<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/27/10, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Rumelhart</b> <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br> Especially since every time I look further into the science I<br>see things that make me go "hmmm". That and the fact that I have built<br>
up thick shields against the recent trends by government agencies to<br>attempt to use our own fears to manipulate us into doing something.<br><br>Paul</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Speaking of things that make me go "hmmmm"....</div>
<div> </div>
<div>After you critiqued the scientists who authored the following study<font size="2">("Expert credibility in climate change" <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.abstract">http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.abstract</a> )</font><br>
<font size="2">in this post </font><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-August/071111.html"><font size="2">( http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-August/071111.html</font></a> ) I pointed out in this post ( <a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-August/071114.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-August/071114.html</a> ) that you could present your critique to a public discussion at Realclimate.org, where the very scientists in question answered some of the criticisms to the paper you attacked, where it would be possible for your analysis to be possibly answered by professional climate scientists.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>No response. Hmmmmm.... Could it be you did not want to present your critique to Realclimate.org, because it might be summarily sliced and diced by scientists who together know, oh, maybe 100 times more about the subject of climate science, physics, statistics and mathematics etc., than you do? Or perhaps you never read my post in question? Oh well, this is only Vision2020.moscow... </div>
<div> </div>
<div>As long as I'm "hmmming" along, I might as well also point out that there was no response to my post I am re-posting here in full below, with a few errors corrected, where I commented on your rather blatant confirmation biased filtered statement, it seems to me, that was in error, that statement being that the list of estimates of climate sensitivity presented by Barton Paul Levenson were "all over the board." </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I explain below why I disagree that these estimates are "all over the board" while exploring other implications of Levenson's list of estimates of climate sensitivity, and related climate science issues. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>At the bottom of this post is a reference to an MIT study on the probabilities of global temperature increases by 2100. MIT is not a government institution, but a private research institution, so you might not view their climate science work with the same "thick shields" against government agencies:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-July/070882.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-July/070882.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regarding the list of peer reviewed published scientific estimates of<br>climate sensitivity from Levenson's research<br>( <a href="http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html">http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html</a> ),<br>
referenced in your comments below, there are implications worth exploring<br>concerning your arguments to question anthropogenic climate warming.<br><br>I thought it might be useful to pedantically point out that Kelvin and<br>
Celsius indicate the same temperature change per degree. But Kelvin starts<br>at absolute zero, minus 273 Celsius (thus there are no minus Kelvin<br>readings), while Celsius starts at the freezing point of H2O, with minus<br>
readings below, positive above. 100 Celsius is the boiling point of H2O.<br>Climate sensitivity estimates in Kelvin indicate the same result as if they<br>were given in Celsius:<br><br><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-June/070628.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-June/070628.html</a><br>
<br>*Paul Rumelhart* godshatter at <a href="http://yahoo.com">yahoo.com</a> wrote<br>*Mon Jun 21 19:06:15 PDT 2010*<br><br>"The link you posted on climate sensitivity shows values that are all over<br>the<br>board, from 0.26 to 5.5 Kelvins. There doesn't seem to be a trend that<br>
shows them converging on a final number, either. Since 2000, the range<br>is 0.75 to 4.5 Kelvin. Anything under about 1.2<br>is probably not a problem, since it implies strong negative feedback.<br>Anything over about 2 could be a definite problem, depending upon the exact<br>
feedbacks<br>involved. It doesn't appear to me that climate scientists are on top of<br>the feedback problem, either. I'm not even confident that they have<br>identified them all, let alone figured out exactly how they affect each<br>
other."<br><br>-----------------<br><br>These estimates on climate sensitivity from Barton Paul Levenson are not<br>"all over the board," as you wrote. Not one indicates a reduction in<br>temperature from a doubling of atmospheric CO2. If they were "all over the<br>
board" some would show negative feedback(s) that more than overcome the<br>radiative forcing of CO2, resulting in predictions of a temperature<br>reduction, especially if your arguments referencing "Chaos Theory" applied<br>
to global climate are compelling.<br><br>Furthermore, you make no reference to Levenson's analysis revealing the mean<br>of these studies indicates climate sensitivity to be 2.86 or 3.15<br>Kelvin. This mean result can be argued indicates that based on these<br>
studies, there is a significant probability that climate sensitivity is high<br>enough to justify taking action to reduce CO2 emissions.<br><br>Given your emphasis on "Chaos Theory" to question the scientific consensus<br>
that human impacts are the primary driver of the the rapid and profound<br>global climate change currently being observed which will increase<br>significantly, it is a challenge to your argument that all these studies on<br>
climate sensitivity show a temperature increase. If the global climate<br>system was as "chaotic" as you suggest, there would be a significant number<br>of peer reviewed published results predicting doubling atmospheric CO2 would<br>
decrease global average temperature from strong negative feedbacks,<br>perhaps from cloud formation feedbacks, a variable you have pointed out that<br>climate scientists have difficulty modeling. That all these estimates of<br>
climate sensitivity from Levenson's research show an increase in<br>temperature, suggests that on this scientific question the climate system is<br>not as "chaotic" as you imply. Indeed, the scientific question of climate<br>
sensitivity is perhaps one of the best examples of a question focusing on<br>global *climate*, rather than more chaotic local or regional *weather*.<br><br>Perhaps you can offer a list of peer reviewed published estimates of climate<br>
sensitivity predicting temperature decreases in global average temperature<br>from doubling atmospheric CO2? Even the "dean" of anthropogenic climate<br>change skeptics (to quote NASA climate scientist James Hansen from his book<br>
"Storms of My Grandchildren" <a href="http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/">http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/</a> ),<br>MIT's Richard Lindzen, finds climate sensitivity to be positive, though<br>minimal. He has argued with his "Iris" theory that the climate system has<br>
mechanisms to dissipate thermal energy to space that lower temperature.<br>However, Lindzen's "Iris" theory has not held up to scientific peer review<br>( [Vision2020] Anthropogenic Warming Skeptic Richard Lindzen Deconstructed<br>
Via Peer Review:<br><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-July/064927.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-July/064927.html</a> ,<br>[Vision2020] MIT Meteorologist Lindzen's Recent Climate Science Paper Poorly<br>
Peer Reviewed, With Direct Critical Comments Rejected by GRL?* *<br><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-January/068047.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-January/068047.html</a> ).<br>
<br>As far as these studies converging on a "final number" (Levenson's analysis<br>does suggest "convergence" in the graphs he presents. Quoting Levenson, "In<br>summary statistics, N = 61, the mean is 2.86, and the sample standard<br>
deviation is 1.50. Notice how the estimates are beginning to converge with<br>time"), climate science operates within a probable range of future<br>temperature increases in global average temperatures from human CO2<br>
emissions and other impacts. If you are demanding a "final number" before<br>declaring the science confidently predicts a high probability of a<br>significant temperature increase from doubling atmospheric CO2, you are<br>
making a scientifically flawed argument.<br><br>Also, there are ten estimates of climate sensitivity in Levenson's list from<br>2000-2006. As you wrote, "the range is 0.75 to 4.5 Kelvin." But nine of<br>the estimates are from 1.8 to 4.5 Kelvin. Only one estimate, 0.75<br>
Kelvin, shows climate sensitivity to be low enough to indicate<br>human emissions increasing atmospheric CO2 and temperature are not a major<br>problem, as shown below (however, ocean acidification is another important<br>
issue indicating CO2 emissions should be reduced, regardless of the<br>magnitude of global warming). It is not unreasonable to question one low<br>estimate when nine others are much higher:<br><br><a href="http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html">http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html</a><br>
<br> Boer et al. 2000 3.5 Washington et al. 2000 2.1 Dai et al. 2001 2.1 Wetherald<br>et al. 2001 4.5 Boer and Yu 2003 3.50 Shaviv and Veizer 2003 0.75 Stern 2005<br>4.4 Sumi 2005 2.8 Goosse et al. 2006 1.8 Hegerl et al. 2006 2.5<br>
--------------------<br><br>I'll briefing consider evidence that climate sensitivity is not a low 0.75<br>Kelvin.<br><br>So far, human CO2 emissions have increased atmospheric CO2 by approximately<br>110 ppm, from a pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm to a current level of<br>
about 390 ppm ( <a href="http://co2now.org/">http://co2now.org/</a> ), less than half of a doubling of<br>atmospheric CO2. Yet global average temperatures since 1880, according to<br>climate scientists at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (<br>
<a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/</a> ), have already increased 0.8<br>Celsius, depending on the error bars interpretation.<br><br>Of course anthropogenic climate change skeptics, even if they accept this<br>
temperature increase as based on reliable temperature data, which many do<br>not, will claim the increase is mostly from natural climate change<br>variables. Read Roy Spencer on this question, a well known often quoted<br>
skeptic whose climate science analysis indicates natural variables are<br>warming climate, that overall does not survive scientific peer review:<br><a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/warming-in-last-50-years-predicted-by-natural-climate-cycles/">http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/warming-in-last-50-years-predicted-by-natural-climate-cycles/</a><br>
.<br><br>However, the consensus after decades of analysis by climate scientists<br>around the globe is that natural climate change does not explain the 0.8<br>degree Celsius increase since 1880. Read 2010 reports from the National<br>
Academy of Sciences on climate change:<br><a href="http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010">http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010</a> and<br>2010 release from the American Statistical Association:<br>
<a href="http://magazine.amstat.org/blog/2010/03/01/climatemar10/">http://magazine.amstat.org/blog/2010/03/01/climatemar10/</a> .<br><br>Professor Scott Mandia's analysis on this issue is instructive, especially<br>the implications of tropospheric warming coupled with stratospheric cooling,<br>
as evidence temperature increases are not due to certain natural variables.<br>Mandia's analysis indicates Roy Spencer's claims at the website already<br>given cannot be correct. The isotope signature ratio of the CO2 in the<br>
atmosphere indicates the CO2 increase since pre-industrial level must be due<br>to the burning of fossil fuels and land use impacts, and the tropospheric<br>warming coupled with stratospheric cooling is not explained by solar, cloud,<br>
or ocean current climate variables. Quoting Mandias: "Solar forcing, cloud<br>cover, ENSO, PDO, NAO, etc. cannot explain a cooler stratosphere even when<br>ozone depletion is accounted for. Increasing greenhouse gases explain this<br>
coupling very well and climate models predict a warmer troposphere and a<br>cooler stratosphere with increased greenhouse gases." Read on this issue<br>here:<br><a href="http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/smoking_gun_humans_climate_change.html">http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/smoking_gun_humans_climate_change.html</a><br>
.<br>------------<br>The physics regarding CO2's radiative forcing in Earth's atmosphere can<br>largely explain Earth's warming trend, as human emissions have increased<br>atmospheric CO2 level, according to the American Institute of Physics. The<br>
following website explores the history of the science as far back as the<br>1800s, with intense debate among scientists, among them Sherwood Idso, one<br>of the scientists listed in Levenson's estimates of climate sensitivity who<br>
found a low value for climate sensitivity:<br><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm">http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm</a> .<br><br>If there were also profound natural variables warming Earth's climate at<br>
this point in time, it's likely even more temperature increase would<br>be observed. In fact, there are natural climate trends that could be<br>cooling the Earth's climate at this point. Read March 2005 article by<br>
Ruddiman in Scientific American regarding an argument Earth should be<br>tending to cool by natural variables:<br><a href="http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/news/0305046.pdf">http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/news/0305046.pdf</a><br><a href="http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/ruddiman-william-f/">http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/ruddiman-william-f/</a><br>
--------------<br>An increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 390 ppm, less than half of a<br>doubling of CO2 level, is already resulting in a global temperature increase<br>(0.8 Kelvin, or Celsius) that indicates climate sensitivity is well above<br>
0.75 Kelvin. It would be a very dangerous gamble for humanity to push<br>atmospheric CO2 level to a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial level to 560<br>ppm, given the probability climate sensitivity is significant.<br><br>
The climate feedbacks that are claimed are not well understood enough to<br>make credible predictions regarding future climate, have been studied by<br>climate scientists for decades; and reliable predictions are quantified<br>
within a range of probabilities. Read 2009 MIT study on probabilities of<br>temperature increases:<br><a href="http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble/no-policy.html">http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble/no-policy.html</a><br>
<a href="http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf">http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf</a> .<br>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div></div>