Thursday
Apr122012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Heat exchange
Apr 12, 2012 Climate: Sceptics Climate: other Yale Climate Forum reports on a heated exchange between Doug Keenan and Scott Denning, a climatologist who has made outreach efforts to sceptics, notably attending the Heartland Conference last year.
I find the whole thing rather exasperating to tell the truth. Keenan's point - that we cannot detect any global warming signal in the temperature records - and Denning's point - that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - both seem to me to be substantive, but not decisive. The conversation would be more meaningul if both parties recognised this, and discussed what would be decisive.
Update on Apr 12, 2012 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Doug Keenan suggests that I publish the whole of his correspondence with Prof Denning. Given that much of this has appeared on Yale Climate Forum already, I guess this is OK.
Dr. Denning,
The Yale Climate Forum quotes you as saying “Almost everyone that dismisses climate change as a problem does it for ideological or political reasons, not for scientific reasons”. You appear to have done what Richard Betts warns against in the Forum article: gotten your “impression of the other group second-hand”. As Betts notes, that “leads to further misunderstandings and increased bitterness”.
I ask you to read the reasons that skeptics have given. Last year, I published an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, which was subheaded thus: “What is arguably the most important reason to doubt global warming can be explained in plain English”. If you have a rebuttal to that piece, I would be much interested is seeing it.
Dear Dr. Keenan,
Thank you for your note.
Actually I have personally spoken with literally thousands of people who don't "believe" in climate change. I meet regularly with such groups: at the Heartland Institute's annual conference; at Colorado Christian University; and the Western Cattlemen's Association; and at public presentations across the US. Nearly all of them have been opposed almost entirely on ideological rather than scientific grounds. This is not hearsay -- it's simply been my personal experience.
I respect ideology and belief. I understand that people are opposed to big government and inefficient political intrusion in the free market. I am very sympathetic to these beliefs, and have found that mutual respect can help people to find common ground on climate and other issues.
I do recognize that there are people, yourself included, that have specific scientific objections to scientific results on climate. However, I find each person's objection to be rather idiosyncratic. You complain about autoregression in timeseries, for example. Others have similarly narrow objections based on temperature trends of Saturn's moons, Milankovitch cycles, numerical approximations, cloud parameterizations, urban heat islands, etc. The list seems endless. But there is no unified "contrarian" critique of mainstream science; merely a thousand tiny details without a theme other than anger.
The criticism you level in your WSJ opinion piece is a great example of my point. You pick a tiny issue (autoregression in timeseries analysis), and analyze it in detail, giving the false impression that this is somehow an important objection to mainstream science. The false premise is that concerns about future warming are based on extrapolation of recent trends. This is certainly not the case, as the mainstream science is based on laboratory spectroscopy of CO2 gas that is backed up by 150 years of experimental data!
Climate scientists are concerned about future warming not because it's been getting warmer lately, but because we know that (a) burning fossil fuel emits CO2; (b) CO2 molecules emit heat; and (c) heat warms things up. We can confidently predict a warmer climate under elevated CO2 for precisely the same reason we can predict that Miami will be warmer than Minneapolis this year.
I urge you to spend some time really listening to scientists, as I've spent countless hours listening to contrarians. It's been a wonderful experience for me, and I'm sure you could broaden your horizons as well!
Sincerely,
Scott Denning, Ph.D.
Dr. Denning,
My op-ed piece explains that a whole chapter of the most-recent IPCC report is unfounded: the chapter, moreover, which claims global temperatures have been significantly increasing. Your message asserts that this is a "tiny issue". Clearly, the assertion is untrue and you know it to be untrue.
Your message additionally asserts that because "CO2 molecules emit heat" global warming must be substantial. By such reasoning, a person who put their feet in a bucket of hot water would have their hand temperature increase. Earth's climate system has mechanisms for dealing with heat, and CO2 concentrations have been higher in the past. You know all this.
Etc.
I previously wondered if you were dishonest or just confused. I no longer wonder about that: your reply is substantively dishonest.
Douglas J. Keenan
Dear Mr. Keenan,
Thanks for your reply. If you wish to be taken seriously, please keep your correspondence respectful. I don't claim to be infallible, but I assure you I am not dishonest. You specifically asked me to rebut your opinion piece in the WSJ, and I have taken your request at face value. I am more than willing to listen and discuss, but I am not interested in trading insults.
Scientific concern about climate change arising from CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel predates the IPCC by well over 100 years. The concern is based on very simple physics, not on rising temperatures or timeseries analysis.
Everything in the universe emits heat (yes, even ice water!). At a given temperature, CO2 molecules emit much more than the oxygen and nitrogen molecules that make up 99% of the atmosphere. This effect has been known quantitatively since 1863. The emissions have been independently measured wavelength-by-wavelength thousands of times in hundreds of spectroscopy laboratories around the world, with increasing precision and cannot reasonably be disputed.
The Earth's surface is warmed by the Sun during the day. But at night there is no sunshine, yet thankfully we do not freeze to death each night. That's because the sky also emits heat that is absorbed by the Earth's surface. We can easily measure the heat received from each source (the sun vs the rest of the sky). The measurements show that every square meter of the Earth's surface receives about twice as much heat from the warm sky (333 Watts) as from the Sun (161 Watts). Again, these are simple measurements that have been repeated all over the world. Without this extra heat emitted by CO2 and H2O molecules in the sky, the oceans would long ago have frozen solid, to the bottom.
It is perfectly reasonable to ask how sensitive (in degrees Celsius) the Earth's climate is to changes in heating (in Watts). But it seems disingenuous to assert that heat doesn't change temperature. Everyday experience with teapots, hands, and feet refute such a claim.
Doubling the number of heat-emitting CO2 molecules adds 4 Watts per square meter to the Earth's surface. Assuming that China and India emerge as industrial economies in the 21st Century, and continue to drive these enormous economies with coal, the number of CO2 molecules in the warm sky will not merely double, but quadruple relative to 20th Century values. In that case there will be 8 extra Watts of heat provided to each square meter of the Earth's surface, 24 hours per day, 365 days a year, for many centuries.
By comparison, 18,000 years ago, when ice sheets straddled Europe and North America the Earth's surface received about 7 fewer Watts of heat per square meter. Evidently a few Watts per square meter, applied over time, make a big difference to surface temperatures! The 7 Watts per square meter of post-glacial heating was applied gradually over 100 centuries of melting ice. Yet Plan A is to apply a similar heating in the 21st Century to accommodate the welcome economic transition of the developing world.
Personally, I believe in capitalism, freedom, and the power of market incentives to drive innovation. I'd be interested in your thoughts about how these principles might best be used to provide a decent standard of living for billions of people without dramatic changes to the energy balance of the Earth's surface.
Sincerely,
Scott Denning, Ph.D.
Dr. Denning,Your message claims that "Doubling the number of heat-emitting CO2 molecules adds 4 Watts per square meter to the Earth's surface". Here is an admittedly rough analogy. If one end of a beam is put in a bucket of hot water, the other end will warm: that is simple physics. A person who puts their feet in a bucket of hot water, however, will not have their hand temperature increase. The reason is that person is a complex system that has mechanisms for dealing with heat ("feedbacks"). Similarly, Earth's climate system has mechanisms to deal with heat. Because of such mechanisms, the simple physics that you describe is misleading.As an example, it has been proposed that as Earth heats, clouds shift to allow more heat to escape into space; temperatures on Earth's surface are thereby reduced. This is sometimes called the "iris hypothesis", in analogy with how the eye's iris works. The hypothesis exemplifies how it is essential to understand feedback mechanisms dealing with heat.The iris hypothesis was proposed by Richard Lindzen, in 2001. Note that Lindzen is usually considered to be the world's leading expert on clouds.Substantial discussion of feedback mechanisms dealing with heat is given in the most-recent (2007) Assessment Report from the IPCC: section 8.6. That section is part of chapter 8, with deals with climate models. The reason that this issue is usually discussed with climate models is that the various mechanisms are numerous, nonlinear, interacting, etc.: climate models are often considered the best to deal with such complexity. The IPCC section concludes that "it is not yet possible to assess which of the model estimates of cloud feedback is the most reliable", which alone counters your claim.Discussions pertaining to feedback mechanisms have of course continued since the publication of the IPCC report. I have not followed them though. One paper that I recall is by Lindzen & Choi [2011]. Recently, Davies & Molloy [2012] has been in the news.We now have two options.1. You are truly ignorant of all of the above.2. You are aware of at least some of the above and your message is dishonest.Your web page says that you (a) have a Ph.D. in atmospheric science, (b) have been working in this area of climatology for many years, and (c) have been an editor of the world's top journal for climatological research, Journal of Climate; hence option 1 is not credible. I conclude that you are dishonest. This is in addition to the evidence presented in my previous message.I would not usually reply to such dishonesty, but the e-mail from Bud Ward indicated that an elaboration of my previous message might be appropriate.
Reader Comments (154)
Are these emails available to be seen somewhere? Hard to make sense of the third hand reporting in that article when you see snippets presented like that - it's virtually null information beyond showing two guys got annoyed with each other typing at their computers.
I think Keenan's point IS decisive. If there is no significant warming in the temperature data then the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is largely immaterial. Other things being equal, increases in CO2 concentrations over the time-scales in question would have produced significant increases in temperature. That this hasn't happened implies that other things are not equal, and that the greenhouse effect is being mitigated in some way.
If Nahle is right and there is no detectable warming when you repeat the 'CO2 in a bottle experiment' with a Mylar balloon then the warming which for 150 years has been assumed to be evidence of direct thermalisation, is indirect at the container walls.
If true we have a process of psuedo-scattering [photon is absorbed by a GHG molecule but Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium is restored almost immediately when an already thermally-excited GHG molecule emits that same energy quantum in a random direction].
So, thermalisation in the atmosphere will be mainly at cloud droplets. Also, if you look at the 2009 IPCC/Trenberth Energy Budget and take away imaginary 'back radiation', the IR heating in the first 30 m of atmosphere has been over-estimated by a factor of 15.5 [356/23].
This appears to be a scientific cock up of a similar order to the banking crash, and for the same reasons, arrogance and greed by the participants.
OK, somebody tell me why this can't be measured, observed, in some square metre of surface over 24 hours and all the heat, or should I say energy, flows ennumerated. No tree rings required. No CET records, no computer models to hindcast. Oh, of course if you cannot model one square metre of surface with all start conditions known for 24 hours and get the same energy flows as for the observations, you may need a better model.
Prof Denning: “This is not hearsay,” Denning wrote in an e-mail to Douglas E. Keenan of London. “It’s simply been my personal experience.”
Isn't that hearsay? He may be correct that all sceptics, or most sceptics, doubt the science of global warming for ideological reasons, and, for sure, attendance at a Heartland conference would draw that conclusion, but it doesn't make fill you with warm feelings about his science if his sociology is based on conversations he's had with sceptics.
Is he not aware that most alarmists are alarmists because of their ideology also, and don't know anything of the science? Or does he think that the vast army of well-organised, well funded environmentalists have all studied and understood the IPCC reports?
I don't think so Dr. Denning.
To Prof Denning, “This is not hearsay” is perfectly true - it's just hearsay to everyone else in the world.
Prof. Denning's point (that CO2 is a greenhouse gas) is irrelevant if the warming effect from any increase in atmospheric CO2 is negligible, which it is compared to the planet's main greenhouse gas (and refrigerant), H20. Even the IPCC dyke-loupers* agree that CO2 had no warming effect prior to 1950.
Hence even the merrily adjusted data shows no detectable warming from CO2:
wood for trees
*Scots - persons of questionable morals (dyke = wall, loup = leap).
Your Eminence, why not post the full e-mail exchange? You were Cc’d in my message yesterday.
I was a bit annoyed about the article’s discussion of the “tiny issue”. Here is the relevant quote from my first e-mail to Scott Denning.
With regard to your question about what would be decisive, the observational record is almost certainly too short for that.
geronimo
You’re quite right that most warmists, like most sceptics, are motovated by ideology, and we could all report findings about them which would be a mirror image of Denning’s about sceptics.
I’ve no problem with Denning’s sociology being based on conversations he's had with sceptics. You can do quite good sociology that way, if you’re honest about what you’re doing. Denning is not. He uses his possibly correct sociological observation about scepticism in the general public as a smokescreen to hide the scientific objections of the informed sceptical minority. Absolutely everyone on the warmist side does it, including in all the peer-reviewed literature in the social sciences, and I mean absolutely all of it. It’s dishonest, and Keenan is right (though possibly tactically unwise) to say so.
A recent example of characterising 'skeptics' by pointing to some mythical idiot who holds an unacceptable view was the recent "all skeptics refer to 'hide the decline' to mean the lack of warming in the last 15 years" line peddled by the BBC. A well-known troll here kept pushing the line that 'most' skeptics believe that, and we here on BH, WUWT, CA etc are just a tiny minority which doesn't represent 'mainstream' skepticism who think that way.
It's easy to point to the most extreme stupid people on any side of a debate and say 'that is what its all about, they're all like that' - which is what a lot of climate science (Mann especially, we're all oil-funded anti-science morons) and their followers do.
The fact is, it's easier for them to attack the stupid end of the 'skeptic' spectrum, because us here at the rational end are FAR less easy to dismiss, because we're looking at the same science, stats that they are.
As far as I read it sounded like a prima dona ballerina complaining that people thought her dancing was awful - yet none of them could name the precise moves which were wrong.
The point is that almost anyone can see when a dancer is dancing badly. You don't have to have a lot of knowledge to know it is awful. You do need a lot of knowledge to dance well.
In essence this is a plea that "us elite should only be judged by other members of our elite and not by the plebs who pay the bill".
Well we know where that gets us. Artwork that is applauded by the critics and shunned by those who have better things to do because who wants to see a pickled Climate scientist cut in two [snip]?
(No need to answer!)
@ Nicholas Hallam: I think Keenan's point IS decisive. If there is no significant warming in the temperature data then the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is largely immaterial.
I tend to agree. I breathe out CO2 when I sit in my car, but the greenhouse effect from this isn't the main reason my car warms up inside when I drive it.
Essentially [snip - manners] Denning is asserting that because CO2 is a greenhouse gas it must be what's warming up my car. Keenan, rationally, is saying that no such inference can be drawn from the actual data.
These people are simply mad. Unfortunately, they've provided governments everywhere with a pretext for taxes that will never be repealed.
geronimo: "... that all sceptics, or most sceptics, doubt the science of global warming for ideological reasons, and, for sure, attendance at a Heartland conference would draw that conclusion ..."
Heartland is not going to invite me to any conference, and I am not going, anyway, but if I did or do attend a Heartland conference it will certainly not be due to ideological reasons, but because I believe Heartland is above ideology and for reason and truth.
I believe the "conclusion" you suggest would be drawn denotes myopia (and this is not personal to you).
“sceptics doubt the science of global warming for ideological reasons”
What ideology’s that, then? I’m just sceptical of the motives/behaviour of scientists like Hansen and Jones and their hangers-on like Gore, DECC and the BBC.
The warmists’ ideology appears to be funding. Take that away and there would be no windmills or PV installations, no carbon trading or taxation, and no ‘zero carbon’ schemes and their dodgy arithmetic.
I think the asymmetry comes from :
Heartland supporter = ideologically driven
Greepeace supporter = nice fellow
The most important part of the Yale article occurs in the comments where a link is provided to Prof Murray Salby's presentation.
Apr 12, 2012 at 11:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Carr
“sceptics doubt the science of global warming for ideological reasons”
This really is one of those idiotic statements.
I've yet to meet a sceptic who does not believe the science of CO2 warming. But this is not what is statement is intended to convey. It is intended to mean "the science of massive doomsday warming of up to 6C with 60m of sea level, hell, fire & brimstone".
And this is really what global warming is. It is a political campaign. It is like "gay marriage" or "illegalise smacking" etc.
I would liken it to the statement: "I've never met a supporter of smacking who doesn't smack their children when they are angry". The suggestion is obviously, that they smack because they are angry, whereas most parents who smack are angry because they have to smack. Likewise we accept the real science, we just don't accept the voodoo non-science of massive unproven positive feedbacks. (indeed, sufficient evidence to prove their non-existence!)
But the main point, is that this is a political campaign, it is the small bit of real science (about 1C) with a large dollop of voodoo-science making up to 6C. Then a disk load of codswallop about the supposed effects (23,000 early deaths in the UK each winter). Then there is pure politics about supposed action like ... cripple our economy and spend anything left on buying bird mincers.
So a good 95%+?? of this "global warming" is pure political tripe, but it is called "science" because there is a small bit of real science, which no serious sceptic disagrees with and certainly does not require us to swallow their green slime propaganda.
But because we do not swallow their green slime political-inspired eco-nutter propaganda .... we are called anti science for rejecting everything except the small bit of science we not only agree with ... but wish they would stick to!
Sceptics doubt the science of global warming for ideological reasons.
Denning is right.
I doubt all climate theories including the ones I find attractive.
An ideology is a logical system of ideas. Science is a logical system of ideas. Therefore science is an ideology.
Science theories must be able to be proved wrong. Science is an ideology of doubt. Scientists should think of decisive tests of their theories. Then they must, if necessary, give them up.
No warming therefore no greenhouse gas effect seems decisive to me.
"An ideology is a logical system of ideas"
That may be occasionally true, but most ideologies are substitutes for logical thinking, in my experience.
Agree with the rest of your comment, though!
I've long hoped for the fissures between the skeptic 'camps' would become publically acknowledged and publicised:
1. 'Lukewarmers' - where I class myself (can acknowledge indicative evidence for < 1 degree warming)
2. 'Greenhouse Effect Doubters' - mdgnn, I guess, and others pushing the 'none at all' line.
3. 'Ideologically driven' - non-scientific, actual hardline right-wingers, creationists, etc.
The problem are
1 and 2 are at each other's throats a lot over the details of the science.
1 wants to reach out to the Met Office, and mainstream science and gain scientific respectability
2 is angry because mainstream science thinks they are loons.
3 sits back and latches onto every small piece of evidence that fits their perceptions.
3 pretends they are 2 quite often in order not to look like a loon
Michael Mann thinks we're all 3. Not sure why, perhaps because 1 and 2 are too busy arguing with each other that only 3s have enough time to write letters in crayon to him and stand with badly-selled placards at his speeches. Increasingly, mainstream science is starting to see that the 1s are not so bad, and are outreaching to us. Unfortunately, the 2s are making them nauseous with their interjections.
I think that's a fair summary of where we're at.
Sorry O/T. WIll shut up now.
Enjoyed "badly-selled placards" BYJ :-)
mdgnn
“a scientific cock up of a similar order to the banking crash”
And for very similar reasons - the investment bankers were relying on a computer model that turned out to be completely flawed.
Mike H
“who wants to see a pickled Climate scientist”
Don’t tempt me! Perhaps Damien Hirst’s currently descending star is an encouraging sign of a new rationalism? That and less money for daft ideas.
I say again, why can't we measure it? And follow up with, why is that such a stupid question that it deserves no answer? Surely mydog and his claims could be refuted in a moment with a few measurements, if he is wrong? Seems far better to me than to keep on about multiple radiating discs in a vacuum in some perfect black body scenario, or ice cores or backcasting parameterised models. Would I be right in assuming that nobody wants to resolve this and we would all rather go on and on over the same old points? Science in doubt? Devise an experiment. Find out. If you can't, well, you really have a political discussion, and ideology would be the right word for either position.
Rhoda, it's up to the person trying to disprove an established theory to come up with an experiment which proves said established theory is refuted. Otherwise I could demand a moon mission to disprove my 'theory' the moon is made of green cheese. It is up to me to produce some of the cheese first.
Established theory? What we are dealing with is somewhere between an assertion and a hypothesis. It sometimes seems to suspicious old me that the CAGW crowd have enough to make their political case and that more experiments are as likely to blow the whole thing out of the water as confirm it. Whereas extra confirmation would be a little helpful (they are already getting their way politically) they really do not want to risk casting any doubt with a real experiment. But it is their hypothesis and they really ought to find some way to distinguish it from the null, to support it other than by paleo, models and Arrhenius.
(Didn't find that extraneous mention of creationism helpful. That is a warmist meme, it has no place here.)
Rhoda, black body thermodynamics is an established theorem with millions of applied uses and no refutations (yet). CAGW via 3x feedbacks is not. Please don't conflate them.
Criticising CAGW feedbacks is right and proper scientific skepticism, because it's a speculative theory with only marginal scientific evidence which has been catapulted into the political arena as a 'consensus fact'. It suffers from poor raw data and potentially flawed methodologies. It's ripe for criticism.
mdgnn is saying there are flaws in black body thermodynamics (in relation to atmospheric physics). This is a pretty big claim, maybe not as big as my green cheese claim, but still pretty hefty. As such it requires pretty good evidence to base that on - both algabraic and empirical. It would be amazing (and exciting) if he had found a flaw. We await his proposal for an experiement to test it. Don't hold your breath that it will be taken up by people invested in conventional thermodynamics, just as Nasa won't be flying to fetch some of my cheese any time soon.
I mentioned creationists because there are some within our 'ranks' and as long as we all buddy together, we all get tarred by that brush. We're asking mainstream science to accept that outlier opinions being bandied around by activists should be 'outed' by moderates on that side. It's only fair we do it on our side too.
[Snip - venting]
Black body thermodynamics is not in doubt in rhodaville. I do not accept the 1degree figure for direct CO2 effect unreservedly though. Maybe in the perfect scenario, but not in the atmosphere. No doubt it can be easily proven, but who is trying to do so? Who is measuring it? Seems most studies are using very old work, work from the 19th century, modtran stuff done for Air Force use in another sphere and so on. Who is verifying the Trenberth budget?
I have no idea at all what mydog is saying. But I am sure that could be tested though, and in this case you are correct, it is for him to do, or explain exactly what he thinks is going on. If it was me, I would not be banging my head against the brick wall of proper publishing, I'd stick the whole thing up on the net for crowd review.
No, can't agree on the creationism. I just do not think it is relevant to CAGW. That idea stands or falls on what can be proven. A person's opinion in other areas is of no relevance, save as ammunition for ad homs.
Never argue with a creationist...
Link
Good to see Activists in there, though.. :-)
Rhoda, agreed. Strike the creationists, right-wingers etc from that list. No 3 in the list simply contains people who just don't believe in it for personal reasons which are not based on science. They hope the science supports them, so like to hang with the 2s and their far-out theories :)
As for the 1 degree - I don't accept it unreservedly either, but I give it scientific credence at least, because it satisfies...
1. There is a physical mechanism by which it might come about.
2. There is some indicative evidence that it has happened.
I'm not completely happy with the evidence, since I believe the raw data is insufficient and has been manipulated by people looking for a particular outcome. But on balance, I can see how it's possible and probable that there has been some ( < 1 degree ) warming due to CO2 emissions.
Can we try to keep to the specifics of the Kennan/Denning correspondence please. No radiative physics.
Rhoda
”A person's opinion in other areas”
I don’t think Creationism is used like that (not by me, anyway) but rather as a description of a mindset. Ideology, if you prefer.
WRT experiments, RW Wood’s ‘cold frame’ experiment 100 years ago raised some doubts about the greenhouse effect (the one thing you don’t get in a real greenhouse) but it doesn’t get talked about much...
(Sorry, Bish - crossed your post.)
OK TBY, we are in approximate agreement. Your category three now includes only those who don't want to believe. But I am not aware of any in forums such as this. Of course, even the most self-aware of us can never be entirely sure all of our opinions are reasoned. I know for certain that in every area I tend to come to an instant opinion then seek to marshall the facts to justify it. That is what we all do. It may be a survival trait, it is so universal. One needs to be cognizant of it. In the case of CAGW, I am pretty sure I came to the sceptical position first by rejecting what was so patently a scare, having seen so many over the years. Some people, doom-mongers, like to push a scare. A Menckenian hobgoblin. I instinctively reject one. But then I look at the evidence.
"The measurements show that every square meter of the Earth's surface receives about twice as much heat from the warm sky (333 Watts) as from the Sun (161 Watts)" (Denning)
Really?
I also agree that Doug Keenan's point is decisive. In fact it explains more than just the temperature series - it helps explain some of the ridiculous debates that go on between sceptics and scientists.
The type of correlation in climate time series is such that low-frequency variability will dominate ANY climate time series. Human nature being what it is, we try to explain those low frequency components with deterministic explanations, and dismiss the high frequency, low amplitude responses as "noise" - even though there is no reason to justify such a position.
In determining cause, we need to reject other possible explanations, that is at the core of science. To accept CO2 as a cause, Denning must reject natural variability, and does this by pointing to the low frequency components and arguing these cannot be noise, they must be signal. This is EXACTLY where Keenan's point comes in: natural variability cannot be ruled out, because natural variability - when modelled correctly - can fully explain the recent warming.
In addition, it usefully explains why we see brief correlations with all manner of time series throughout climate - allowing people to link climate change to the sun, to cosmic rays, to clouds, to CO2, to all manner of things. The correlations are never perfect, but need some tweaks and adjustments to get the best fit. All of this is trivially explained by the particular type of serial correlation present in climate. It is exactly what you would expect if Doug's point is right.
Doug's point is so powerful, it not only explains past temperature changes, it also explains the nature of the debate we find ourselves in. That is one astonishing amount of predictive power.
And that is why, scientifically, Doug's point is a killer blow. Of course, politically we can still choose to take action even if the science doesn't support it. But in that context, I believe Doug is sticking to the scientific method and the "consensus" group is being the political ideologue here.
Thanks for showing the full correspondence. For me the complaint from Denning that contrarians are not all united on one critique seems very telling and adds more information about Denning than anything I had seen so far in this debate about motives.
This is more revealing of a scientific limitation on Dennings part. When I see someone fixated on a simple catch-all explanation for climate behaviour and complains that the responding critiques come from many different angles, implying this is symptomatic of anger (I think it is Denning focusing on a "theme"), or idiosyncratic behaviour, then I think I see who has an un-scientific emotional attachment ;)
[Snip - venting]
I'm not replying, since the Bish has called O/T. And cb is getting added to my troll list.
What a shame Doug Keenan could resist the urge to avoid insulting Denning who at least seemed willing to talk. Unless there's much more to the exchange than that above it would seem that Denning managed it.
But 161 Watts per sq metre from the Sun? last time I looked it was about 1400 at the top of the atmosphere. Where'd the rest go? And it doesn't stay cozy warm at night either. It can get very cold very quickly.
I rather wish Doug had said something like that rather than calling the guy ignorant or dishonest.
The analogy with a person putting their feet in hot water I got from Willis Eschenbach, in a post that Willis had on WUWT. ... to give due credit.
cb
What a bizarre rant. You must feel very strongly about something...
@ Rich, 2:29 PM
How is my message insulting? If someone breaks into a store and steals something, and I call that person a thief, am I being insulting?
One of the big problems in global-warming research is that so few people want to call out dishonesty. That effectively supports dishonest researchers acting with impunity
Rich
"Where'd the rest go?"
Warming up that well known heat-sink, the sky.. :-)
'people who don't "believe" in climate change"
Defining it (climate change) specifically/meaningfully would be a good first step in then determining people's actual beliefs about. Of course Warmers will never do this. The wheel in the sky keeps on turnin' and the stars look down.
Andrew
I find Doug's contention that Denning is disingenuous to be reasonable. He must know how complex it is, yet he treats the problem as a simple matter of extra watts. As if he is attempting to reach out to the audience using the exchange with Doug as a pretext. Guilty as charged, imho. I might not have called him a liar, but I cannot fault that accusation prima facie. No good Denning getting on his high horse, he should be honest.
"outreach" seems to follow a pattern. Jovial start, then condescending explanation that you might give to schoolchildren, then outrage when it's pointed out that the 'simple' explanation isn't the whole story.
Nice exchange. Denning gets his opinion from "Colorado Christian University; and the Western Cattlemen's Association;", then advises Doug to broaden his horizons!
The fact that Denning resorts to argument by attribution of motive simply shows how weak his scientific arguments are. Just to take one example, he claims to know how much heat the earth was receiving 18,000 years ago, to the nearest Watt - how does he know that? He doesn't.
Let me assure BigYin and Rhoda that climate science has got radiative heat transfer from the Earth's surface completely and utterly wrong and every process engineer agrees with this. The root paper is Manabe and Wetherald 1967 who assumed LW out = SW in. That's a great exaggeration yet the IPCC now apparently assumes B-B in a vacuum out, 2.6 times higher than M&W and the IR part is 15.5 times the measured level. [356/23]
They claim 'back radiation' makes up the difference but the device they use to measure it, the 'pyrgeometer', cannot measure what they claim. The modelling is fine: they are experimental nincompoops and have invented physics which does not exist. There BH - no discs in a vacuum!