Ben Santer: Crushing the Myth of Global Cooling
Posted on 21. Nov, 2011 by admin in Global Warming
Dr. Benjamin Santer is one of the world’s most respected climate scientists. He is a researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a frequent expert witness before the US Congress, and a tireless researcher. In a recent lecture at California State University at Chico, he addressed one of the enduring myths of climate denial. rce.csuchico.edu
Related posts:
- Climate Change and Global Warming vs Global Cooling
- Global Warming: Is the Science Settled Enough for Policy?
- Global Warming Cool Down?
- Global Warming 4 of 7 Conspiracy Theory Jesse Ventura
- Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura: Global Warming part 5 of 7
@ CHIPSTERO7 Your arguments exclude the “band filling” effect of over saturation of atmospheric CO2, which makes sense as your citations are probably older than you are. While it hasn’t been said yet, the problem with anthropogenic CO2 isn’t in any individual CO2 molecule, it is the perturbation caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The perturbation can last hundreds (to possibly a thousand) years even if our emissions ended abruptly.
@ CHIPSTERO7… And yet numerous papers to this day suggest that climate sensitivity to CO2 is much higher than you suggest. Does it not ring alarm bells to you that you have to go back to 1972 and 1954 to have experiments that support your claim you wish to make, rather than the wealth of papers available on climate sensitivity available today?
Actually it starts at min 8:30 with a comment you posted on his video.
@ CHIPSTERO7 Did you ever see the place where Potholer54 gave you a schooling on your Scotese source regarding CO2 and temperature correlation? Watch? V = LdnZ1l5TxJkMin 9:00
@ 541iceman Oh! I can answer that one! Me! Me! Can I answer please? Um… I would say it’s because Chip actually knows he hasn’t a leg to stand on and wants to save himself the embarrassment of being proven wrong. Why do any extra work when he’s already convinced himself he’s right and really only wants to hear from people who want to agree with him. What you’re asking him to do is a thing called “real work.” And real work is … well, it’s hard. Chip doesn’t do “hard.”
@ CHIPSTERO7 As I said, I can’t answer a complete blog dump of crap in 500 char YT comments. You want to discuss one thing? Start with what you’re trying to suggest with the “Josh Hall” plot. Why are you so unwilling to tidy up your posts into a form that scientists can critique?
@ 541iceman You say “recognize the difference between steady state and transient adjustment”. Well, let’s hear it then. Don’t just rock up and say that I’m misunderstanding things and not elaborate. Explain why I should recognise the difference between ” steady state and transient adjustment “? Go on then, what am I misunderstanding? Enlighten me. And cherry-picking? What? Oh, I really haven’t got anything left to say to you, you intellectually challenged slack-jawed cretin. Goodbye , charlatan.
@ 541iceman Please see my blog post The Revelle Factor vs. Henry’s law. I make it explicitly clear that the IPCC argue for a long atmospheric lifetime for atmospheric CO2 via the Revelle Factor which has nothing to do with ocean stratification or how long a given CO2 molecue remains in the atmosphere but is a chemical buffer. You haven’t even offered any cogent counterarguments to anything on my bloody blog yet. Either address my arguments on my blog, or to put it bluntly, kindly shut your trap.
@ CHIPSTERO7 A paper in Science will give you much more educated feedback than your blog will. It’s a good idea to take it down and improve it. While you do that, remove the “Josh Hall” plot reference, * read * Caillon et al rather than just cherry-picking from it, talk to ice core experts about why they edit CO2 points (how many edited from Vostok and Dome C, by the way?), recognize the difference between steady state and transient adjustment,?
@ CHIPSTERO7 think about how ocean stratification and overturning changes in a warmer world, stop pretending that the IPCC is referring to residence time of individual CO2 molecules when they talk about? Lifetime of anthro CO2 in the atmosphere of hundreds of years?. The list goes on. Basically, get rid of the crap and see what? s left, if anything. Come back to Greenman? s Channel Comments and tell us when the editing? s done.
@ 541iceman I don’t need to. It’s on my blog for people to see.
@ CHIPSTERO7 Well, that’s good. If a competent schoolkid can see the problem with AGW, it’ll be a short paper in Science. Write it up, and I’ll circulate it for you.
@ Ferrt78 You are very confused. I agree that the out-gassed CO2 will cause additional warming and have never claimed otherwise on my blog. The question is how much warming will it contribute to the global mean temperature? If you’re an IPCC apologist you’d probably argue quite a lot. However I don’t think it does. Experiments by Hottel 1954 and Leckner 1972 (and others) have shown that CO2′s absorbtivity / emissivity is very low and contributes practically nothing to the planetary temperature.
The only difference here is that the CO2 is being released by human activity rather than oceanic outgassing. Caillon et al actually make that point in the paper. Rather than disputing AGW as you claim, the paper actually fully supports it.
@ CHIPSTERO7 I took a brief look at your site, and the 2nd article makes a common error being that it cites the 800 year lag in the Caillon et all 2003 paper as evidence that CO2 cannot cause warming. Im going to have to assume that you have not actually read the paper, since it clearly states that, in the natural system, CO2 is released by outgassing caused by oceanic warming from other natural drivers. However, this CO2 then contributes additional warming to the climate system.
Good clip as always – thanks Greenman3610. Just to let you know, this particular one is not showing up on your playlist for me although the more recent Lone Star State Drought one is there.
On second-thoughts I probably will take my blog offline for a few weeks and make it a tad bit more perspicuous and user-friendly.
That should be ‘competent schoolchild’.
@ 541iceman “Your blog is hard to follow”. Gosh. Really?
@ 541iceman I don’t recall claiming that I had made absolutely “no errors”. However the calculations I have performed are straightforward and any mathematically component schoolchild can see that the AGW-theory is unmitigated poppycock. Take my Venus post for example. I use the IPCC’s own equations and the SB law to show that the maximum amount of global warming from CO2 on Venus is no more than 38C. I am simply led to the conclusion that the people promoting AGW are pseudoscientists. Sorry.
@ Uknowispeaksense I am not going through all that renewable mumbo jumbo again. It’s a scam: Even the Dutch wind turbine projects are looking bleak for the future. The government puts too much money in them. So it is still government funded. I can give you links, but you are not willing to take a look at them too. And the moment you resort to insulting behaviour (I refer to “child”, “lazy” and “wilful”) means you have lost it. Au Revoir! In English: Goodbye!.
@ CHIPSTERO7 (1) Following up on Rob: I’ve just had a paper accepted, 3 years after initial submission. The topic is nowhere near as popular as paleo-CO2 records, and I was confident at the start that I had the science right (I’ve been at this 30 years). It only took two experts with slightly different knowledge than mine to show me why I was wrong. Until you dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s to satisfy reviewers and peers, you don ‘t know that you’re right.
@ CHIPSTERO7 (2) The sad thing is; you learn a lot more this way than by being dogmatic, and it’s fun (if you like learning), even if you sometimes need a thick skin to do it. Most armchair scientists, on either side, stop as soon as they justify the result they want. No-one learns that way. I’m gone for a few days, but I’m serious about helping you circulate a document for professional critique.
@ CHIPSTERO7 [cont] Writing up a paper or a blog post and claiming that you’ve made no errors without ever having your work challenged by peers is the very opposite of skepticism. That borders on dogma. I’m highly skeptical that you ‘ ve turned up anything new that would challenge the broad understanding of AGW. This topic has undergone deep scrutiny in all areas by lots of high level researchers. But you may be onto something. We’ll never know unless you subject your work to scrutiny.
@ CHIPSTERO7 Sounds to me like Ice is presenting a nice offer to you. It’s tough, though, when you have to put your work to the test in front of experts. You would clearly NOT be skeptical if you just wrote something up you thought is right (or demanded is right) without being open to challenges. That is how science works. It’s how science advances. It’s how scientists learn from each other…. All through skepticism. Real skepticism. [cont]