the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Resigned Again

Posted by Jeff Id on September 14, 2011

Climate Depot reports another idiotic fool resigns from the APS over the fact that their board likes climate change money.  Well he won a Nobel prize for something real (not peace or economics) so perhaps he’s not such an idiot.

Exclusive: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents! Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group’s Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming

Visit Site for full Story  also at WUWT

Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘The temperature (of the Earth) has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’

 

Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973

PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information.

********************************************************************************************************
Ivar Giaever
XXX XXX
XXX
USA
Phone XXX XXX XXX
Fax XXX XXX XXX

 

66 Responses to “Resigned Again”

  1. omnologos said

    This has to be the biggest put-down of warmism ever. The multiverse quote is gynormously good.

  2. Thanks Jeff for informing us that another former supporter of Obama, Dr. Ivan Giaever, has resigned from the American Physical Society and abandoned the AGW global warming scam promoted by world leaders, Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC.

    That information fits nicely in the conclusion to this 50-year video summary of my research career (1961-2011):

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Summary_of_Career.pdf

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Summary_of_Career.doc

    Despite frustrations following the Henry Kissinger,Mao Tse-Tung, Chao En-lai meetings in Peking on 9-11 July 1971 [See documents declassified in 2003*], for the sake of society we need to:

    1. Acknowledge benefits from the secret meeting:
    _a.) Nationalism and racism were reduced,
    _b.) World peace was enhanced, and
    _c.) Nuclear war was avoided.

    2. Avoid retaliation for harm done, and

    3. Restore:
    _a.) Integrity to government science, and
    _b.) Citizens’ control over our government.

    *Henry Kissinger’s summary of events of 9-11 July 2011

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB66/ch-40.pdf

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  3. Tom Fuller said

    Hiya Jeff–how’s it going?

    Pity Ivar Giaevar is so hard to spell. that’s gotta be the only reason it isn’t in the media–right?

  4. Jeff Id said

    haha. I plead ctrl-c ctrl-v.

    Blogging is very difficult these days. It hasn’t gotten any easier and the last time I touched real data was a long time ago.

  5. Jostemikk said

    How to pronounce Ivar Giaever:

    http://www.forvo.com/word/ivar_giaever/

    And how it’s written in Norwegian:

    http://klimaforskning.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=145.0;attach=290;image

    Jostemikk – from Norway.

  6. dougieh said

    sound guy, just like you Jeff, blog when you feel like it, as you know plenty of blogs out there, look after no1,2,??

  7. diogenes said

    emeritus guy…senile…nowhere near as agile mentally as Rabett or Connolley

  8. Jeff Id said

    hehe

  9. stan said

    Jeff,

    Who ya gonna believe Gore, Friedmann and Romm or Giaever? By the way, I want to say that I think the lefty talking point du jour (“it’s high school physics”) is actually correct, if not the way they realize.

    I expect high school students will forget to site their instruments properly, forget to check them and never calibrate them.

    I expect high school students to forget to show their work adequately in a way that makes it possible for others to audit or replicate it. And I expect them to decide it isn’t worth the bother to check anyone else’s work.

    I expect HS students to work harder and care more about being popular and hanging with the in crowd, than applying themselves to improving the quality of their work. I expect them to gang up on others who are unpopular. I expect them to play ‘tricks’ and behave in a juvenile way toward the unpopular.

    I expect HS students to screw up the math and complain about the math being too hard. I expect them to make careless mistakes. I expect them to fudge their data and their software to get the answer they want. I expect them to extrapolate short term trends into long run conclusions and to try to exaggerate the significance from tiny sample sizes

    I expect HS students to lack experience and lack perspective regarding history. It’s just like HS youngsters to think that things are unprecedented and no before one has ever experienced anything like they have.

    The more you think about it, the more appropos the description. The global warming hockey team is just like physics by a bunch of high schoolers. Although that may be a little harsh on high schoolers.

  10. [...] Resigned Again [...]

  11. Interesting. He failed to renew keeping his reasons to himself. Then someone asked why and he told them.

  12. #11 Lucia,
    Well, it wouldn’t have been a surprise to them. His scepticism is old news. Here he is in July 2008, proclaiming his scepticism in similar words. So the notion that he is an Obama supporter who has seen the light is just spin.

  13. steve fitzpatrick said

    Nick #12,

    So the notion that he is an Obama supporter who has seen the light is just spin.

    Sure hope you have more than your opinion to prove he was never an Obama supporter. Otherwise, your comment is nothing more than spin. I voted for John Kerry because I found Bush was too stupid by half to serve a second term. Does my support for Kerry prove I am not skeptical of CAGW?

  14. Anonymous said

    The personal attacks and ad homs are about to fly towards Dr. Giaever. I remember the abuse that was directed towards Hal Lewis after he resigned, truly reprehensible.

  15. cce said

    A few questions.

    1) Do the various temperature analyses claim to “measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year.”
    2) If you are trying to determine if the world has warmed or not, is such a figure necessary?
    3) My body temperature is normally ~310.2 K. How much would it have to warm before it was no longer considered “remarkably stable.”
    4) Has anyone claimed that 0.8 degrees of warming over the past 150 years should have nullified 150 years of technological progress?
    5) Does 150 years of technological progress coincident with 0.8 degrees of warming imply that greater technological progress will occur if the world warms 2 or more degrees over the coming century compared to no additional warming over the same time period?

  16. Re: steve fitzpatrick (Sep 14 23:04),
    I have seen no evidence that his attitude to Obama has changed. And his attitude to AGW hasn’t changed. So what’s new?

  17. EricH said

    Nick,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giftlite/List_of_Nobel_laureates_who_endorse_Barack_Obama

    Ivan Giaever did endorse Obama in 2008 and much publicity was made of it. That said, i dislike the idea of skeptics and believers falling strictly into party line. He may very well still be an Obama supporter, and god bless him for it.

    Cce:

    A few responses
    1&2) In order to measure delta global temp over time you have to have a global basis in time, so yes some sort of averaging in time and in space it necessary. This is the first problem encountered by those trying to measure or discover climate change whether AGW or natural. Otherwise how to you deal with temperatures that clearly vary over the course of a day and year. Add weather and changing conditions on the ground and you already have one hell of a problem just trying to understand and compare measurements.

    3) The earth is known to have gone through ice ages and warm periods, in fact, I am sure you will agree that the temperature at any point on the surface of the earth is known to vary substantially over the course of the year and even the day… not so the human body. Gaia theory aside, this is not even a remotely valid comparison, aka red herring.

    4&5) Does 0.8 degrees of warming over 150yrs coincident with an increase in atmospheric green house gas concentration prove or even imply substantial & irreversible near future warming caused by human activity?

  18. Anonymous said

    steve fitzpatrick said

    I voted for John Kerry because I found Bush was too stupid by half to serve a second term. Does my support for Kerry prove I am not skeptical of CAGW?

    No, but it proves some other things about you. It happens that GWB had higher SAT scores and higher grades than either Kerry or Gore.

  19. Anonymous said

    Stan;
    You forgot about losing a huge core chunk of critical raw data in their messy rooms. Never to be seen again.

  20. Brian H said

    Oops. The above 2 Anonymouses were me; somehow some cookies got toasted or SLT.

  21. Brian H said

    Obama continues to be four-square behind AGW incontrovertibility. So unless Dr. G. is more tolerant of the O-monster than of Ms. Kirby, I think he’s no longer among the shrinking armies of O-zombies.

  22. cce said

    Eric

    1-2) Attempting to find the “global average temperature” was the mistake of the early temperature analyses. None of the current analyses try to do this. Instead, you calculate anomalies for points on the earth for specific times of the year, and then you combine those anomalies, weighting them by area. Or you use more sophisticated statistical methods such as our host has been involved in. You do not need to find the fabled “global average temperature” to estimate how much the globe has warmed. Giaever and all so-called “skeptics” should know these elementary facts.

    3) We are talking about global temperature change not “the change at any point on the surface of the earth over the course of the year and even the day.” Global temperature does not plummet because it is nighttime somewhere in the world and what change that occurs during the course of the year is due to the Earth’s elliptical orbit (it is closer to the sun during NH winter). The global energy flux is relatively constant. The temperature change between the the last ice age and today was between 4 and 6 degrees averaged over the globe, a transition that took about 7000 years. This is a small change compared to the weather outside, but it had enormous climatic implications.

    4&5) No.

  23. cce said

    A correction. With respect to seasonal changes in global “temperature”, the greater land mass of the northern hemisphere trumps the proximity of the earth to sun, making the northern hemisphere summer the warmest season, globally. Sorry.

  24. stan said

    Very poorly played there Nick. Ugly. And revealing.

    Is the Obama endorsement relevant? Not ordinarily, but in the bizarre world inhabited by global warming believers, denial is merely political opposition by right-wingers (just like all denialist studies are funded by oil and gas). So it only matters to the extent that one has to deal with those whose belief system spits out canned rebuttals devoid of fact.

  25. curious said

    16 – Nick: “What’s new?”

    His public rebuttal of the APS? I didn’t see any reference to them in your link – was there an earlier one?

  26. Bart said

    I guess that Giaever is not concerned either when his body temperature increases from 310 to 312 K, since that is still amazingly stable.

    My, my my.

  27. Neven said

    Before he supported Obama, he supported Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein. And he beats his wife, of course. ;-)

  28. amabo said

    @Bart: If my Temperature increased from 310K to 312K over the course of 150 years, then, yes, that would be amazingly stable. Almost unbelievably so.

  29. Andrew said

    The comparisons of the Earth system to a human body are mildly amusing, as is the inflation of a fraction of a degree change to two whole degrees,

    Me thinks Ivar Giaever’s critics miss the point.

    The fact that when there was a marginally measurable change in the Earth’s temperature, human health and well being improved dramatically is sufficient to refute all claims that there have been or will be any meaningful impacts of changes on the course of human development. Perhaps warmists failure to understand the significance of this point stems from a belief that what they stand for is preventing some unmeasurable slow down of this progress, not a reversal: this substantially downgrades their worries from “planetary emergency” to “third string priority” at best. But what they fail to understand is that their “solutions” have no impact at all on the already immeasurably small impacts they claim to want to prevent, but that their “solutions” in fact will foment a slow down in human progress far larger than the hypothetical one that scares them into pursuing these “solutions”.

    We have a choice: Rapid progress for humanity and small changes to the environment, or identical changes to the environment and substantially less progress. Evidently many prefer the latter option…

  30. Frank K. said

    I bet Ivan Giaever invested heavily in Solyndra but now is financially ruined, and so is taking it out on the APS…yeah, that’s it!

    \conspiracy-theories

  31. Bart said

    Amabo,

    Please update your comparison of the timescale by taking into account your age vs the age of the earth.

    I think the result will be that both changes are very quick in relation to their age.

    But the point is: What are the causes? How healthy is it?

    Ivar’s comment re “amazingly stable temps” in ignorant to the extreme.

  32. DeWitt Payne said

    Re: Bart (Sep 15 11:16),

    The surface of the Earth was almost certainly molten at at least one point during its formation and possibly nearly completely frozen over at another point. So comparison over the entire history of the planet doesn’t help your case.

  33. curious said

    31 – Somebody called Bart: “Ivar’s comment re “amazingly stable temps” in ignorant to the extreme.”

    Sure Bart – and of course you are the real deal when it comes to brains:

    http://bartsblackboard.com/i-did-not-win-the-nobel-fart-prize/season-11/574/

  34. Bob Brand said

    Amabo,

    The 0.8 degrees of global temperature rise happened from 1910 onwards – for the most part since about 1970 when the ramp-up got going, so “150 years” is pushing it a little:

    Since 1970 we’re on a 0.16 °C/decade trend, and the IPCC and many others expect about 0.2 °C/decade over the 21st century. This IS staggeringly quick by geological and paleobiological standards:

    * glacial -> interglacial about 0,01 °C/decade (5 or 6 degrees over 7,000 years).

    * interglacial -> glacial were way slower, maybe 0,005 °C/decade.

    * Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum -> temperature spike of +6 °C during a 20,000 year period of extreme vulcanism: 0,003 °C/decade as the rate of change.

    These changes of 5 to 6 degrees over 7,000 to 20,000 years have had VAST consequences: mass extinctions, anoxic oceans largely without fish and sea-levels changing by up to 120 meters.

    We’re now planning to do the same experiment, but at least TWENTY TIMES as fast: business-as-usual could mean about… 4 or 5 degrees over maybe 200 years? Sounds like a plan? Early human populations before the Holocene were not sedentary at all: these days we don’t get to pack up cities and megapopulations.

    Comparisons with ages before multicellular life even existed on the planet are not that relevant.

  35. Mark T said

    Of course cause and effect be damned, right? The only thing we know for sure is that a drop of 5-6 degrees could be devastating. I say could because we did not have the technological ability to adapt in the past as we do now. Also, the claim we are doing it 20 times as fast is a bit naive.

    Mark

  36. Layman Lurker said

    #34

    The “staggeringly quick by geological and paleobiological standards” trend since 1970 was nearly matched in the early part of the decade – prior to significant contributions from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. There are far too many issues with proxy reconstructions to rule out similar pre-instrumental variability that we see in the instrumental record.

  37. Mark T said

    All the data sucks. The hard part is discerning truth from lies with the tools we have.

    Mark

  38. timetochooseagain said

    Paleo data from that long ago almost certainly does not have the resolution to determine the rates of global change to decadal timescales. We know that the changes occurred within broad, long periods. How long or short the periods within those broad ranges that the changes actually occurred during, is uncertain. To suggest that the Earth just never experiences relatively “rapid” decadal rates of change…well, I guess it explains a lot, if people believe that.

  39. Joshua said

    So Jeff –

    It was my impression that you are convinced by the data that the Earth is warming.

    So do you agree with Giaever that the proof is not incontrovertible,” or do you disagree with him in that you are convinced that the Earth is warming (albeit not convinced how much it is warming due to anthropogenic causes)?

  40. Bob Brand said

    Mark T, (#35)

    I’m just calling attention to the fact that Amabo’s or, more importantly, Dr. Giaever’s claim that +0.8 °C over 150 years is “amazingly stable” is bogus, because:

    1) the rate of change is actually 0.16 °C/decade since 1970;

    2) and likely to be around 0.20 °C/decade over the 21st century;

    3) which is 20x (or more!) the rate of change during the most violent changes in climate in the past.

    Now you can argue about ’cause and effect’ and several other things – but that is not the essence of what I’m saying: Ivar Giaever’s claim is wrong, when he calls this “amazingly stable”.

    As Cce pointed out in #22, Dr. Giaever’s comment about “global average temperature” is also quite naive – anyone who is seriously interested in climatology would know that anomalies per location/time-of-year are being used, if only to lessen the impact of systematic errors. Please read #22.

    All things considered, I don’t think Ivar Giaever has any special insights to offer on climate, notwithstanding his Nobel Prize from 1973 in solid-state physics.

    He seems like a very nice and admirable gentleman, so I wish him well.

  41. Jeff Id said

    Joshua,

    The Earth is warming. CO2 causes warming. How much of our measurements is CO2 related is debatable. How dangerous that warming is, is equally debatable. What we can do about it is less debatable.

  42. Jeff Id said

    Bob,

    “3) which is 20x (or more!) the rate of change during the most violent changes in climate in the past.”

    I have seen no proof of this whatsoever. In fact, if you look at 30 year intervals inside the past 150 years you can come pretty close to the last 30 before CO2 was an issue. Claims about the past are the least certain of all.

  43. Mark T said

    Beating the drum there, Bob.

    Mark

  44. timetochooseagain said

    I get a serious kick out of the idea that Cave men would have been able to deal with climate changing, because they didn’t have cities and thousands of years of progress weighing them down. Yeah, well the typical cave man barely lived long enough to establish what the climate was (~30 years!) so by definition only the most lucky cave man experienced more than one “climate” in his entire short life. So it wouldn’t have made the damnedest bit of difference, true enough. However, he also would have lived a shit poor life (again, think what life expectancy of maybe thirty years means!) And if you think thousands of years of progress have rendered us MORE vulnerable to our natural environment changing, there is no point in talking with you. Anyone who thinks that clearly is incapable of ever understanding why we cannot, in the name of the “environment”, sacrifice continued societal progress. From that perspective, we were better off without that progress anyway.

  45. diogenes said

    TTC…you should read some Tobis…we need to ditch the concept of economic growth…we need to lose half the population of the planet…then we can live happily

  46. Joshua said

    So Jeff –

    You disagree with Giaever, and you agree with the APS: Global warming is, in fact “incontrovertible.”

    Interesting.

  47. Joshua said

    Actually, I used the Google:

    Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

    The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

    [...]

    So thus far you agree with the APS and disagree with Giaever. But then…..

    [...]

    If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

    Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

    So my guess is that you agree and disagree with both the APS and Giaever.

    Interesting.

  48. kim said

    For Steve F. and other assorted curious.

    theamericanscholar.org/dubya-and-me/

    ================

  49. Jeff Id said

    The CO2 warming effect is absolutely incontrovertible and Giaever will agree with that – I have no doubt whatsoever. CO2 emissions without question whatsoever, create warming and no scientist I have ever talked to, in my entire life, disagrees. What Gaiever addresses is the ‘evidence’ which is the measurement and effects of AGW. These concepts are fully in play. You are predisposed to see the difference as sophistry, they are not.

    As a class exercise, which will take the next ten years of your life, prove warming measurements are accurate AND caused by anthropogenic CO2. Even better, prove that they are unprecedented.

  50. Bob Brand said

    Layman Lurker, (#34)

    Interestingly, you mentioned: “prior to significant contributions from anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

    Now is that really certain? We all understand there are *always* multiple causes/forcings to climate change, some likely to be anthropogenic and some most certainly not.

    I would say climate change 1910-1940 (the increase you’re referring to), is a superposition of:

    – an (at the time) still relatively small contribution from GHG’s
    – a more active sun -> higher insolation (maybe a bit of Svensmark’s as well?)
    – almost absent volcanic activity
    – way less sulphate aerosols than 1940-1970

    Please have a good look at: http://tinyurl.com/3fmlfm4

    This graph shows forcings in W/m^2 from 1850 onwards (AR4 WGI Chapter 2 figure 2.23).

    Volcanic data is taken from actual eruptions and dust-counts – there was an hiatus 1910-1950. The GHG’s are calculated from measured CO2, CH4 (without feedbacks), while solar is based on C-14, sunspots and direct measurements. The really tricky part is the aerosols, which have been modeled by SPRINTARS. MIROC is actually the next step.

    Anyway – this graph shows that even 1910-1940 there must have been SOME contribution from extra GHG’s, as CO2 was already at +/- 310 ppm.

    Maybe you know this paper, it is also worthwhile (don’t be scared, a certain Phil Jones co-wrote it):

    http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/~jclub/journalclub_files/thompson_2010.pdf

    Interestingly:

    The warming–cooling–warming pattern of twentieth-century temperatures is typically interpreted as the superposition of long-term warming due to increasing greenhouse gases and either cooling due to a mid-twentieth century increase of sulphate aerosols in the troposphere , or changes in the climate of the world’s oceans that evolve over decades (oscillatory multidecadal variability). Loadings of sulphate aerosol in the troposphere are thought to have had a particularly important role in the differences in temperature trends between the Northern and Southern hemispheres during the decades following the Second World War.

    Remember: there are always multiple forcings at work, some large, some smaller.

    Just adding a bit of perspective – I know you all vehemently want to disbelieve. ;)

  51. Mark T said

    Bang, bang…

    Mark

  52. Bob Brand said

    Jeff,

    You say: “.. you can come pretty close to the last 30 before CO2 was an issue.

    Please consider my post #50.

    It is way to simple to suggest that CO2 was “switched on” suddenly 30 years ago (even though some nitwits at IPCC may have suggested this). Obviously there was a gradually increasing contribution before that. Also consider that other GHG’s (CH4, ozone, CFC’s, NOx) and land-change have been at work as well.

    They’re in the graph.

    Regards,
    Bob

  53. Mark T said

    Bang, bang.

    You guys are a broken record. Do you really think we haven’t looked at all these things? Are you that myooic?

    Mark

  54. Joshua said

    Jeff.

    Giaever specifically disagrees with the statement that global warming is incontrovertible. You say that global warming is incontrovertible. But pointing out the contrast in your viewpoints is sophistry – because in reality Giaever agrees with you even those his statement is diametrically opposed to yours.

    Interesting.

  55. Mark T said

    Bang…

  56. conard said

    Bob,
    Regarding your (3): How do you pull decadal values from data that have none?

    Also consider that we are living in the age catastrophic “global warming” (including a 70-120m sea level rise) from the perspective of our human ancestors 50ka and 20ka and are doing quite well comparatively. Why must the future always filled with gloom and doom?

    Joshua,
    Absolutes are rare and precious things. Concentrate on that aspect of the good doctors resignation and you might be less prone to undue excitement.

  57. Bob Brand said

    Hi Conard,

    Decadal values are certainly available from icecores (their resolution is about 50 years for > 10ky ago, and yearly before that).

    Also we know yearly rates-of-change from coral reefs, sediments (in particular grain sizes) and sometimes from Argon or Beryllium isotopes. The changes in temperatures and icecores are quite detailed. It is true that *some* paleontological records have much less resolution.

    But consider this: how likely are very large swings in temperature NEVER being recorded, while we know of changes with a frequency ~ 0,01 °C/decade like at the end of ice-ages?

    Also: huge changes in temperature of the troposphere in just a few years involve enormous changes in energy flux (all that heat has to be radiated or added in just a few years time). Which process is available for that? We know from many proxies and from astronomy that the sun is really rather constant.

    I’ll post some references from paleontology/geology tomorrow, when I’m awake. I’m in Holland atm.

    Cheers. :)

  58. Bob Brand said

    Ah… Conard,

    Just noticed:

    Also consider that we are living in the age catastrophic “global warming” (including a 70-120m sea level rise) from the perspective of our human ancestors 50ka and 20ka and are doing quite well comparatively. Why must the future always filled with gloom and doom?

    I don’t think it will neccesarily be catastrophic, just warmer.

    We have only recently started carbon back into the atmosphere, but we’re ramping up. It won’t be difficult to reach 900 or 1000 ppmv CO2 and lots of CH4 too (natural gas leaking). I’m not saying we’re not doing well, just that things will be warmer.

    The cure to climate change 20 ka ago was very simple: WALK.

    We can track our ancestors walking from Ethiopia across little Asia into Europe (in multiple waves coinciding precisely with climate changing). Our species is ideally suited for that: we have long legs and stand upright so we can walk thorugh any terrain.

    Our ancestors did not need high tech: they simply walked to a nicer location. The world was mostly empty of humans. Not now.

    Sleep well. :)

  59. Layman Lurker said

    #50 Bob Brand

    Bob, to be sure the early century warming can be traced to forcings and variability. My point was that you compared “staggering” decadal warming to warming on geologic time scales – the uncertainty and resolution of which does not reveal decadal variability. Tis apples and oranges. One only has to look at the comparable warming segement within the same century to see that it is unlikely that such decadal warming periods haven’t occured before.

    As for my skepticism, I was at one time inclined to believe AGW but started to look into questions of it about 3 or 4 years ago (not long before Jeff started blogging) after hearing media reports of the hockey stick contraversy. I you want to think my comment shows that I “vehemently want to disbelieve” rather than being open to considering facts and arguments then I’m OK with that. You are no different than the many others I have chatted with.

  60. John M said

    Meanwhile, the unprecedented (during the instrumental record) drop in global sea level continues.

    http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/index.html

    (need to click the “time serie” button)

    bang to the fifth power

  61. timetochooseagain said

    45-Whenever people say we need to reduce the world population I say “Sure! You go first.” Haha, no, that’s a joke even I think is much too dark. But then, the suggestion that, essentially, half the people need to die wasn’t made by me, was it? If they want to reduce the population so badly, well, I’m not going to stop them…

    50-A couple of things:

    Models of twentieth century climate evolution include all the factors you have mentioned (except “a little Svensmark”) but fail to mimic the rate of warming from 1910 to 1940. They do so despite the fact that, at least according to the emerging consensus of solar scientists, the trend over the period in solar irradiance that they use never actually existed but was concocted from various erroneous measurements that suggested lower activity than is now believed to actually have taken place. The consensus on solar irradiance is moving far away from the old Lean references that the climate models still use (GISS-E does, for instance) toward Svalgaard:

    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI%20(Reconstructions).xls

    This means that climate modelers are really going to NEED Svensmark’s effect to bail them out, more so than they already do, to explain past changes in climate: more so than even they thought, irradiance simply won’t do it. Irradiance just doesn’t change, not in anyway that could possibly effect long term climate trends.

    But on the point of the “other” factors that “explain” early twentieth century warming, again, modelers include volcanoes. The lack of volcanoes during the period doesn’t help them explain the warming, this despite the fact that high sensitivities do tend to cause volcanoes to suppress temperatures over long, decadal time periods, rising to normal very slowly, such that when a couple are juxtaposed they would predict multidecadal cooling as the impacts build on one another. There is no real world evidence for anything other than brief dips from volcanoes. This is important because modelers primarily attribute the Little Ice Age to frequent volcanic eruptions: they have to build on one another. But the effect lasts so long that anthropogenic forcing (and some erroneous solar) becomes necessary for models to not have temperatures remain quite low for decades beginning with Santa Maria.

    Put it all together: the truth is NOBODY KNOWS what caused the earlier warming, which was as fast as the supposedly purely anthropogenic change, the change we supposedly know is anthropogenic because it was “too fast” to be explained any other way. Never mind that entirely unknown factors could produce the same thing with relatively little help from humans. You’d probably be better off with the Lean and Rind handwave that the warming is because the data during the two world wars is crap and the first world war lead to cold crap data and the second to warm crap data.

  62. conard said

    Bob, if it just going to get warmer and not have

    VAST consequences: mass extinctions, anoxic oceans largely without fish and sea-levels changing by up to 120 meters

    then why care if some old fart decided to give up his Tuesday edition of Eos?

    Enjoy the weekend and a Wiekse Witte; they are hard to find where I live.

  63. amabo said

    @Bart #31:
    Why?

  64. Jeff Id said

    Joshua,

    It is about magnitude, not whether the effect exists. The warming effect is perfectly well known despite what some still believe. It has a magnitude between zero and 10C per doubling. Right now, it looks closer to zero than 10 by the measured data. It is not sophistry although it does require a slightly more sophisticated thought. What the good doctor argues is that the AGW effect as presented is not incontrovertible. This is not ‘diametrically opposed’, he just didn’t explain his full opinion for months on end on a blog.

    CO2 does capture heat flow, we know this from the absorption spectrum. It is a measured, calculated and often times used effect of VERY basic engineering, physics etc.. The rest of the story is fair game. If we didn’t know the absorption of various molecules you wouldn’t believe the technologies that simply wouldn’t exist. Don’t worry about it though because this part is very well understood.

    Bob,

    I did consider your #50 and I simply don’t agree that we know one solid thing about historic variability of climate. The only thing we know worse than the history of climate is the future.

  65. Mr Phd But Emeritus said

    The CO2 warming effect is absolutely incontrovertible and Giaever will agree with that – I have no doubt whatsoever. CO2 emissions without question whatsoever, create warming and no scientist I have ever talked to, in my entire life, disagrees.

    How much did Al Gore pay you to say that? All of the models are hoaxes. Only God knows the future!

  66. A free website. Type your name and see what alphabet pictures would come up…

    [...]Resigned Again « the Air Vent[...]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: