I want to discuss the recent Kaufman study which purports to reconcile flat temperatures over the last 10-12 years with high-sensitivity warming forecasts. First, let me set the table for this post, and to save time (things are really busy this week in my real job) I will quote from a previous post on this topic
Nearly a decade ago, when I first started looking into climate science, I began to suspect the modelers were using what I call a “plug” variable. I have decades of experience in market and economic modeling, and so I am all too familiar with the temptation to use one variable to “tune” a model, to make it match history more precisely by plugging in whatever number is necessary to make the model arrive at the expected answer.
When I looked at historic temperature and CO2 levels, it was impossible for me to see how they could be in any way consistent with the high climate sensitivities that were coming out of the IPCC models. Even if all past warming were attributed to CO2 (a heroic acertion in and of itself) the temperature increases we have seen in the past imply a climate sensitivity closer to 1 rather than 3 or 5 or even 10 (I show this analysis in more depth in this video).
My skepticism was increased when several skeptics pointed out a problem that should have been obvious. The ten or twelve IPCC climate models all had very different climate sensitivities — how, if they have different climate sensitivities, do they all nearly exactly model past temperatures? If each embodies a correct model of the climate, and each has a different climate sensitivity, only one (at most) should replicate observed data. But they all do. It is like someone saying she has ten clocks all showing a different time but asserting that all are correct (or worse, as the IPCC does, claiming that the average must be the right time).
The answer to this paradox came in a 2007 study by climate modeler Jeffrey Kiehl. To understand his findings, we need to understand a bit of background on aerosols. Aerosols are man-made pollutants, mainly combustion products, that are thought to have the effect of cooling the Earth’s climate.
What Kiehl demonstrated was that these aerosols are likely the answer to my old question about how models with high sensitivities are able to accurately model historic temperatures. When simulating history, scientists add aerosols to their high-sensitivity models in sufficient quantities to cool them to match historic temperatures. Then, since such aerosols are much easier to eliminate as combustion products than is CO2, they assume these aerosols go away in the future, allowing their models to produce enormous amounts of future warming.
Specifically, when he looked at the climate models used by the IPCC, Kiehl found they all used very different assumptions for aerosol cooling and, most significantly, he found that each of these varying assumptions were exactly what was required to combine with that model’s unique sensitivity assumptions to reproduce historical temperatures. In my terminology, aerosol cooling was the plug variable.
So now we can turn to Kaufman, summarized in this article and with full text here. In the context of the Kiehl study discussed above, Kaufman is absolutely nothing new.
Kaufmann et al declare that aerosol cooling is “consistent with” warming from manmade greenhouse gases.
In other words, there is some value that can be assigned to aerosol cooling that offsets high temperature sensitives to rising CO2 concentrations enough to mathematically spit out temperatures sortof kindof similar to those over the last decade. But so what? All Kaufman did is, like every other climate modeler, find some value for aerosols that plugged temperatures to the right values.
Let’s consider an analogy. A big Juan Uribe fan (plays 3B for the SF Giants baseball team) might argue that the 2010 Giants World Series run could largely be explained by Uribe’s performance. They could build a model, and find out that the Giants 2010 win totals were entirely consistent with Uribe batting .650 for the season.
What’s the problem with this logic? After all, if Uribe hit .650, he really would likely have been the main driver of the team’s success. The problem is that we know what Uribe hit, and he batted under .250 last year. When real facts exist, you can’t just plug in whatever numbers you want to make your argument work.
But in climate, we are not sure what exactly the cooling effect of aerosols are. For related coal particulate emissions, scientists are so unsure of their effects they don’t even know the sign (ie are they net warming or cooling). And even if they had a good handle on the effects of aerosol concentrations, no one agrees on the actual numbers for aerosol concentrations or production.
And for all the light and noise around Kaufman, the researchers did just about nothing to advance the ball on any of these topics. All they did was find a number that worked, that made the models spit out the answer they wanted, and then argue in retrospect that the number was reasonable, though without any evidence.
Beyond this, their conclusions make almost no sense. First, unlike CO2, aerosols are very short lived in the atmosphere – a matter of days rather than decades. Because of this, they are poorly mixed, and so aerosol concentrations are spotty and generally can be found to the east (downwind) of large industrial complexes (see sample map here).
Which leads to a couple of questions. First, if significant aerosol concentrations only cover, say, 10% of the globe, doesn’t that mean that to get a 0.5 degree cooling effect for the whole Earth, there must be a 5 degree cooling effect in the affected area. Second, if this is so (and it seems unreasonably large), why have we never observed this cooling effect in the regions with high concentrations of manmade aerosols. I understand the effect can be complicated by changes in cloud formation and such, but that is just further reasons we should be studying the natural phenomenon and not generating computer models to spit out arbitrary results with no basis in observational data.
Judith Currey does not find the study very convincing, and points to this study by Remer et al in 2008 that showed no change in atmospheric aerosol depths through the heart of the period of supposed increases in aerosol cooling.
So the whole basis for the study is flawed – its based on the affect of increasing aerosol concentrations that actually are not increasing. Just because China is producing more does not apparently mean there is more in the atmosphere – it may be reductions in other areas like the US and Europe are offsetting Chinese emissions or that nature has mechanisms for absorbing and eliminating the increased emissions.
By the way, here was Curry’s response, in part:
This paper points out that global coal consumption (primarily from China) has increased significantly, although the dataset referred to shows an increase only since 2004-2007 (the period 1985-2003 was pretty stable). The authors argue that the sulfates associated with this coal consumption have been sufficient to counter the greenhouse gas warming during the period 1998-2008, which is similar to the mechanism that has been invoked to explain the cooling during the period 1940-1970.
I don’t find this explanation to be convincing because the increase in sulfates occurs only since 2004 (the solar signal is too small to make much difference). Further, translating regional sulfate emission into global forcing isnt really appropriate, since atmospheric sulfate has too short of an atmospheric lifetime (owing to cloud and rain processes) to influence the global radiation balance.
Curry offers the alternative explanation of natural variability offsetting Co2 warming, which I think is partly true. Though Occam’s Razor has to force folks at some point to finally question whether high (3+) temperature sensitivities to CO2 make any sense. Seriously, isn’t all this work on aerosols roughly equivalent to trying to plug in yet more epicycles to make the Ptolemaic model of the universe continue to work?
Postscript: I will agree that there is one very important affect of the ramp-up of Chinese coal-burning that began around 2004 — the melting of Arctic Ice. I strongly believe that the increased summer melts of Arctic ice are in part a result of black carbon from Asia coal burning landing on the ice and reducing its albedo (and greatly accelerating melt rates). Look here when Arctic sea ice extent really dropped off, it was after 2003. Northern Polar temperatures have been fairly stable in the 2000’s (the real run-up happened in the 1990’s). The delays could be just inertia in the ocean heating system, but Arctic ice melting sure seems to correlate better with black carbon from China than it does with temperature.
I don’t think there is anything we could do with a bigger bang for the buck than to reduce particulate emissions from Asian coal. This is FAR easier than CO2 emissions reductions — its something we have done in the US for nearly 40 years.
This is the thing, Chippas, if, say, a climatologist professor presents “uncertainties” in the climate process, new-articulate-netdr is fine with it. In fact, he is in love with it. He’s experienced warm overcast nights and watched clouds from the ground so feels he is qualified to have an opinion about radiative feedbacks. (These are the points when I really don’t believe he is any kind of professional scientist or engineer.)
But if the same professor feels certain about any aspect of climate change, new-articulate-netdr begins slinging the hyperbole. This is my favorite:”I have read more books and papers than any alarmist layman that I have run across yet.” Yet one suspects that many of these are suspect—written by people like Mr. Meyers, Anthony Watts, and the like, or written by the minority of climate scientists (Curry, Lindzen, Choi, Willie Soon)who disagree with the consensus, and very few if any come from places like NOAA or the IPCC which employ the full time climate professionals.
If asked, the CS tribe parrots the same lines over and over and then challenges anybody who disagrees with them to “think for themselves.” It’s comic.
The instrumental temperature record shows the average global surface temperature increase during the 20th century to have been 0.74°C (1.33°F).[6] Climate model projections summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century.[6] The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Emissions_Scenarios
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
Net and Ted. You seem to be bluffing your way around like you know more than the scientists do. From the way I’ve watched your conversations, you need to show that the scientists are wrong. If 97% of peer reviewed climatolotgy scientists are saying climate change is this real reasonably understood phenomena, and yet you just know there’s something wrong with these scientists. The way to prove them wrong, you have to get in on their turf, and prove through the scientific system that here is where they are going wrong.
The co2 is plantfood argument isn’t going to get you any respect.
Sock Puppet and renewable
People who let others think for them because they think they aren’t capable of it ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT !
They know their limitations.
I don’t claim to be a climate scientist but I make up my own mind from a huge number of conflicting possibilities.
Letting someone else do my thinking for me on an important matter like global warming is stupid.
The honest scientists like the good professor admit to a great deal of uncertainty while the snake oil salesmen are certain that if we don’t waste tens of trillions of dollars catastrophe will happen.
The Climate Industrial Complex is glad to tell them what to think.
Most lay Alarmists are ignorant of the science and rely upon a fake “consensus” for their opinions. Here are facts that almost no lay alarmists seem to know:
1) Few know that a doubling of CO2 would cause .4 ° C warming without feedback.
2) Feedback is one of the least understood parts of the climate system, and probably is in fact negative.
3) The cooling from 1940 to 1978 is easily explained by the negative PDO, but the tortured logic of “aerosols” needs to be magically turned on and off periodically.
[Sounds fishy to me.]
4) CO@’s effect is
Sock Puppet AND Renewable
4) CO2’s effect is logarithmic so that each molecule does less warming [even theoretically] than the one before.
5) All of the “C” in CAGW was created by models and non existent feedback. No other branch of science confirms it.
6) Even if water vapor were a positive feedback element the fact that it has gone down since 1950 argues that the fundamental theory of positive feedback is flawed since it depends on increasing water vapor.
How someone could know these facts and believe in CAGW I will never know.
I do not know more than the scientists, nor do I pretend to. I merely question whether we are certain enough of the CAGW stuff to destroy our industrial economy. Since the models on which the CAGW stuff is based is full of fudge factors, and many unknown variables are probably not even accounted for in the models, I am not convinced. If climate science was well understood (as is Newtonian physics, for example) there would be no argument about CAGW.
There still remains the problem of what to do re alternative energy. None of the schemes being studied (or implemented in the case of solar and wind) are viable on a large scale, when dedicated standby must be built. Nor are the Chinese and Indians willing to destroy their economies just because we say they should.
All this puts a huge burden on the climate scientists to prove beyond a doubt that CAGW is real. Pillorying those who raise this point contributes nothing to resolving the issue. Merely repeating over and over that the majority of climate scientists believe it is nonsense. As an engineer, I could state that I can make water spontaneously run uphill. If you are not a more highly qualified engineer than I am, you have no right to question my word. Is that idiotic or what?
****”The way to prove them wrong, you have to get in on their turf, and prove through the scientific system that here is where they are going wrong.”
I have been challenging the CS tribe to peer-review their stuff for a year or so. They absolutely will not—they know full well what would happen.
And didn’t I tell you that someone would trot out the “think for yourself” line?
****People who let others think for them because they think they aren’t capable of it ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT !
****They know their limitations.
****I don’t claim to be a climate scientist but I make up my own mind from a huge number of conflicting possibilities.
****Letting someone else do my thinking for me on an important matter like global warming is stupid.
Yeah, my friend new-articulate-netdr, but perhaps you don’t know your limitations. Maybe you are “thinking for yourself” but you don’t know what the hell you are talking about—did it ever occur to you that while you are making up your own mind you might not have the knowledge, experience, and resources to make an accurate evaluation? Really—watching clouds?!
****”As an engineer, I could state that I can make water spontaneously run uphill. If you are not a more highly qualified engineer than I am, you have no right to question my word. Is that idiotic or what?”
Yes, that is idiotic. Because water obviously runs downhill. But there is little that is obvious about GW except that the planet is getting warmer. This is where you need an expert—don’t play stupid. Or perhaps, Ted and articulate-net, you should also decide to argue that cigarettes are NOT cancerous? Go ahead, think for yourself! Or perhaps McDonald’s french fries are good for your heart? Think! Don’t be daunted by your lack of expertise or experience! Decide for yourself! Maybe herpies can be cured by mouthwash! IF you think you don’t know, then you don’t! So just decide! That’s the nice thing about science—everybody’s opinion is as good as everyone else!!!
By the way
****The honest scientists like the good professor admit to a great deal of uncertainty****
Read the Real Climate blog. They constantly point out where there are uncertainties. If you admit this, however, you would have to abandon most of your righteous indignation against the unnamed “snake oil salesmen” of the world.
Sock puppet and renewable.
I will always make up my own mind about important issues because life has taught me that it works.
I had an issue with IRS which was worth $11,000 to me so I went to a professional. I didn’t like his answer so I went to another professional and I didn’t like his answer either. To make a long story short I went to 5 professionals before getting to someone working for IRS which said I didn’t owe the taxes.
He provided the proper forms and I was $11,000 richer which was a new car in those days.
Example 2 [Which is more germane]
My wife had serious back problems and could only crawl to the bathroom and back from her bed. This continued for 6 months and we went to 2 surgeons who both recommended back surgery.
We almost did it but an old doctor who’s wife had had similar problems convinced us to wait another 6 months and only then to do it when all other options were closed. [Like Global Warming taxes.]
We waited 6 months and she was better and 6 more and she was well.
To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail. [To a man with CO2 everything seems to be caused by it. ]
Or how about the car repair professional who said my $1,200 auto computer had to be replaced but when I got another opinion found out that by replacing a cheap [relatively] sensor the problem went away.
Or how about my sister who literally saved her daughter’s life because a prescribed drug was causing liver failure and the nurse said bleeding in her urine was “normal”! The PDR said differently and she can read quite well. She went ballistic !
I have found that questioning the “experts” almost pays big dividends.
If you can’t understand the issues find an expert and leave the thinking to him, but if you are capable use your own brain.
You know your limitations.
The rest of us will use our own brains.
Netdr, you have inadvertently provided the funniest, most nonsensical answer yet on CS.
You somehow managed to worm out of $11K owed the government by being obdurate and manipulating the bureaucracy—oh great.
I do congratulate you on second guessing the auto-mechanic who was trying to rip you off…but it doesn’t take an expert to know that mechanics can sometimes be unscrupulous.
Your sister went to the nurse instead of the doctor—-just like listening to an engineer rather than a climate scientist.
But the painfully funniest—-in a very non-funny and actually painful way—-is that you let your wife convalesce in pain for a year and a half rather than get her needed medical help. I don’t think you (or she) won that one, my brother.
What makes this whole thing ultimately comedic, however, is the idea that you think any of this qualifies you to expostulate on climate science!
I can only pray, netdr, that if your radiologist says there is a dark mass in your lung or your brain that you don’t try to make up your own mind but seek the help of qualified medical experts!!!!!! Get thee to a doctor, young man!
The examples I gave worked. What you propose probably wouldn’t, but we will never know.
The point is that letting others do your thinking for you is stupid.
U R 2 Funny, netdr.
Sock Puppet
Someone like you would never even think to question an “authority figure” even a nurse. After the fact you can claim that you would have, but you wouldn’t. You can’t or won’t think for yourself.
BTW: The government representative said I didn’t owe the money, and since I was not audited on that year he must have been right. Is paying money you don’t owe smart ? I don’t think so. [ Come to think of it alarmists love paying taxes, even unnecessary ones. ]
In a medical situation I would get the best medical advice I could afford but I have the final say especially when equally qualified specialists disagree like global warming. I have to live with the result.
As far as getting “help” for my wife If you had heard of the negative outcomes of various back surgeries a year of discomfort was a small price to pay to avoid the risk which is not negligible.
She and I shared in the decision and it was the correct one.
What has this to do with global warming ?
Very little, I just wanted you to know what it feels like to think for yourself since you will never experience it yourself.
Funnier every time.
I like the idea that we should blindly follow the experts, at th same time “think for ourselves”. It saves lots of mental energy. Take the US government as an example. They pushed the idea that everyone is entitled to own a house that they cannot afford. Many unfortunates (remember, follow the experts blindly) did that and are now out in the street and bankrupt.
The last I heard, this is a free country and we can question any proposal we want. If there is a convincing explanation, and the results are worth the cost, we will accept it. To be told we must blindly accept it because the “experts” are smarter is absurd. Some of those who criticize this view attack engineering views of engineers, when they themselves are clearly devoid of any understanding of engineering principles. What double talk.
Some are trying to have an interesting and informative discussion of AGW, modelling, alternative energy, etc. Others seem to feel that lashing out at anyone with a different take on the subject somehow is a positive contribution. Wow!
Netdr,
‘The plural of anecdote is not data.’
How do you know you aren’t victim to the dunning-kruger effect?
Besides that, I’m sure you are aware that one of the fundamental requirements for good science is communication. This is not just so that others can learn your findings but also so others can cross-check your findings, so you can reciprocally clarify your findings. Hence we have peer-review.
You, like so many other ‘skeptics’ are, for years now, being incredibly useless in this regard. So many of you ‘know’ that truth of the issue but do not communicate it the right way. If AGW is not what is being portrayed by the IPCC, then I god damn want that corrected. I have no vested interest in CAGW. A huge % of climate scientists have no vested interest in CAGW, so they would love to be able to release a groundbreaking paper to cast doubt on the current science–a major career highlight. But. it. still. hasn’t. happened!
Please, put up or shut up.
Also would you show me how you know that: ‘Over 50 % of the scientifically literate population is skeptical of CAGW as they should be.’??
(I am interpreting ‘CAGW’ as the general IPCC hypothesis, because no one uses that term in the science)
Now come on Ted—
****The last I heard, this is a free country and we can question any proposal we want.
Okay. On this we can agree. And I question your proposals.
**** To be told we must blindly accept it because the “experts” are smarter is absurd.
As far as I know, no one has ever posted anything remotely like this. You are the only one representing “blind acceptance” of anything. But you must concede a couple of things here, Ted:
1) This site, like all denialist sites, is full of “authorities.” You simply accept them…as long as they are denialist. The “think for yourself” mantra is absurd after reading these boards for any length of time.
2) Experts may not necessarily have higher I.Q.s than anyone here—but they are more studied and informed, hence the “expert” designation. Therefore we should probably listen to them. That’s the difference, and it is not absurd at all—actually, it is simple common sense.
****Some of those who criticize this view attack engineering views of engineers, when they themselves are clearly devoid of any understanding of engineering principles.
And how does this strike you? Is this a particularly smart thing to do?
****Some are trying to have an interesting and informative discussion of AGW, modelling, alternative energy, etc.
Bovine excrement. This site, and ones like it, are dedicated to the denigration of climate scientists and the dissemination of political ideology masked by highly biased science.
****Others seem to feel that lashing out at anyone with a different take on the subject somehow is a positive contribution. Wow!
Okay. Walk your talk then. Respect the opinions of those who differ with you and call out those who treat climate scientists with disrespect. Treat both sides with equality. What about Willie Soon—shouldn’t you be as concerned with his apparent avarice as you appear to be with those you as a group label “alarmist”?
“Wow” is right.
Sock Puppet
Following perceived authority is a genetic trait that thank heaven I wasn’t cursed with.
In the climate field I listened to “An Inconvenient Truth” then I went online to read the rebuttal and the rebuttal to the rebuttal.
.
The alarmists clearly lost that debate and I was skeptical from then on.
.
The verbal tap dance the alarmists did to explain how CO2 could lag temperature and still cause the temperature rise would have made Fred Astair proud.
.
Despite absolutely no measurements they blindly stated CO2 was there so it must have caused warming. So using the warming that must have been caused by CO2 as a proof that CO2 is causing warming now is circular reasoning at it’s finest.
.
I have read all or parts of 20 + papers and all seem to say essentially the same thing. “CO2 was there so it must have caused warming” With no measurements involved.
.
If we could tell how much warming CO2 caused in those [ancient] times we could use the same method to tell how much it has caused since 1860 by getting modern ice cores. But then as now there were many overlapping sources of warming and cooling and sorting out how much was due to CO2 is beyond the baby science of climatology.
.
The alarmists have never answered the question satisfactorily even 5 years later.
Verbal tap dancing won’t do.
Sock Puppet
I saw the above exchange and thought “Isn’t that nice they are letting the mentally challenged get degrees in climatology these days.”
People who think for a living should be better at it.
Waldo:
If you believe what you just posted, you would lighten up and discuss the subject without all the vitriol. Take a cold shower and calm down. You will live longer.
See, this is when I call bovine X on your claims of being a “college professor,” netdr.
You’ve read a grand total of “20 +” papers. And now you feel informed?!
By the way, explanations from the experts on sea rise and Co2 lag time are pretty easy to find on Real Climate and elsewhere, as are explanations of past and present Co2 measurements, how they are measured, and what actual scientists think they mean on any number of sites, including skeptic sites—these include ice core measurements and why there is a misunderstanding about “lag time” which does not exist (along with admissions about the uncertainties of the process). There are also numerous discussions of cloud dimming and albedo out there–lots since 1860.
It would seem you are not “questioning authority,” you are simply misunderstanding the basic science and refusing to become informed about it.
Ted, the minute the vitriol leaves CS is when I pack up and go home. And that was a lame repartee—you’re as hypocritical as the rest of them.
Cheers.
Waldo:
It sounds like you need two cold showers and a tranquilizer.
Netdr,
Would you show me how you know that: ‘Over 50 % of the scientifically literate population is skeptical of CAGW as they should be.’??
(I am interpreting ‘CAGW’ as the general IPCC hypothesis, because no one uses that term in the science)
communicate.
Avoidance tactic, Ted, and not a very clever or creative one. What’s your opinion about the charges against Willie Soon? Do you have an opinion?
Denial for Hire: Willie Soon’s Career Fueled by Big Oil, Coal and Koch Money
Huffington Post
Willie Soon, the notorious climate denier who has made a career out of attacking the IPCC and climate scientists, has received over $1 million in funding from Big Oil and coal industry sponsors over the past decade, according to a new report from Greenpeace.
The Greenpeace report, “Dr. Willie Soon: A Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal,” reveals that $1.033 million of Dr. Soon’s funding since 2001 has come from oil and coal interests. Since 2002, every grant Dr. Soon received originated with fossil fuel interests, according to documents received from the Smithsonian Institution in response to Greenpeace FOIA requests.
The documents show that Willie Soon has received at least $175,000 from Koch family foundations (Soon is a key player in the Koch brothers’ climate denial machine, as Greenpeace documented previously), $230,000 from Southern Company, $274,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, and $335,000 from ExxonMobil, among other polluters.
Dr. Soon is perhaps most well-known for his work with fellow astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas attempting to challenge the “hockey stick” graph of temperature records, first published by Dr. Michael Mann.
But the documents reveal that he also fancied himself a ringleader of a coordinated effort to sully the IPCC’s fourth assessment, plotting with Exxon staffers years in advance about how to attack the 2007 report.
A letter that Dr. Soon wrote in 2003, uncovered by Greenpeace, states:
Clearly they [the AR4 chapters] may be too much for any one of us to tackle them all… But, as A-team, we may for once give it our best shot to try to anticipate and counter some of the chapters, especially WG1 — judging from our true expertise in the basic climate sciences…
Even if we can tackle ONE single chapter down the road but forcefully and effectively… we will really accomplish A LOT!
In all cases, I hope we can start discussing among ourselves to see what we can do to weaken the fourth assessment report or to re-direct attention back to science…
Soon has served on the roster of many oil- and coal-funded front groups over the past 15 years, from his role as “Scientific Adviser” at the coal-funded Greening Earth Society in the late 1990s, to his affiliations with a variety of Koch-Exxon-Scaife funded groups like the George C. Marshall Institute, the Science and Public Policy Institute, the Center for Science and Public Policy and the Heartland Institute.
Dr. Soon is among the speakers at the annual Denialapalooza climate denier meeting hosted by the Heartland Institute in Washington DC later this week. Since the theme of that Heartland junk science junket is “Restoring the Scientific Method,” perhaps the attendees will query Dr. Soon about the ethics of accepting a million dollars from polluter interests while claiming that climate change is nothing to worry about.
So?
sock puppet
Re: CO2 warming after last ice age.
Please explain how they were able to remove the natural warming and identify the CO2 warming. I don’t have time to read every paper on the subject. Twenty seemed like a good number to me.
Since they can’t do it in 2011 with satellites whizzing overhead it seems probable that they can’t do it for 20,000 years ago from ice cores.
Just hand waving and pretending “they” must have done it somehow and it is explained somewhere doesn’t cut it.
If they have explained away the 800 year time lag between warming and CO2 they must have kept it very quiet and told only a few select [gullible] people. If true they would have trumpeted it on every available media. Realclimate is a snake-oil selling site and they won’t allow anyone to post valid points in rebuttal.
It might shake the faith of the other posters.
I seem to have been barred from posting for refusing to accept their phony logic.
As long as the college keeps paying me I don’t care what you think.
BTW: Of the other professors only one admits to believing in CAGW. [ Nice guy but more gullible than I would have guessed.]
I am in Galveston this week seeing if rising sea levels have caused me to move my beach towel more or less than 2 cigarette lengths at high tide . [in 30 years]
The climate change industry spends far more advancing their agenda than “Big Oil”. A belief in CAGW can get you an all expense paid trip to Copenhagen while skepticism gets you a plane ticket to Omaha.
Al Gore admits to spending $300 million of tainted money provide by those who gain financially from CAGW hysteria.
He is ramping up to do it again in Sept. Pots calling the kettle black ?
Jennings,
Shouldn’t you be concerned that a leading skeptic has taken over $1M from energy companies? Wouldn’t this indicate that you should be skeptical of skeptic information? Doesn’t this implicate the other skeptic scientists in Soon’s circle? etc. etc.
I doubt that you are so obtuse that the implications of someone like Soon being well financed by energy concerns are completely lost on you.
And doesn’t it bother you that climate scientists are continually accused of vague and unproven charges (such as netdr’s “Groupthink” and, my favorite, ADiff’s “kill the poor”) but you are now faced with fairly damning evidence against a prominent skeptic and your response is “So?”
Netdr,
****”I don’t have time to read every paper on the subject.”
This, this, THIS is why you rely on expert opinion! You just made my argument for me. You don’t have the time become an expert yourself—neither do I, nor do most of the people here. You just admitted you don’t have the experience or expertise, what I have been charging all along. You just validated everything I’ve said. Yet you have diehard opinions on the subject. Can’t you see the problem?
****”Twenty seemed like a good number to me.”
Lousy number, netdr. They’ve been studying the phenomenon for 20+ years. IF you actually do work for a college (adjunct?) then this is very bad academic thinking and worse academic work.
****”Since they can’t do it in 2011 with satellites whizzing overhead it seems probable that they can’t do it for 20,000 years ago from ice cores.”
“Probable”? I don’t know, netdr. Maybe you should find out (I’m not sure what “it” is anyway—beware the pronoun, tends to be very vague). Once again, you don’t know. Yet you are sure of yourself. As I posted earlier—think for yourself? Fine. But do you know what the hell you are talking about? No, you don’t.
****”Just hand waving and pretending “they” must have done it somehow and it is explained somewhere doesn’t cut it.”
Okay,so do the work to understand what does “cut it” or not. I don’t know if CAGW is real. But unless you have done the actual research, admit your limitations, suspend your opinion. Fine, be skeptical, but don’t pretend you know. I doubt that anyone “waves their hand” at anything—one can almost always find an answer to these sorts of questions in the time it takes to do a Google search (see above). And if you are an academic, do an EBSCOhost search. It’s not that hard.
And I wish to hell Gore would shut the hell up! I think he’s done more damage to the entire dialogue than an army of Warren Meyers. And if Gore is getting wealthy over the debate, then be as mad as you should be over Soon.
By the way:
“If they have explained away the 800 year time lag between warming and CO2 they must have kept it very quiet and told only a few select [gullible] people.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=CO2_doesn%27t_lead%2C_it_lags
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
And I’ve seen plenty of rebuttals, although these are often rebutted.
Now, if you disagree–great. But prove it. Peer-review. Blow them away.
The notion that unless you read EVERY AGW paper and are yourself a climate expert, you MUST blindly believe the expert CAGW pushers, is the most absurd idea I have ever heard. Many who are pushing this notion have clearly demonstrated that they have NO understanding of engineering (they wouldn’t recognize it if they fell into a bucket of it), but don’t hesitate to criticize engineers who have a lifetime’s experience. Have they read EVERY engineering paper dealing with alt energy and other offshoots of the AGW thing? I don’t know what their problem is. (I can guess, but I am not a psychiatrist, so I am not allowed to express an opinion).
“blindly believe”
“blindly believe”
Only you use these terms, Ted. You are exaggerating, and thus throwing a strawman on the fire.
But one must have an understanding of a problem before one can critique and challenge, no? You must at least be cognizant of the facts, techniques, data, ect. Are you? Do you honestly know enough about CAGW to make any kind of determination?
The key term, I guess, is “blindly.” No, do not accept “blindly.” Accept or reject because you have looked carefully at all the evidence. Which is problematic for most of us because we don’t have the time to do so.
So what is the alternative you suggest, Ted? That one can read 20 papers on a subject that has two decades of science behind it and still come to a reasonable, informed, factually correct conclusion? That is beyond absurd. That’s actual stupidity.
Netdr’s statement—“If they have explained away the 800 year time lag between warming and CO2 they must have kept it very quiet and told only a few select [gullible] people.”—is demonstrably incorrect. He was not in possession of the facts. That is the issue.
I personally would listen to an engineer with alternative energy expertise. When you say “I can guess,” you hit the nail on the head. You can only “guess.” You want to run your scientific and engineering community on ill-informed guess-work, Ted? Go right ahead. But leave the rest of the world alone.
Apparently some feel they can criticize everyone else’s opinion, but theirs is sacrosanct. Everyone else must read every paper, and be an expert in every field, before they are allowed to express their views. (Themselves excepted, of course).
EVERYONE, including the climate experts, agrees that there is much in the field that is not understood. Therefore, questions and debate are in order. This is a perfect example of scientific investigation in action. I guess there are those who believe that the most expert person at the table be fawningly listened to. If he says water runs up hill, we blindly accept that. To do that, I am sure everyone would agree, would be idiotic. I have many times been asked by people with no knowledge of science or technology to explain something to them. I have never (and hopfully never shall) expect anyone to shut up and sit down because I am an expert in the field and they are not allowed to question my statements. If they challenge my statements, I will gladly explain. I can’t imagine jumpimg all over them.
It appears that jumping all over those who raise questions about their views is a vocation to some people. What a pity. They could be doing something constructive.
Okay Ted, now we are running in circles. And you are hyperbolizing again. There are three things which I suspect you know but are in denial about:
1) Netdr writes — “If they have explained away the 800 year time lag between warming and CO2 they must have kept it very quiet and told only a few select [gullible] people.”
And here is the link provided by Real Climate that answers this very challenge:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
There are actually at least three other links but Mr. Meyer’s spam-bot seems to want to delete the post if there is more than one link in the box. Google it yourself.
Netdr is not cognizant of these links, or if he is, he is ignoring them. That is what I am talking about. He wants to challenge these findings? Fine. But first he should be in possession of the data and theories. Then he should do the actual science to make sure he understands the problem. Then he should have someone with the requisite knowledge double check his findings.
Instead netdr posts “The verbal tap dance the alarmists did to explain how CO2 could lag temperature and still cause the temperature rise would have made Fred Astair proud.” Is this science to you? Is this politely challenging a scientific theory?
You’re not a dumb fella, Ted, but you are playing obtuse and simply rehashing the ‘everyone has an opinion’ tactic over and over.
This is science, not a literary discussion board or a town council meeting. Everyone’s opinion is not equal. Sorry.
2) This site and one’s like it are all about “jumping” on other people’s opinions. You just don’t like it when it doubles over to you.
3) Yeah. You should probably sit politely at the table and listen to the climate scientist. Who knows more—the guy who teaches EE 101 and has read 20 papers, or the professional climate scientist with 20 years of science behind him or her?
I am sure the climate scientist knows far more than I do. The question is, is he sufficiently certain of CAGW to justify the consequences of shutting down our industrial economy? Many of think not, which considering all the uncertainties and fudge factors in the models, is a reasonable view. If you believe otherwise, I have no problem with that. It’s a free country. I just believe a more gentlemanly discourse would be welcome.
I am as gentlemanly as those that comment to me, my friend.
But I also try to simply say it straight. For instance, this is a gross exaggeration: “shutting down our industrial economy.”
Absolutely no one is suggesting this. If one cannot debate without gross exaggeration, is there really anything to debate? Is it possible to disagree with the science without resorting to hyperbole?
There is also the issue of how the science is discussed here and on boards like this one. Look up at the comments above. There is very little respect for the scientists or their science. There is simply very little balanced commentary; almost all is predicated upon the idea that there is an agenda involved with virtually no proof of such a thing. And, again, there is a tremendous double standard. What is your take on the accusations against Willie Soon?
Netdr,
For a third time:
Would you show me how you know that: ‘Over 50 % of the scientifically literate population is skeptical of CAGW as they should be.’??
(I am interpreting ‘CAGW’ as the general IPCC hypothesis, because no one uses that term in the science)
communicate.
Otherwise I’ll take your silence as an admittance that you have no evidence for this claim.
I am also still curious of how you are confident that you are not victim to the dunning-kruger effect?
Science is nothing without communication big guy.
Also, as an aside, I am wondering why engineers seem to have a higher number of skeptics than usual. Whether it’s related or not, I have been friends with engineer students for a while now but I can’t recall them taking many classes in research methodology in science. Do ENG students do research methodology classes??
The AGW people state that an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions is necessary (their words, not mine). Governments are pushing for this by 2050. How do you reduce CO2 emissions by 80% without shutting down virtually all heavy industry? Per capita energy use (I have read) would have to go back to what it was in the 1870’s.
Thus, it is not a “gross exageration” to say we will shut down industry. There are a whole host of industries that cannot exist without carbonaceous fuel. You can’t fly airplanes on electricity (unless you have a VERY long extention cord). How do you plow the fields? Etc, etc.
If someone had a well thought out plan re how do do all this without fossil fuels, they should include it in their CO2 reduction plan. I have seen no such thing. All the “alternative energy” schemes are unworkable on a large scale. Most of them produce electricity, not carbonaceous fuels.
And yes, everyone IS suggesting this. How can you reduce CO2 by 80% and say “Noone is suggesting this”?
On one of the CAGW blogs, it was stated that they realize there is now no alternative to carbonaceous fuels, but if forced to do so, people would find a way. Wouldn’t it be better to “find a way” first, and think about shutting down industry afterward?
Sock puppet
From the link you provided.
“Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the “carbon pump” (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.”
I saw no argument that said CO2 led temperature at all in the ancient past.
Like all other papers I have read it admitted that CO2 lagged temperature. Quote EXACTLY where it says differently.
The amplification argument is foolish.
If I throw a teaspoon full of salt into the Pacific ocean it becomes more salty. All scientists surely agree. If one LB of CO2 is released the temperature goes up but was it significant then? Is it significant now ? No one even claims to know.
The listener is lead to believe both are true but in fact neither may be significant.
I now know why you refused to provide links to papers. They don’t say what you claim they do.
Study Finds Higher Educated Less Concerned About Warming
Warmists very frequently claim that skeptics are dummies and that if only they understood “the science”, they would become Warmists. These results shoot that down. The authors waffle on in an attempt to explain the finding in ways that preserve Warmism but the parsimonious explanation is simply that Warmism is wrong. In science, the most parsimonious (simplest) explanation is normally the one chosen
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2011/07/study-finds-higher-educated-less.html
The all important issue of feedback without which the house of cards of alarmism crumbles is far from agreed upon in the peer reviewed literature even the SIGN of the feedback is unknown. Claiming consensus on this critical matter is a simply untrue.
Engineers are used to phonies. Sorting them from the competent is relatively easy. If their designs don’t work they are terminated.
I have had co-workers who claimed to have degrees whose designs repeatedly failed to work [just like the climate models].
Degrees or not they were shown the door and instructed how to use it.
A climate modeller can be [and has been] wrong for 30 years and remain employed as long as his model predicts warming. If it predicted cooling he would be unemployed rapidly no matter what the temperature did.
Engineers are trained to listen to complex arguments and separate the “flyspecks from the pepper”. That is why they are quick to see phony logic wherever they find it.
Those that accept arguments from authority without verifying the truth for themselves are in the unemployment office quickly.
Netdr:
Another point re engineers. They are taught to quantify things. Many schemes sound wonderful until you hang numbers on them. Examples are water and air storage of energy, making gasoline out of CO2, etc. A few simple calcs iluminate the flaws in these schemes, even though the idea, without numbers, sounds great. I have shot down a whole bunch of ideas of my own by simply quantifying them.
The greatest enemy of rational thought is zealotry. Long ago, there was a saying “the most dangerous person in the company is an enthusiastic R&D director”. Objectively analyzing an idea is the hallmark of an effective engineer. New ideas are always welcome, but they must be wrung out thoroughly. Only a very small fraction of ideas work out. The rest must be rooted out before huge amounts of money are spent on them.
Netdr,
You admit that you lied.
Going by your description of an engineer, you must surely see how phoney YOU are.
It also seems that engineer students do not do research methodology classes?? Interesting.
Partly makes sense now.
Netdr, what are you looking for? The first half of the paragraph you quoted explains why there is a lag in CO2.
****“What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth’s wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat…”
This explanation is apparently rather old (in science terms). The author is saying that the Earth tilts, the ice melts and reflects less sun, and the higher temperatures increase the amount of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which also heats the planet and is then trapped in the Arctic ice. All along the scientists have admitted that there are other things that cause warming than CO2—actually, no one is disputing that. But all of them say that once CO2 is in the atmosphere, it amplifies the warming caused by other forcings yet can lag behind them. In fact, CO2 can overtaking the primary driver (Google this—I won’t do any more of your homework) and become the primary driver itself. (Which, by the way, is the issue scientists say we are dealing with today.)
Now, you posted “If they have explained away the 800 year time lag between warming and CO2 they must have kept it very quiet and told only a few select [gullible] people.” And yet here is an explanation of this very 800 year lag posted for free and for all to see, including links, additional postings, and commentary at the end. Right?
No one is tap dancing around the explanation—they are providing you with an explanation, which you claimed they did not. (You tried to switch up what you posted there, but I’m paying attention…)
So, the scientists did, in fact, “explain away the 800 lag time”—they just gave you an explanation for why there is a lag of CO2 behind temperature (tilt; ice melt; rising CO2 which amplifies and gets trapped). In fact, they gave it to you some time ago. You are wrong: the scientists have explained something which you claimed they did not.
I’m going to post that again:
You are wrong, net “doctor,” it’s right there: the scientists have explained a phenomenon (800 yr lag) which you claimed they did not.
Now, if you don’t want to take the word of the “authorities,” then I suggest you prove them wrong. That’s fine by me—I have nothing invested in the CO2 arctic lag. And there are people who are skeptical of this (seems to be mostly engineers). But I challenge you to prove that “The amplification argument is foolish.” I double dog dare you. I bet anything you cannot prove that “amplification is foolish.” Do it. But don’t be a weenie and post crap about throwing salt into the ocean on a blog (which is not proof); get it peer-reviewed, that way you can see if 20+ papers cuts it
Are you reading selectively, netdr?
And this— “I now know why you refused to provide links to papers. They don’t say what you claim they do”—confuses me. I don’t know what you are talking about and have said so several times. You’ve got me confused with someone else posting here.
However, if you look closely on the link I provided, you will see a number of links to papers helpfully provided by Real Climate, including a number of links to discussions about this very subject. Or just do your own damn homework—Google the issue yourself!
Now, if you really are a teacher (adjunct?) you certainly have students who do not do their homework and yet still want credit for the assignment. Or, certainly you have had students who want to take short cuts, don’t do all the readings, and resent it when someone knows more than they do. I will not do your homework for you. You are presumably a big boy who claims to be in charge of classrooms yet seems unwilling or unable to actually do your own homework. There are links on every page. The whole point is that you have not done your homework and just flunked your first take home exam.
This kind of thinking is why I am on the thread, Ted.
Now Ted, please—you are still exaggerating. I find absolutely no evidence that anyone wants to destroy heavy industry and no one even suggested that. What I found was that, after another 40 years of technological development, scientists and ecologists have challenged industry to reduce emissions to “pre 2000” levels. Google it.
40 years of developing emissions reducing technology.
You don’t strike me as a paranoid person, Ted, but you did just make a huge leap on these boards from “reducing emissions” to “destroying heavy industry.” I’m trying to be very civil here, but I do have to say that you exaggerated simply to create an arguing point that doesn’t really exist—it wasn’t even that you thought it couldn’t be done and would waste money or something to that effect, you posted that ecology was going to “destroy heavy industry.” After 40 years.
Why is there is obsessive need to take problems to the extreme? Why must you demonize scientists and ecologists? Can’t you just disagree with them and then back up what you say reasonably and with facts on hand? ADiff actually posted that CAGW was an excuse to “kill the poor.” And after all those posts about AGW “fear mongering,” posters here are still making these kind of propagandist claims.
If you cannot debate without gross exaggeration, do you really have a point to make?
And, I’m sorry to keep harping on this, Ted, but you have continuously ignored the question: What about Willie Soon?
What about Willie Soon, Waldo?
He took money from energy companies. Many proponents of CAGW did, too. So?
Chippas, I don’t have numbers on how many of all scientifically literate people do or do not support CAGW, but I do know that the number of qualified people who do not support it is very, very large. Here is something you might want to look at:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Malcolm, have you checked on these “qualified people”? You might want to look at your petition yourself. I started to Google a few names and found a good start to verifying who was actually signing:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/one-more-petition-still-a-consensus/
Notice a lack of anything here? Say, climate scientists? I also notice a few names who are unverified as actual people. I too have a PhD, actually, but it is not in climate science. Should I sign the petition too? I mean, I’m well educated—guess that makes me qualified to judge the science, huh.
1) Earl M.J. Aagaard – Professor of Biology
Research Interests:
Intelligent design (we’re off to a great start), Relation of Man to his environment
No publications relevant to climate
2) Charles W. Aami
Can’t find him anywhere on google, with a few different terms.
Charles W. Aami
“Charles W. Aami”
“Charles Aami”
Apparently no publications, nor anything relevant to climate
3) Roger L. Aamodt
Looks like someone from the National Cancer Institute
Here and Here
No publications relevant to climate
4) Wilbur A. Aanes
Veterinary /Large Animal Surgery
No publications relevant to climate change
5) Robert Aaron (now deceased)
Electrical Engineer/Telecommunications
Here and Here
No publications relevant to climate
6) Ralph F. Abate
in the area of bridge design, and also runs student bridge contests (which I’m sure allows him to make judgments on the errors in the scientific community on climate change)
Here and Here
No publications relevant to climate
7) Hamed K. Abbas
Research Plant Pathologist, food safety
No publications relevant to climate
8, Paul Abbett
Can’t find much on google, with a couple of search terms
“Paul Abbett”
Paul Abbett AND climate
No publications relevant to climate
9) Wyatt E. Abbitt III
Same thing,
and zero publications
10) Ursula K. Abbott
In Avian Wildlife/Avian Genetics
No publications relevant to climate
Remember, everyone from here on out has (or should have) phD’s.
B
1) Dirk Den Baars
Looks like the guy is now deceased for several years, but specialized in exploration and mining of copper, precious metals, and industrial minerals, from here and here. Looks like he has some interesting World War 2 stories though.
No publications relevant to climate
2) Ronald R. Bach
Medical (health) Field / Oncology
No publications relevant to climate
C
3) Fernando Cadena- Civil Engineering
No publications relevant to climate
4) Fernando Cadena, C (different guy I suppose)
Inventor , and looks like he is looking to remove arsenic from water
No relevant publications to climate
D
5) Hugo C. da Silva
There is a Hugo C Da Silva Jr who recently graduated in nuclear engineering. But there is no “Jr.” in the petition, so it could be Hugo C. da Silva the sales associate/real estate guy. Doesn’t look like a phD though, but no matter which guy you want, no publications on climate
6) John W. Dabbs
Another strange search…I’ll let you take your pick.
You can have John W. Dabbs the guy who died in 1919, the family genealogy guy , or the medical guy. The last guy might be the more impressive choice (Though that is an M.D., not a phD) but regardless, none of them have any publications on climate
E
7) Joseph Jackson Eachus-
Couldn’t find much , but I think some poor guy is trying to get some information on him on one of them ancestry sites. In any case, no publications relevant to climate
8, Robert John Eagan
Not a lot of luck either, a search search with just his name gave no results- Played around with the name a bit (Robert J. Eagan) and I found a guy in nuclear power, a guy for Southwestern Electrical cooperative and one lawyer. I found no phD’s, but I also found no publications in climate
F
9) Michael William Fabian
Can’t find him, but he might be involved in OSU’s biological department. No publications relevant to climate
10) Thomas John Fabish
Looks like a bandconductor. The band guy seems to be the more famous one, but if you don’t like him, there is the guy from the Paint and Coating Resource Center. No publications in climate.
G
11) Steven Alexander Gaal- Involved in the mathematics geneaology project. Looks like a guy from back in the 1940′s, and no publications relevant to climate
12) P. S. Gaal
Looks like the guy is involved in the advancement of the transport properties of materials. Deals with thermal conductivity in materials, thermal diffusivity, etc. No publications relevant to climate
H
13) Gottfried Haacke
Looks like an inventor. Has patents on narrow band radiation films. Perhaps worked on windows that absorbed solar heat (on greenhouses for instance). No publications relevant to climate
14) Ronald L. Haaland
In agronomy and deals with plants/soil. Or he could be a real estate agent. No publications relevant to climate
I
15) Michael John Iatropoulos
Department of Pathology, expertise in toxicology. No publications relevant to climate
16) Icko Iben, Jr
Professor at Universtiy of Illinois (Dept. of Astronomy) with expertise in the structure and evolution of stars . A good publication record, but nothing on climate
J
17) Robert B. Jacko
Professor of civil engineering. Research interests are air pollution management and control, transportation noise problems, environmental occupational safety and health. Looks like he has some background in environmental problems ( I spot one publication on ozone modeling), but nothing on climate/climate change
18, Harold Jackson
founder and president of The JacksonHeath Group Inc., (I quote). “an international communications and management consulting agency established in 1990 that has provided strategic counsel to corporate CEOs, government officials, college presidents and dignitaries across the country and abroad.” No publications relevant to climate
K
19) Robert Kabel
Kabel does consulting work, and represents clients before Congress, Executive Branch departments and agencies, independent agencies and the White House. There is also a Robert L. Kabel who is in chemical engineering, though no publications anytime recent. All around, no climate expertise.
20) T. Theodore Kadota
Some different guys here. Possibly one in Spatial Statistics and Digital Image Analysis, another guy in Mathematical and Algorithmic Sciences Research Center from 1966-1994. Maybe the same guy, who knows.
No one with publications pertaining to climate
L
21) Peter La Celle
Department of Dermatology, member of Cancer Center at University of Rochester. From his publications linked inside, nothing to do with climate.
22) Timothy La Farge
This guy seemed interesting. If it’s the same guy in these publications, then he seems like he is into forestry (no work on climate). He has a couple of writeups in some obscure sources (and supporting some obscure material like geocraft.com, and Lindzen’s wall street journal article) on global warming, which are far from impressive.
M
23) Robert P. Ma
Sorry, couldn’t find anything on this guy. Certainly nothing relevant to climate.
24) Tso-Ping Ma
Department of Electrical engineering . Interested in technological issues related to semiconductor devices. No publications relevant to climate
N
25) Misac Nabighian
I suppose this is as close as we get to a goody. Dr. Misac Nabighian is a senior researcher in the department of geophysics at Colorado School of Mines. Research interests are Potential and electromagnetic fields in Geophysics: theory, data processing and interpretation. No publications relevant to climate.
26) Robert E. Nabours
Consulting Electrical Engineers. No publications relevant to climate.
O
27) Robert Quincy Oaks Jr
Couldn’t find anything on him here. I tried a few different search terms, but the guy doesn’t seem too popular. I get no publications relevant to climate (or anything)
28, Deborah O’Bannon
A civil engineering proferssor. She was also awarded the “Fellow Grade of the Society of Women Engineers for her empowerment of women in engineering.” No publications relevant to climate.
P
29) J. Pace
Hard to do much without a first name, but I googled J. Pace AND climate and got nothing. Miraculously, this guy seems to be another nobody. If anyone knows Dr. Pace, I’d love to hear it.
30) Gilbert E. Pacey
Professor at Miami University in the Center for Nanotechnology, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. No publications relevant to climate.
Q
31) Forrest W. Quackenbush
Into biochemsitry. Looks like a lot of work in biology and chemistry involving genetics, cellular level stuff, etc, but nothing on climate
32) James R. Qualey
The guy looks like he knows his stuff about smoke detectors, and appears to be a principal systems engineer. Unless the fire alarms have something to do with more forest fires in a warming world (maybe he’s preparing us all), he doesn’t seem to have any involvement with anything pertaining to climate
R
33) Bernard Raab
Couldn’t find anything really. He had a reply to a post about finding intelligent life in the universe where he says he’s a retired physicist. I don’t see anything of a publication record, let alone anything to do with climate.
34) F. H. Raab
Works with amplifiers and Transmitters. Cited in work on electronics, radio engineering, wireless communications, etc. No publications relevant to climate
S
35) Patrick Saatzer
Received his phD in Chemistry. Some publications on photochemistry of saturated molecules, but nothing on climate.
36) Burns Roy Sabey
Looks like he’s involved in soil science, and has am Introductory Experimental Soil Science book. No found publications on climate
T
37) Widen Tabakoff
Professor of Aerospace Engineering & Engineering Mechanics . No relevant publications (on his page) to climate.
38, Ronald Dwight Tabler
Check out Tabler and associates involved in engineering for snow, sand, dust, and wind control. No publications relevant to climate. Though, he has some work on the effects of snow fences on crashes, controlling blowing snow with fences, etc…maybe it’ll come in handy with climate change…who knows.
U
39) Herbert M S Uberall
Knowledge in scattering of soundwaves and acoustics. Now a retired professor, as they announced in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America . No publications relevant to climate.
40) Waheed Uddin
Professional in research and instruction, design, construction, maintenance management of highways and airports, sustainable development, and related areas of transportation engineering. Degrees in engineering. Publications in infrastructure management, but nothing to do with climate .
V
41) James P. Vacik
In Pharmaceutical area, here and from a college of pharmacy. To me astonishment, he has no publications relevant to climate
42) Juris Vagners
Retired professor in Aeronautics and Astronautics department. Degrees and teaching in engineering disciplines. Of course, no publications relevant to climate
W
43) William R. Wachtler
Patent of a Liquid processing and sorting system…interesting. Publications relevant to climate: zero
44) William Howard Wade
Couldn’t find anything scientific related. Some stuff on that family history and genealogy stuff. No publications relevant to climate
45) Ning Xi
degree in Systems Science and Mathematics, an M.S. in Computer Science, and background in engineering. Research interests include robotics, manufacturing automation, micro/nano systems, and intelligent control and systems. From his publications page (inside), nothing relevant to climate.
46) Y. Xie
A hard search term, and I got a few things, none of which was relevant to climate. Best bet is in biology.
Y
47) Dmeter Yablonsky
Mathematics professor for Pace University. No publications relevant to climate
48, Richard Howard Yahner
If it’s the same guy, Professor of Wildlife Conservation and Assistant Director for Outreach. Interests are in Wildlife ecology and conservation biology in forested and human-induced landscapes and ecosystems. Has publications in ecosystems, but not climate.
Z
49) Robert V. Zackroff- Microbiologist
Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. No relevant publications on climate
50) Daniel J. Zaffarano (retired)
Involved in physics (Science Education K-12, retired Dean of Graduate College and Vice President, Research). Looks like some interesting stuff on Beta and Gamma Rays, but no publications relevant to climate.
Update- Apparently there is a Robert Quincy Oaks Jr. here and at least some papers in stratigraphy (back in the 1960′s, he’s retired now).
The site has a page on the qualifications of signers:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
If you want to go name by name, we can do this, but then we should do the same with lists of people who the IPCC (or anyone, really) claims support CAGW.
And, Willie Soon is a big deal for two reasons:
He took big money (over a million) from energy companies—which should leave one to question his integrity. Perhaps this does not invalidate his work, but it certainly seems to suggest a vested interest in coming to a certain conclusion. One should at least give him as much scrutiny as one does someone like Phil Jones, for instance.
For years the denialists have been accusing climate scientists of acting out of self-interest—to get funding, to further their careers, etc. But now a prominent skeptic is caught taking a very large amount of money from corporations who have an interest in public perception and political intervention…and the denialists are quiet. Not a word except for the occasional “So?” as if there were nothing vaguely suspicious about $1.3M paid to a scientist. There are those on this very board who repeatedly ignore the question.
Which CAGW scientists took energy money anyway?
Waldo, it should be noted that the amount of money you cite for Willie Soon is for about 10 years. 100 thousand per year on average is still substantial but not quite as alarming as you paint it. Many proponents of CAGW received and / or continue to receive today similar or greater amounts of money from the same energy companies. If you want to say that these money are “dirty” and the receivers of these money should be subject to additional scrutiny, go ahead, but then apply it to people on both sides of the debate. I don’t agree with the “additional” scrutiny, but that’s not important.
And, it’s not 1.3M, it’s 1.033M. Just so you know.
Missed the question on which CAGW scientists took energy money. So, who? Well, a lot. If you want an example, take CRU:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
Scroll down to the acknowledgements section. Quoting from the list: British Petroleum, Central Electricity Generating Board, … (names, names, names) …, Shell, United States Department of Energy, etc.