Willie Soon's Career Fueled by Big Oil, Coal and Koch Money

[BethesdaWX]

You are correct, I am biased and argue strictly on the basis of the large supportive science which recognizes that human activities are causing the surface environment of the Earth to warm and will continue to do so to a significant degree well above that forced by non-anthropogenic factors. You are also correct that I recognize the organized skeptical/denial machine promoted by politically/ideologically motivated folks who wish only to create the illusion of discord within the scientific community of researchers and to influence the political process by creating confusion. They don't really care about the science.

What is "opposing research"? NO ONE should set out to oppose anything if they are objective. Let the bits fall where they may. Each bit of research results adds to the totality of knowledge. Nothing is being purposefully overlooked or disregarded. Please refresh our memories as to what "skeptic research" has passed muster yet been squashed by mainstream science.

Some have said our knowledge is too limited to hold a strong position with regard to the reality and impacts of AGW. I agree many details remain beyond our ability to understand and not all the dice line up in perfect order. What we do know however are the most important, influential components of what determines Earth's surface temperature and how these things are being altered by human activities.

The equations are not specific to test tubes or in isolation. They represent how radiation warms the Earth's surface, and are used to accurately pin down the surface temperatures of distant star and planets. Earth should be no different. Greenhouse gases are a very important component in determining planetary surface surface temperature. We know very, very accurately how CO2 affects the planetary radiative balance. We know that warmer SST and lower atmosphere will be a more humid one in terms of specific humidity of water vapor. Water vapor, being a prominent greenhouse gas, further enhances surface warming. There are only two other factors which can possibly impact surface temperature. They are incident solar radiation and the Earth's albedo. Nothing else matters to a system near thermodynamic equilibrium, which any and all systems are constantly seeking.

The equilibrium response is what I am concerned with. Maybe you are not. That's why climate scientists and myself care little about coupled oceanic/atmospheric oscillations like PDO, ENSO, AMO or MJO in this discussion.

Oh really? If you are going to use RF equations as a basis, you need to accept, as well, that a change in Clouds by 3% equates to more RF incease than the CO2 has since 1850. You also need accept Satellite Measurements of OLR, demonstrating not only a marked increase in the past 30yrs, but also the fact that yearly variations are on the order of 20W/m^2 at the lowest, usually, in Equtorial regions. Also...the surface warming faster than the LT is not consistant with AGW models, the LT needs to be warming ~ 20% faster than the LT, at least that is how it is modeled, unless our models are wrong. We're already falling outside their projections, as well as the IPCC's...This should send a Red Flag up Immediately.

So 10.8W/m^2 of increased RF since 1979 has equated to 0.35C of warming...Increasing OLR is reflective of more Energy making it into the climate system, not more being trapped...AGW traps OLR, and the Earth supposedly warms to meet equilibrium, but that would not increase OLR. The more OLR a body of matter emits, the warmer it is...what does the increasing OLR from the Earth Say about it? Simple...it is warm...but it can't be due to AGW, at least not completely, especially given the increase of 10.8W/m^2 of OLR increase. http://www.cpc.ncep....ata/indices/olr

Catastrophic AGW Science has been squashed by Objectivity and the Scientific Method, not the Other Way around. Your position on AGW is simply due to your political position..nothing more, nothing less. And this is why it is hard to take you seriously.

Oh well that is my last post for today...

[WeatherRusty]

I'm the first to EVER admit on these boards that ideology is the most difficult entity to remove from objectivety....you seem to not share the same view wheb reflecting upon yourself...

However, my non ideological perception is that the Scientific Method is not being preserved with the ongoing AGW hypothesis research, wrt the conclusions that are being pushed as FACT, and your take on skeptical arguments is dripping with ideological blinders wrt to the abandonment of the Sci. Method in this case.

You can certainly view me as some ideological pundent, from your perspective, however, it will in no way discourage me from my skeptical stance that we have a long way to go to draw conclusions on shaky evidence that CO2 increase correlates to CAGW...

Again, your belittling of any research, stance, evidence, unknowns supportive of QUESTIONING a premature conclusion wrt AGW has no place in the Sci. Method.....as a matter of fact, it only hurts the scientific process in studying the hypothesis, because the Sci Method ENCOURAGES skeptisism, and only STRENGTHENS a hypothesis when overcoming ALL arguments and tests that ANYONE can throw at it....The AGW'ers cower to such scientific means, and many people see through the "crying wolf" type science that many of the experts conduct and continue to do so.

Do science a favor and challenge your OWN thinking, stop assuming people are all ideologically driven who disagree with you, and continue to keep an open mind about the uncertainties that very well could result in feedbacks providing a "ho hum" result as CO2 continues to rise.

Sorry, but I don't see the "crying wolf" or overdoing of what the science allows for....by climate scientists that is. What "skeptic research" is there? If it exists, is it done only by "skeptics/deniers of AGW"? What of the many physical principles in accord with AGW are seriously in dispute? I would really like to know.

If I belittle anyone, it is politically/ideologically motivated scientific impostors masquerading as seriously interested in the science. And no, I am not referring to you.

[Sunny and Warm]

You are correct, I am biased and argue strictly on the basis of the large supportive science which recognizes that human activities are causing the surface environment of the Earth to warm and will continue to do so to a significant degree well above that forced by non-anthropogenic factors. You are also correct that I recognize the organized skeptical/denial machine promoted by politically/ideologically motivated folks who wish only to create the illusion of discord within the scientific community of researchers and to influence the political process by creating confusion. They don't really care about the science.

What is "opposing research"? NO ONE should set out to oppose anything if they are objective. Let the bits fall where they may. Each bit of research results adds to the totality of knowledge. Nothing is being purposefully overlooked or disregarded. Please refresh our memories as to what "skeptic research" has passed muster yet been squashed by mainstream science.

Some have said our knowledge is too limited to hold a strong position with regard to the reality and impacts of AGW. I agree many details remain beyond our ability to understand and not all the dice line up in perfect order. What we do know however are the most important, influential components of what determines Earth's surface temperature and how these things are being altered by human activities.

The equations are not specific to test tubes or in isolation. They represent how radiation warms the Earth's surface, and are used to accurately pin down the surface temperatures of distant star and planets. Earth should be no different. Greenhouse gases are a very important component in determining planetary surface surface temperature. We know very, very accurately how CO2 affects the planetary radiative balance. We know that warmer SST and lower atmosphere will be a more humid one in terms of specific humidity of water vapor. Water vapor, being a prominent greenhouse gas, further enhances surface warming. There are only two other factors which can possibly impact surface temperature. They are incident solar radiation and the Earth's albedo. Nothing else matters to a system near thermodynamic equilibrium, which any and all systems are constantly seeking.

The equilibrium response is what I am concerned with. Maybe you are not. That's why climate scientists and myself care little about coupled oceanic/atmospheric oscillations like PDO, ENSO, AMO or MJO in this discussion.

Something tells me you are a supporter of the Roman Inquisition against Galileo, who by the way, can receive some credit for the idea of the Scientific Method. Methinks the alarmists doth protest too much about scrutiny. Scrutiny should be what you desire, as at some point when all experiments support you position, you will have won. Until you allow open and unfettered access to the data by which others can replicate your results, you really have nothing, and are only preaching.

[Sunny and Warm]

This is an appropriate quote from Albert Einstein for this thread.

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; but a single experiment can prove me wrong.

[WeatherRusty]

Oh really? If you are going to use RF equations as a basis, you need to accept, as well, that a change in Clouds by 3% equates to more RF incease than the CO2 has since 1850. You also need accept Satellite Measurements of OLR, demonstrating not only a marked increase in the past 30yrs, but also the fact that yearly variations are on the order of 20W/m^2 at the lowest, usually, in Equtorial regions. Also...the surface warming faster than the LT is not consistant with AGW models, the LT needs to be warming ~ 20% faster than the LT, at least that is how it is modeled, unless our models are wrong. We're already falling outside their projections, as well as the IPCC's...This should send a Red Flag up Immediately.

So 10.8W/m^2 of increased RF since 1979 has equated to 0.35C of warming...Increasing OLR is reflective of more Energy making it into the climate system, not more being trapped...AGW traps OLR, and the Earth supposedly warms to meet equilibrium, but that would not increase OLR. The more OLR a body of matter emits, the warmer it is...what does the increasing OLR from the Earth Say about it? Simple...it is warm...but it can't be due to AGW, at least not completely, especially given the increase of 10.8W/m^2 of OLR increase. http://www.cpc.ncep....ata/indices/olr

Catastrophic AGW Science has been squashed by Objectivity and the Scientific Method, not the Other Way around. Your position on AGW is simply due to your political position..nothing more, nothing less. And this is why it is hard to take you seriously.

If global cloud cover increases in response to global warming sufficient to negate most of that warming (strong negative feedback), then how has the Earth managed to become so much warmer in the past than it is at present. The very real Earth history argues against you.

[AtticaFanatica]

I swear I could start a topic about my favorite ice cream flavor and if I put it in this sub-forum, it'd somehow end up being the same 5 people arguing the same things.

[WeatherRusty]

Something tells me you are a supporter of the Roman Inquisition against Galileo, who by the way, can receive some credit for the idea of the Scientific Method. Methinks the alarmists doth protest too much about scrutiny. Scrutiny should be what you desire, as at some point when all experiments support you position, you will have won. Until you allow open and unfettered access to the data by which others can replicate your results, you really have nothing, and are only preaching.

I think you have our roles reversed! Galileo represented the scientific viewpoint verses the irrational and so do I. Scrutinize all you want, the basic physics is taught everywhere from high school on up. The raw and normalized instrument temperature record is on the public record as is computer code and always has been. So is every National Academy of Science world wide in on your conspiracy to withhold data and process? What about 97% of actively publishing researchers who claim the world to be warming and that man's activities are the principle cause?

[OHSnow]

If global cloud cover increases in response to global warming sufficient to negate most of that warming (strong negative feedback), then how has the Earth managed to become so much warmer in the past than it is at present. The very real Earth history argues against you.

Agreed. I have often wanted to point this same thing out -- just another nonsensical denialist theory. The idea that some sort of negative feedback are magically going to prevent us from warming. With all of these magical feedbacks kicking in, how has climate ever changed in the past? The magical feedbacks only kick in with human-caused warming. LOL.

[LakeEffectKing]

I swear I could start a topic about my favorite ice cream flavor and if I put it in this sub-forum, it'd somehow end up being the same 5 people arguing the same things.

Vanilla.....You?

[OHSnow]

I think you have our roles reversed! Galileo represented the scientific viewpoint verses the irrational and so do I. Scrutinize all you want, the basic physics is taught everywhere from high school on up. The raw and normalized instrument temperature record is on the public record as is computer code and always has been. So is every National Academy of Science world wide in on your conspiracy to withhold data and process? What about 97% of actively publishing researchers who claim the world to be warming and that man's activities are the principle cause?

The problem, Rusty, is political correctness. Look at the media! Whenever there's an article about global warming, we have to rebut the scientists with American Tradition Institute, Heartland Institute, Joe Bastardi, Senator Inhofe, etc. Interview Tom Karl of NOAA or Walt Meier of NSIDC, or Kevin Trenberth of NCAR, we have to interview Mark Morano or Lord Monckton or some other crank. We can't possibly acknowledge that one viewpoint can be and is superior to the other. We can't possibly call these people cranks, crackpots, and industry shills because that might offend somebody. Maybe some viewer might decide not to tune in or send an angry e-mail (heck, in this political climate, I wouldn't put it over some of these crazies to send death threats). Australian scientists were forced to fight back against harassment and death threats -- of course, Watts and his ilk feigned innocence, but it is there rhetoric that's creating this problem.

[WeatherRusty]

This is an appropriate quote from Albert Einstein for this thread.

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; but a single experiment can prove me wrong.

AGW is an amalgamation of many physical laws and principles all melded together encompassing many scientific disciplines ranging from astronomy to zoology. Collectively these various sciences come together to form the theory we call AGW. Most of the support for the theory comes from already very well established science. No one experiment, other than waiting decades more could suffice to prove it all absolutely wrong.

[WeatherRusty]

The problem, Rusty, is political correctness. Look at the media! Whenever there's an article about global warming, we have to rebut the scientists with American Tradition Institute, Heartland Institute, Joe Bastardi, Senator Inhofe, etc. Interview Tom Karl of NOAA or Walt Meier of NSIDC, or Kevin Trenberth of NCAR, we have to interview Mark Morano or Lord Monckton or some other crank. We can't possibly acknowledge that one viewpoint can be and is superior to the other. We can't possibly call these people cranks, crackpots, and industry shills because that might offend somebody. Maybe some viewer might decide not to tune in or send an angry e-mail (heck, in this political climate, I wouldn't put it over some of these crazies to send death threats). Australian scientists were forced to fight back against harassment and death threats -- of course, Watts and his ilk feigned innocence, but it is there rhetoric that's creating this problem.

That hits the proverbial nail squarely on it's head! Couldn't agree more.

[LakeEffectKing]

AGW is an amalgamation of many physical laws and principles all melded together encompassing many scientific disciplines ranging from astronomy to zoology. Collectively these various sciences come together to form the theory we call AGW. Most of the support for the theory comes from already very well established science. No one experiment, other than waiting decades more could suffice to prove it all absolutely wrong.

Which means that the Scientific Method has NOT been fully carried out. So we are left with "hedging" our hypotheses, and tactfully claiming fact via conclusion without following the Sci Method. ie......a belief....

...Not saying it couldn't be right (because I'm skeptical, not in denial) however, this has always been a pet peeve of mine....until someone comes up with a better, non biased, method for ascertaining conclusive science from proposed hypotheses....I'll hug the Scientific Method instead of GCM's, interprative dendrology proxies, subjective analysese, and over valued evidence.

[Sunny and Warm]

AGW is an amalgamation of many physical laws and principles all melded together encompassing many scientific disciplines ranging from astronomy to zoology. Collectively these various sciences come together to form the theory we call AGW. Most of the support for the theory comes from already very well established science. No one experiment, other than waiting decades more could suffice to prove it all absolutely wrong.

Einstein made that comment with regard to his General Theory of Relativity, which is still being tested even today (yes, decades of waiting!!). What he meant was that any hypothesis can be disproved by a single experiment which does not support it either via replication of the original experiement or the results of the hypothesis are not as described in the theory. That is the scientific method. There is enough experimentation which has occurred which flies in the face of AGW theory that warrants further review of the theory itself. Thus the sceptical community grows and AGW support weakens. See how that works?? It does not require religious belief in AGW to make it so. It requires real and actual proof, that at this moment is lacking outside model data.

[WeatherRusty]

Einstein made that comment with regard to his General Theory of Relativity, which is still being tested even today (yes, decades of waiting!!). What he meant was that any hypothesis can be disproved by a single experiment which does not support it either via replication of the original experiement or the results of the hypothesis are not as described in the theory. That is the scientific method. There is enough experimentation which has occurred which flies in the face of AGW theory that warrants further review of the theory itself. Thus the sceptical community grows and AGW support weakens. See how that works?? It does not require religious belief in AGW to make it so. It requires real and actual proof, that at this moment is lacking outside model data.

I agree with both you and LEK, to a degree. It comes down to, at least for me, how much uncertainty does one find acceptable before agreeing with a proposition which by it's very nature can not be proven in an absolutist sense. I see it as very likely we have pinned down the science sufficiently to hold to a rather firm opinion. It would take a very unlikely turn of events to overturn what we think we understand...in the face of a lack in absolute proof. Of course the science could be wrong, I just don't think it sufficiently likely to be fatally flawed. We have a rather course understanding which is in need of refinement. That's where I believe we are. The basic concept is based on sound science even if we lack detailed precision as to what the future holds.

[BethesdaWX]

If global cloud cover increases in response to global warming sufficient to negate most of that warming (strong negative feedback), then how has the Earth managed to become so much warmer in the past than it is at present. The very real Earth history argues against you.

Thats not what I said at all, I am talking about climate sensitivity....1.4W/m^2 of increased OLR simply isn't enough to cause significant temperature change. How do we know this? Covering the entire atmospheric window, satellite measurements show Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) to have Increased Substantially in the satellite era...in this case, it has been between 5-6W/m^2...this since 1979. This is CPC data, I will post it if needs be. In that timeframe, we have warmed only 0.3C. Its called climate sensitivity...as in, climate sensitivity to changes in the energy Budget...this likely relates directly to the Oceans.

How is it Possible for OLR to increase by 5-6W/m^2 since 1979? Easy...the only way that is even possible is if the amount of light in the visible spectrum & SW infrared spectrum getting into the Climate System has increased. This can Be Caused by 2 things.

1) Low Clouds Decreasing

2) Ozone depletion in the Stratosphere.

3) There may be others, but these are two biggest contributors we know of at this time.

But to increase OLR by 5-6W/m^2, it would have to be a significant level of both. a LLGCC decrease of 3% would equate to 1.8W/m^2 of increased RF. 5% would equate to 3W/m^2...7% would equate to 4W/m^2...but now we're going ahead of ourself within the realm of rationality. Ozone depletion is the biggest uncertainty...since it would allow for more UVA/UVB rays into the climate system...those, by far, have the highest potential to warm the oceans Significantly due to their high frequency wavelengths. If Ocean Temperatures (OHC) increases substantially, it not only warms the atmosphere significantly over time, but also would thus increase OLR significantly.

But now...can we tell that this is responsible for much of the warming?

Well, yes, we can. The LT is progged, overall, to experience 20% more warming than the Surface. Instead, the Surface has seen about 20% more warming than the LT. That is not possible in AGW.

This should send a red flag up...it does to many scientists.

[A-L-E-K]

shocker