stitch together longer records from multiple networks (and integrate them with newer satellite records) have introduced problems as well. There have been many attempts to quantify and remove these biases (e.g. --, --). Although these attempts have managed to reconcile the observational data with theoretical and model expectations within overlapping uncertainty intervals, the real world behavior of the troposphere is still unclear (--, --).

-- sought to side step the problems associated with the radiosonde data entirely, and examined the “dynamical relationship known as the thermal-wind equation, which relates horizontal temperature gradients to wind shear”. Thermal wind speed data, in contrast to the temperature data, lacked many of the systematic adjustment issues and other errors, and were used as a proxy for temperature. Allen and Sherwood found that the troposphere appeared to be warming in reasonable agreement to theoretical and modeling expectations.

Vertical profile of tropical mean temperature trends. Trends reflect the mean change in temperature (in K per decade) between 20° N and 20° S for the period 1979–2005, obtained from radiosonde temperature measurements5 (blue and green colours), climate models8 (dashed orange, with grey shading indicating 2-sigma range) and the new reconstructions from radiosonde winds4 (pink, with error bars indicating 2-sigma range). The surface temperature change11 from 1979–2005 (grey asterisk) and the vertical profile inferred from the moist adiabatic lapse rate (dashed yellow) are also shown. The model range was derived by scaling the model vertical trend behaviour (which has been shown to be tightly constrained and its uncertainties8 by the surface trend. Prior to 2007, only the HadAT and RATPAC estimates existed, and a case could be made for a fundamental discrepancy between modelled and radiosonde observed behaviour. (--)


Recently, -- have approached the question from a different but similarly indirect angle. They examined trends in tropical sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and precipitation, which have direct implications for the behavior of the vertical tropical tropospheric temperature profile:

As the SST threshold for convection is tied to convective instability, this threshold must be strongly related to the tropical upper-tropospheric temperature. Observations show that tropospheric temperatures in the tropics approximately follow a moist-adiabatic temperature profile, which suggests an adjustment of upper-tropospheric temperatures in response to surface temperatures in the tropics. This hypothesis of moist-adiabatic lapse rate (MALR) adjustment predicts a close covariability between the SST threshold and tropical mean SST. If true, the variability and long-term trend of the SST threshold may reveal important information about the variability and trends in the tropical troposphere.
Climate warming over the tropical oceans [exaggerated]: a) In a climate before warming, convection and heavy tropical rain is restricted to a region where SSTs exceed a threshold value (dotted line), and temperatures decrease with altitude. b) Johnson and Xie show that this SST threshold has risen in tandem with mean SSTs over past decades, and that the area of surface ocean where convection occurs has remained constant. As a result of warming at the sea surface, air temperatures rise most at high altitudes. (--)
Tropical convection and thus precipitation is heavily dependent on sea surface temperatures (SSTs). Thus the absence of increased precipitation is indicative of stability upwards through the troposphere, which suggests that the upper tropical troposphere is indeed warming faster than surface temperatures.

[T]he similarity between the trends of SST and the SST threshold for convection in [the following figure] is consistent with approximate MALR adjustment in observations and inconsistent with reduced upper tropospheric warming relative to the surface, as indicated in some observational data sets. Although the statistical uncertainty of 30-year trends is rather high, the clean relationship between the SST threshold and tropical mean SST at all timescales in both observations and models increases confidence that the tropical atmosphere is warming in a manner that is broadly consistent with theoretical MALR expectations.

Time series of tropical mean SST and the SST threshold for convection. Thirty-year time series of annual tropical mean (20° S to 20° N) SST (black diamonds) and two estimates of the SST threshold for convection (blue squares and red stars). Linear trend lines are also shown. The linear trends with 95% confidence intervals for the tropical mean SST, the PD2mmd^-1 SST threshold estimate and the linear P fit SST threshold estimate are 0:088±0:057;0:083±0:076 and 0:080±0:113 °C per decade, respectively. The effective degrees of freedom in the 95% confidence interval calculations account for the lag-1 autocorrelation in the residual time series. (--)


Is this the “final word” on amplified tropospheric warming? Of course not. Ideally, instrumental biases and gaps in the satellite and radiosonde records can be sorted out, longer records from newer networks will provide more confident results, and we can get an even clearer picture of what’s going on in the tropical troposphere. In the meantime, however, this is further evidence that things are behaving more or less as we’d expect.

But moreover, these papers illustrate some key aspects of science (and particularly climate science), that could use some emphasizing. Science is iterative, not dictative or supernaturally revelatory. There’s no single, infallible decree. Science is the process by which we strive to best approximate reality. The first results are not necessarily the “best” results, and they certainly are not written in stone. Our monitoring systems, particularly (ironically?) the ones with multidecadal records, were not designed for the kind of questions we may be trying to investigate with them. Or, to paraphrase a certain former Secretary of Defense, you study the world with the instruments you have, not the instruments you might want or wish to have at a later time. Would life be a lot easier if we had designed and implemented global climatic monitoring systems in the 60s and 70s with an eye for explicitly addressing the questions we have now? Of course! But we have to make do with what we’ve got, and that means working with problematic data and finding creative ways to work around them. To that end, it’s worth pointing out, proxies aren’t just used to study the past.

Through comments here and at other blogs, I get the impression that people think using proxies is restricted to paleo questions. The presumption seems to be that in our digital, high-speed, satellite-monitored age, direct observations are the only game in town. As this case shows, however, this is decidedly not true. Indirect methods of assessing an issue are sometimes the only (or only alternate in the case of suspect data) methods available. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing! Sometimes looking at a question from a different angle can avoid some potential complications altogether. And finally, there is a pernicious lie that can be heard in climate denialist circles, typified by remarks like these from Dick Lindzen:

[I]t has become standard in climate science that data in contradiction to alarmism is inevitably ‘corrected’ to bring it closer to alarming models. None of us would argue that this data is perfect, and the corrections are often plausible. What is implausible is that the ‘corrections’ should always bring the data closer to models.

Lindzen’s implication is clear- observational data that don’t support “models” are fraudulently adjusted until they do, ergo climate change is at least partially an artifact of data manipulation. This is, in a word, absurd. First, due to the ludicrous nature of the claim and its inherent absolutism, it’s easily debunked by a single contrary example. Take, for instance, the notorious problem of climate models producing double ITCZs (e.g. Zhang 2006). This is a case in which models produced a result at odds with both theoretical expectations and observations. No one attempted to claim that the models were right about this and theory and observations were wrong.


This does illustrate a germ of truth buried in Lindzen’s conspiratorial falsehood, however. Climate models and theoretical climate dynamics/meteorology are constrained by physics, and for the most part, models tend to agree with physics-based, theoretical underpinnings of meteorology/climate dynamics. When there is an apparent discrepancy between “models” and observations, that often (but not always) means there is a discrepancy between general, theoretical meteorological expectations and the observational data. It’s not a case of trying to reconcile the observations with climate models, but rather trying to reconcile observational data (which often have well known biases) with our physics-based understanding of the climate system.
When people are quick to point out some alleged contradiction between climate models and a data set, they don’t realize that often as not they are pointing out a contradiction between the observations and our fundamental explanations of the climate system irrespective of the question of anthropogenic influence. And far from justifying a position of “nothing to worry about”, significant flaws in our understanding of the climate system would greatly strengthen the case for mitigation from a risk management perspective, as uncertainty and ignorance of consequences increase the relative value of insurance. But that’s a topic for a different day…
References:

• Allen, R.J. and S.C. Sherwood (200: Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature Geoscience, 1, 399-403, doi:10.1038/ngeo208.
• Bengtsson, L. and K.I. Hodges (2009): On the evaluation of temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. Climate Dynamics, “Online First”, doi:10.1007/s00382-009-0680-y.
• Johnson, N.C. and S.-P. Xie (2010): Changes in the sea surface temperature threshold for tropical convection. Nature Geoscience, 3, 842–845, doi:10.1038/ngeo1008.
• Randel, W.J. and F. Wu (2006): Biases in Stratospheric and Tropospheric Temperature Trends Derived from Historical Radiosonde Data. Journal of Climate, 19, 10, 2094-2104, doi:10.1175/JCLI3717.1.
• Sherwood, S.C., et al. (200: Robust Tropospheric Warming Revealed by Iteratively Homogenized Radiosonde Data. Journal of Climate, 21, 20, 5336-5352, doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2320.1 .
• Sobel, A. (2010): Raised bar for rain. Nature Geoscience, 3, 821–822, doi:10.1038/ngeo1025.
• Thorne, P.W., et al. (2007): Tropical vertical temperature trends: A real discrepancy? Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L16702, doi:10.1029/2007GL029875.
• Thorne, P.W. (200: The answer is blowing in the wind. Nature Geoscience, 1, 347-348, doi:10.1038/ngeo209.
• Thorne, P.W., et al. (2010) Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy. WIRES: Climate Change, in press, doi:10.1002/wcc.80.
• Zhang, G.J., and H. Wang (2006): Toward mitigating the double ITCZ problem in NCAR CCSM3. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L06709, doi:10.1029/2005GL025229.

I'll post the following as well just in case any deniers get a Goredon.