October 31, 2006Tuesday 061031Rest Day
Hamstring flexibility can readily be measured by having a standing athlete flex solely at the hips and noting where in the range of hip motion the natural lumbar curve is lessened. "Conga Confusion," CrossFit Oakland The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide, by Jeffrey Glassman Post thoughts to comments. Comments
I like it! Mike, Max et al Bill Comment #1 - Posted by: Bill P at October 30, 2006 6:42 PMMaximus- Kate Comment #2 - Posted by: jknl at October 30, 2006 7:22 PMThere you have it folks.....from one of CrossFit's own. Good hamstring note- I've always been amused by sit and reaches where they look like they broke their spines. As for the article...Dr. Glassman applies a reasonable portion of scientific rigor, and I am glad for that. That being said, none of this is particularly new, is unaddressed in the most thorough models, or does anything to lend credence to the idea that human carbon emissions don't need to be looked to. Temperature specific solubility has always been acknowledged- along with change in phytoplankton population, polar albedo, and cloud cover fraction and altitude, as factors blended with total CO2 to either mitigate, or exarcerbate, temperature change. None of them let human factors off the hook. Phytoplankton growth reliably buffers half of human emissions- great. What happens when the change induced by the other half is sufficient to drive us up the solubility curve to a new equilibrium, where, say, extreme weather events are more frequent, or flooding issues in Bangladesh reach intolerable levels, or fisheries move to adapt to challenging climes? CO2 increase atmospheric heat retention- it's IR opaque, it's just what it does. Human CO2 emissions are titanic (which should come as no suprise, when human earthmoving displaces more earth each year than all natural erosion) and there is likely an effect. I think part of the issue is that the possible threat isn't properly framed- the planet, and life, will survive, adapt, and repair the system on geological time scales, nor will it be "Waterworld" and the flooding starts tomorrow- but it does pose concerns across the timespans of economies, civilizations, our families, biodiversity in delicate climes...you get the point. Comment #4 - Posted by: Kalen M. at October 30, 2006 9:00 PMDid I see Mike Minium, conga master? Comment #5 - Posted by: Ron Nelson at October 30, 2006 9:05 PMFinal call for any CrossFit athletes in *****CAMP ARIFJAN ****... If you are at ARIFJAN it would be great to link up and train hard on forthcoming WODs. Respect to the CrossFit community. Comment #6 - Posted by: Ben at October 30, 2006 9:22 PMEven if global warming wasn't man-made, the pollution that we are all constantly breathing is. To reduce CO2 and other pollutants is an urgent need. Also, why are people against clean energy, and one day much cheaper energy? Of course getting solar, geothermal, wind etc. off the ground takes money, but the first country to get viable solar will have it made in the shade. It would also fix dependance on the Middle East problems. Comment #7 - Posted by: phauna at October 30, 2006 9:57 PMI noticed that Glassman has a minimal bibliography for his article and cited global warming expert J Hansen 3 or 4 times. Here is what J Hansen has to say about the global warming debate and the role skeptics play in science. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ Comment #9 - Posted by: jacko at October 30, 2006 10:21 PMKalen M. #5 wrote a nice succinct response, so I feel silly posting my monstrosity now. But I wasted the evening typing it up, so here goes anyway :)
Now, granted, I have seen some *popular* publications that claim the correlation between CO2 and temperature in the historical record is proof of the greenhouse effect of CO2. But never any actual up-to-date *scientific* publications. There's a distinction. Another observation I had is that several quotes are taken out of context, and used in a sense so at odds with their original meaning that the author just comes across as sloppy. For example, the RealClimate quote saying that CO2 doesn't come from the ocean (and making it seem like Realclimate is a bunch of wankers considering all the other quotes that say it does) is talking about the *recent spike in CO2*, not the historical Vostok data. In fact, Realclimate states that the ocean can exchange CO2 with the atmosphere, but that it's been sinking over the last 100 years or so (*not* that it's always been sinking, as Glassman implies they say). Anyway, he spends most of the essay going to great lengths to show that CO2 really does lag temperature. But as above, this has never been in dispute. See http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/CaillonTermIII.pdf But he also tries to make the point that the CO2 is *entirely* dependent on the ocean, and not other sources such as the land biosphere. Why he wants to prove this is beyond me (maybe to show how climate scientists are just _so_ wrong?), but his methods are fishy: He basically vertically scales and shifts, and then horizontally shifts the solubility curve to an arbitrary extent to show that it "fits" the vostok temperatures. That makes this comparison next to useless. Any slightly-downward-curving line could be "fit" to the data using this method. Also, the solubility curve he starts with is a 5th-order best-fit itself. The fact that it supposedly fits the Vostok data "better" than the author's own 5th-order curve done from scratch (figure 22) really casts doubt on the author's mathematical methods. By definition, the 5th-order best fit curve will fit the data better than any other 5th or lower order curve. Whatever method he is using to calculate which curve fits "best" is erroneous. Now after all this, he never gets back around to proving, or even addressing, his most important claim -- that the climatologist "defense," that CO2 has an amplifying effect, is bogus. All he offers is that the climate never ran away to catastrophe, so the CO2 couldn't have had any effect. But this isn't what climatologists are claiming. The claim is, instead, that these hot periods (caused by external factors such as solar variation) lasted a _lot_ longer than they should have, and got hotter than they should have, and the reason was CO2 greenhouse causing a positive feedback with the temperature. In other words, without CO2, these hot periods would have still happened, but they would have been shorter and cooler. ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 ) And feedback can occur without it being catastrophic, as any engineer knows -- it's called nonlinear feedback. Basically, the way I see it, there's 4 "pillars" to the current AGW theory, none of which has been cut down by any of these "skeptics" so far: 1) Our knowledge of chemistry and atmospherics predicts CO2 as a GHG Anyway, back to the essay. It's kind of amusing that he refers to this as the "discovery" that the ocean solubility caused CO2 cycles. There's already mounds of scientific studies done on the ocean's interaction with climate, and he does a simple excel data fit and thinks he's discovered a new, simpler mechanism? This reminds me of "skeptics" who "discover" that the grand canyon was made by the biblical flood, or that quantum physics is wrong and electrons are just spinning discs of charge ( www.commonsensescience.org ) He states with absolutely no evidence: "Since there is no difference between manmade and natural CO2, anthropogenic CO2 is sure to meet the same fate." But manmade CO2 is being released at a much higher rate than any natural CO2 ever has, and by all current climate models, the natural CO2 sinks cannot keep up with it, and it *will* accumulate, and in fact already *is*. Finally, the piece ends with a bunch of unsupported straw-man attacks and misrepresentations against climate modelling that's so dense that it's really not worth attempting to counter every half-hearted "skeptical" claim that's stuck in there (The word "forcing" appearing in the titles means GCM's are invalid? What the hell? Does glassman even know what a climate forcing *is*? Look it up on wikipedia, man!) Here he writes another fabricated story, this time of how climate scientists destroyed perfectly good GCMs in despearate attempts to prove AGW and exclude contradicting data. Right. Glassman apparently thinks his audience is too dumb to come to their own conclusions, so he warns you that the three papers he cites are "rocket science" and then shoves his conclusions down your throat as if they're fact. I really need to see some hard evidence before I buy that there are *no* GCMs in use today that ignore the ocean, as he claims. In fact, I would wager that most of the things he says that climatologists "need" to do -- they're _already doing_. Comment #10 - Posted by: Ken at October 30, 2006 10:38 PMyeah yeah, all that discussion on climate and CO2 is great, but did anyone notice nicole in the photo again? yes another great start to the day.... Comment #11 - Posted by: auscharlie at October 30, 2006 10:43 PMWill use this day to get in yesterdays wod,will have to sub rings because of not having any in our gym.D.J. I will make you pasta of any kind and do it bad back and all anytime you come home!!!I will get some and go again!!!!!!!!!!!MOM Comment #12 - Posted by: gale at October 30, 2006 10:56 PMjeez, I guess I fail the hammies test. 12 years ago I tore some muscles there, pretty bad(to this day I can remeber the sound). Coach, Who the heck cares why global warming is happening? The main issue, in my humble (or not so humble opinion), is this: Best, "climate is what you hope for, weather is what you get." #13 For a robust and credible stretching routine, try 'Stretching Scientifically' by Thomas Kurz (I think the spelling's right). It's tough, but as a dedicated Crossfitter - you'll cope! There's also a much gentler 'stetching for dummies' book. Can't remember the author. The key to restoring flexibility - as in all things - is persistence Comment #16 - Posted by: Nick K at October 31, 2006 2:05 AMKalen..."or does anything to lend credence to the idea that human carbon emissions don't need to be looked to" - hold your nose dude, and if your eyes sting, cet some fresh running water in there this whole thread needs some potty humor for ballance Comment #17 - Posted by: Pete In Oz at October 31, 2006 2:24 AM#14, I am inclined to answer yes to your first question. North Korea is building a bomb without the benefit of oil revenue. I would also point out that Islamic terrorism precedes the internal combustion engine. Comment #18 - Posted by: Hari at October 31, 2006 2:25 AMWow, in looking at the article and the responding posts....I didn't realize lactic acid made people so smart. Back to the gym for me, I could use a few extra points on my IQ. Comment #19 - Posted by: Freefall at October 31, 2006 3:13 AMI'm sure Jeff will have more to say later, but I wanted to put in my two cents now. 1. It would be interesting to track the available funding for climatoligists--and specifically PALEOclimatoligists--before and after the "discovery" of global warming. 2. All of these models assume that mankind will be unable to develop countervailing technologies to reduce or eliminate AGW, if it's happening. Logically, if they ever develop sufficient understanding to PREDICT anything that can then be verified as having actually happened, then they can claim to have a valid THEORY, rather than the untested, unproven hypotheses they are working with now. Having a theory ought to at least potentially enable action. 3. I'm all for reduced oil dependence. I drive a small car, and consume very little. The point is the efforts of environmental zealots, fueled by speculative hypotheses, inserting their laws into our lives. It's not necessary, and it's a power grab not just by the American government, but there are efforts to make it global. Comment #20 - Posted by: barry cooper at October 31, 2006 5:13 AMStanding Back-Flip! Comment #21 - Posted by: John Messano at October 31, 2006 5:20 AMdid this toady to test drive it for my guys, who are doing it on Saturday As many rounds with 30kg in 40mins of 5 deadlifts Managed nearly 29 rounds ( 2 back squats to go when timer buzzed) Worst part for me was the push press I was intrigued by Jeff Glassman's blog article, especially because it presented to me an argument and analysis that I'd not seen anywhere. But I'm just a layman, not any kind of scientist. So I've tried to also understand the criticisms made by Kalen and Ken #4 & #10. Unfortunately, I cannot do so without spending the next several days running down their references and trying to educate myself to understand what they are talking about. Fortunately I could follow Glassman's argument without going to that trouble. The idea that CO2 is dependent on temperature rather than vice versa is something that I have never seen in any popular literature about global warming, and as I understand Al Gore and his crowd of global warming alarmists, their entire world view is based upon the opposite assumption, that temperature is governed by CO2 levels. So I'm thankful to Dr. Glassman for bringing this idea into my head. I was also amused by how up front Dr. Glassman was about his statistical manipulations. Comment #23 - Posted by: Dan MacD at October 31, 2006 6:08 AMBarry, you've gotten your wish. Much climate work is supported by the NASA Earth Science budget, and it's under severe downward pressure. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16769 Let's hope Glassman is right and the climate dynamics community is wrong! Davie- 40minutes? Geez! Thats alot of counting, ... numbers hurt. -K Comment #25 - Posted by: Kevin Rogers (Springfield, IL) at October 31, 2006 6:19 AMwondering if someone knows the best way to increase pull-ups numbers. I have been stuck at 15 max and would like to get around 30 in the next 6 months. any suggestions would be much appreciated. Comment #26 - Posted by: carter at October 31, 2006 6:28 AMHi all, Regarding this past weekends certification, a huge shout to the amazing people that made it possible for me to attend. Your generosity and faith is deeply touching and inspiring. I could write a tome about my experiences and revelations gleened from this seminar, but I think it can all be neatly summed up in the words of Mark "I'm independent" Rippetoe - "I DO Crossfit". Comment #28 - Posted by: Carmen at October 31, 2006 7:46 AMtoday's training: D.I.M. - I was surprised to see your reference to the Wahabis. Did you read Robert Baer's book? For a good look at our situation with the Saudi's and our oil addiction, read "Sleeping With the Devil" by Robert Baer. He also wrote "See No Evil," which was the inspiration for the movie Syriana. Both excellent reads. Comment #30 - Posted by: Jonathan at October 31, 2006 7:55 AMTalissa: did Modified Cindy 13 rounds of-- I got used to my position well back in the pack this week-end, so I'll continue with my thank you post a day late. It was a long, stiff drive back to Idaho. Awesome seminar. Thanks to Kurtis and Laurie for hosting such an inspiring event and for your tremendous hospitality. Thanks so much to Coach, Nicole, Coach Rippetoe, Tony and all of the trainers and crew. My only criticism - it was too short! The volume and quality of the training were superb, and an inspiration to continue to learn, practice and refine. I advise anyone serious about fitness to attend a CrossFit seminar as soon as possible, whether for personal edification or the benefit of your friends, family or clients. It was also such a pleasure and privelege to meet so many legends of the CrossFit community. Thanks again. Scott Hanson Comment #32 - Posted by: ScottH at October 31, 2006 8:04 AMCarter- Look at the article in the CF Journal. You can find a link to it on the main page. In it is also a link to another fine article on pullups. -K Comment #33 - Posted by: Kevin Rogers at October 31, 2006 8:07 AMWill read article in a bit. Caught up with yesterday's WOD. 17:43. followed with DL drills. Comment #34 - Posted by: bingo at October 31, 2006 9:42 AMNice video! Comment #35 - Posted by: treelizard at October 31, 2006 10:29 AM#16 Nick, thanks! I will check it out. Comment #36 - Posted by: mrjling at October 31, 2006 10:48 AMThanks to Ken and Kalen M for their helpful responses to Jeff Glassman's essay. Question 1: Are Jeff and Greg Glassman related? Question 2: Does anyone else find it highly unlikely that someone who could actually poke holes in the theory of AGW would be forced to ply his wisdom on a fitness site? Are we supposed to believe that his inability to get his theories published is the result of some sort of vast, international conspiracy involving government agencies, publishing companies, and academic institutions? In addition to realclimate.org, I suggest all crossfitters visit this site: http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html where you will find the following: "Here is a list of "enviro-Nazis" and "left-wing loonies" who believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and well supported by sound science: NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) Every major scientific institute dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. On top of that list, see also this joint statement that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report, issued by and this one that includes the above signers plus:
And we're supposed to believe that a single retired rocket engineer, however brilliant he may be, somehow noticed some fact that all those others either missed or intentionally covered up in order to make money? I suppose it's possible ... but extraordinarily unlikely. Please, everyone, use your heads. Look beyond Crossfit for your science information. Comment #37 - Posted by: flog at October 31, 2006 11:56 AMhot video, nice tricks you guys! Comment #38 - Posted by: brendan melville at October 31, 2006 12:32 PM Huge Props to Coach et al concerning this weekend. I started out a bit apprehensive concerning the political/Rest Day/25% of Crossfit, and held my breath when we got to the programming methodology segment and Coach made a column entitled "Rest Day". I am happy to report that the column remained small and blank, nothing political come up at all, save for Santa Claus, Martha Stewart and Mr. Miyagi wall ball targets. I still don't understand why anyone would have a hate on for Mr. Miyagi...... Once I figure out a way to find myself in Puyallup again I will definitely stop by Rainier Crossfit again, super cool place you have built there Kurtis and Laurie. Comment #39 - Posted by: justin at October 31, 2006 1:20 PMNo one wants to throw a wall ball at Mr Miyagi, Kim Jong Ill may be another story. I was actually able to get in a mild workout today, post seminar. It was great, to those lurking put it on your calendar to attend one of these events! Great surprise to have Coach Rip as a guest, as well as his additional 2 hour seminar on Sunday morning before the Crossfit section re-started from the day before. OHS 135x6/185x10,8/135x6,6,6 Kalen M. #4 You say none of the Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide is particularly new, and provide a short list of applicable places that disprove any novelty. Please cite a single reference to the Vostok data being imprinted by the solubility curve. Please cite a single “thorough model”, one presumably predicting global climate and reproducing atmospheric CO2 shaped by the solubility of CO2 in water. You said, “Temperature specific solubility” results have been “blended with total CO2”. Assuming you meant, blended with other CO2 to comprise a total CO2, I agree. The problem is the absence of measurable other CO2 in the Vostok record. Please cite any source for the Vostok record containing an accumulation of other CO2, that is, accidental CO2 beyond what the oceans emit. Please cite any source that establishes that CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere beyond the dynamic stream flowing into and out of the oceans. The specific fate of anthropogenic CO2 is quite irrelevant, whether it be phytoplankton, rocks, sea shells, or grass lands. What is relevant is how much accidental CO2 builds in the atmosphere. Only if CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere can it exert any additional greenhouse effect beyond that of the CO2 in the stream from warm waters to cold. The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide reveals for the first time that no measurable CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere during the 420,000 year Vostok record. The CO2 emitted from a half dozen super sized volcanos during that period has all been absorbed by the ocean. The odds are that the uptake of CO2 into the cold waters is not saturated, but we leave it to the climatologists to estimate the remaining capacity of the oceans to scrub the atmosphere of its CO2. And we leave it to the climatologists to calculate the fate of that CO2. We leave it to the climatologists to restore the solar cycle, the water cycle, and the carbon cycle to their Global Climate Models, and to account for the atmospheric CO2 stream produced by the oceans. You say that “Human CO2 emissions are titanic”. Please provide the numbers that support that claim. What percentage is human CO2 emissions to the total emission from the ocean? What percentage is human greenhouse gas emission to total greenhouse gases, including CO2 and at least water vapor? The Vostok record supports a model that human CO2 emissions will add nothing to the total greenhouse gas effect. Phauna, #7 No one can be against plentiful, clean energy. Just be aware that CO2 is a benign gas, beneficial to the earth’s flora where it is converted to oxygen. CO2 is not a pollutant. It does not soil any fuel or the atmosphere. Jacko, # 9 You say “minimal bibliograph”. Can you cite authority for a sufficient number of citations for a paper? You refer to J Hansen as a “global warming expert”. He is widely so-regarded, but he is actually a well-placed advocate for a weak belief system. You, like Hansen, misunderstand skepticism in science. Hansen says in his 1999 article, >>Skepticism thus plays an essential role in scientific research, and, far from trying to silence skeptics, science invites their contributions. Skepticism is an essential part of the makeup of every scientist. Skepticism is not the division between holders of some view and those who do not. The important debate is not between the scientists who believe in AGW and the skeptics. Science is not a belief system. To the extent that practitioners believe in some particular model they are not practicing science. Disbelievers are not “skeptics” or the “contrarians”. They may well be the outsiders as when the believers come to control the peer review process. AGW as a scientific model for the climate is a conjecture. It is below a hypothesis since it doesn’t fit the data. It is below a theory since none of its predictions has been validated. It is less than a law since it has not been exhaustively validated. Hansen demonstrates little skepticism. He believes in his own conjecture. In the process, he abuses his ethical duties as a scientist and as a federal employee to promote the use of his unvalidated Global Climate Models for public policy. Ken, # 10 Why did you put publication in quotes? You quote from Realclimate. Is that a “publication”? Are there good blogs and bad blogs? And later, what do you mean by “*popular*” and “*scientific*” publications? Maybe you could share your private method of publication classification. Clearly what you are doing is simply demoting publications that support my claims, and then criticize with no authority at all. You assert the story about the climatologists' treatment of Vostok data is a complete fabrication. You must have found a falsity in the story. Please share it. You say the story is about how climate scientists hid, or ignored, the CO2 lag. The words hid and ignored are not in the paper. How did you draw your conclusion? You say, “Realclimate states that the ocean can exchange CO2 with the atmosphere, but that it's been sinking over the last 100 years or so (*not* that it's always been sinking, as Glassman implies they say).” Please cite where Realclimate makes the 100 years statement. Please cite where I imply Realclimate says the ocean has always been sinking. You say that I went to great lengths to show that CO2 really does lag temperature. I did spend some effort in quantifying the lag, and I applied it to my analysis. I claimed that it added only a few percent to the accuracy of my results. I organized the paper so you could easily skip this section. You falsely claim that “he also tries to make the point that the CO2 is *entirely* dependent on the ocean, and not other sources such as the land biosphere.” What I actually claimed was that the entire Vostok CO2 record is imprinted with the solubility curve. Most importantly, Vostok shows no additional CO2, such as might have come from the major volcano eruptions. Indeed, the land biosphere might add CO2 to the atmosphere according to the same solubility physics. You weren’t able to grasp the point of how climate scientists went wrong. The answer is that their models are now divorced from the ocean, and they do not implement the carbon cycle (among other critical cycles). They have no method in their GCMs to shape the atmospheric CO2 by the solubility curve. They went wrong several ways, but the bottom line is that their models don’t account for the imprinting. You misunderstand the Vostok data and its imprinting with the solubility curve. The climatologists did the shifting and scaling of which you complain. Fortunately, they did not harm the curvature. By shifting and scaling the solubility curve, I could make the fit I saw in the data apparent to the readers. If you read the paper carefully, you’ll see that ultimate fit is made to the published, unshifted, unscaled,Vostok data with the the complement of the solubility curve as given by physics. You are confused between the curve fit to the solubility data representing the physics, and the mathematical and physical fits to the Vostok data. First note that the domain of the curve fit to the solubility data is several times as large as the 14 degree domain of the Vostok data. Second you might note that with the domain, the mathematical fits to the Vostok data are a bit more accurate than is the fit with the solubility curve – in the domain of the Vostok data. The mathematical fits, though, have no physical cause to support them. And they don’t make sense outside the Vostok domain. The solubility fit to the Vostok data does have a physical cause, and is well-behaved at the end points of the Vostok data. There is no error in the curve fitting, at least that you have discovered. Your explanation of the amplifying effect of CO2 is just tautological. In the end, the climatologists have admitted that CO2 didn’t cause the observed global warming seen in the Vostok data or otherwise. That should have been the end of the story. We’ll leave it to the climatologists to estimate what the warm periods of the past would have been but for the CO2. First, they will need to restore the solar model, the water cycle, and the carbon cycle to their GCMs, and then show that the atmospheric CO2 in their model is imprinted with by the solubility pump. You say, “he refers to this as the ‘discovery’ that the ocean solubility caused CO2 cycles.” That and the rest of your discussion are false. No such claim is made in the paper, nor in any manner to “CO2 cycles”. You claim “manmade CO2 is being released at a much higher rate than any natural CO2 ever has.” Please cite an authority. You state this to disprove that manmade and natural CO2 would meet the same fate. Please state what physical process causes manmade CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere while natural CO2 does not. Please cite your authority for claiming that natural CO2 sinks cannot keep up with the manmade CO2 creation. In your ultimate paragraph, you question the meaning of the word forcing, and give Wikipedia as a source. If you read my paper more carefully, you’ll find an operational definition for forcing twice in Part IV(C). You then attribute incorrectly to my paper “that there are *no* GCMs in use today that ignore the ocean”. To the contrary, I claim that the GCMs in use today are designed to scare the public for the recognition, power, and money that the fear will bring. I claim that those GCMs do NOT model the ocean. All you have to do to find an error in my paper is cite a GCM that supports AGW and models the ocean. Group Moffett Row 5000 meters in 20 minutes. Comment #45 - Posted by: Adrian D at October 31, 2006 6:00 PMflog #37 Actually, the URL for the Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide is not at a fitness site. Certainly there was no force involved, either. Do you realize how the Internet came into existence? And why it is so powerful? And why it is revolutionary? The answer may surprise you: it has nothing to do with Al Gore(!), but instead an agency of the US federal government, the left’s mother lode of secrecy, called DARPA. To a great extent the phenomenon of the Net is pent up energy from a failed publication system, failing on all fronts, from novels to self help, and especially in peer reviewed science. The more revolutionary the science, the less likely it is to be published by the discoverer. That peer review today is dominated by a form of Political Correctness – conformity. That peer review works to supress innovation and novelty. Journals too often ignore scientific standards in favor of conformance to entrenched and tenured belief systems called rice bowls. Is it your belief that any Global Climate Model has been validated? Or less, even reproduced the history of global climate? Is it your belief that such a model has scientific validity? Is it your belief that models are judged on some basis other than how well they work? Is it your belief that scientists vote on which model is best? Regardless, where is your list of AGW critics? Do you have a guess why BP and Shell Oil might support AGW? Here’s a hint: why does R J Reynolds support the conjecture that tobacco is addictive? (Or did you think that tobacco was actually addictive?) Do you believe that a scientific model hypothesis or theory may fail to account for data within its domain? Do you believe now that the Vostok CO2 concentration has the curvature of the solubility of CO2 in water? Do you believe that the CO2 concentration estimated by any GCM accounts for that curvature? In your terms, what is the probability that the CO2 measured at Vostok came out of the ocean? Are we supposed to believe, as you pose your questions, that GCMs showing persistent anthropogenic CO2 still scrub natural CO2 out of the air? The bottom line of my paper is not too difficult to grasp. The Vostok CO2 concentration data are indeed curved, highly likely due to the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water. GCMs must reproduce that effect, but cannot yet do so. Basic precepts of science demand that any conclusions drawn from CO2 forcings in today’s GCMs be rejected. Consider the odds that the atmosphere is not produced by the ocean, and sheparded by the ocean with ample dynamic range to assure long term stability. Flog, You present an array of organizations supporting the AGW thesis as evidence that Dr. Glassman’s science is invalid. The nature of scientific advancement and the epistemology of science take no stock in the validation by consensus argument you offer. (I think yours is a method of social science, not real science.) In fact, the history of scientific discovery reveals that, like market advances, significant advancements are typically revolutionary, i.e., they are not readily supported or understood by prevailing authority and may even stand in marked opposition to orthodoxy. Similarly, that you should find it untenable that scientific advancement would come from the work of a single scientist says much about your awareness of discovery and science. Finally, I’ll forsake the obvious historical examples of lone, obscure, and revolutionary patent clerks, monks, and coleopterologists to give a more mundane and close to home example: CrossFit. CrossFit was, initially, the work of a single individual whose views stood in stark opposition to nearly all of prevailing authority and found widespread audience and eventually academic and organizational review only after being published to the Internet. The list of scientific organizations and scientists opposed to the fundamental tenets of CrossFit dwarf your list of AGW adherents by number and stature. To paraphrase your misunderstanding: Are we supposed to believe that a single trainer working in a garage with his wife and friends “somehow noticed some facts that all those others either missed or covered up in order to make money? I suppose it’s possible but extraordinarily unlikely.” This program owes its origins and successes in no small part to my resisting the failure of intellect that compels you. The reason I trust most of the fitness advice I see on Crossfit is that a) I can test it myself and b) it does not contradict what I see elsewhere. Specifics may vary, but in general I don't see much on Crossfit that contradicts most of what I see from Pavel Tsatrouline, from gymnastics training, from Olympic lifters, from the the way sprinters train, from the wider range of functional fitness specialists (your own website lists a number of links to people who generally support the essence of Crossfit). What makes crossfit unique is the emphasis on the cross. And the WOD format. Thank you. But if everyone disagreed with you, I wouldn't come here. Secondly, I didn't say that it was impossible for a lone scientist to be right and for all the others to be wrong ... I just said in this case it is improbable. In this case, I think Glassman is demonstrably wrong. Or at least he has not convinced me. I asked Gavin Schmidt to look at Jeff Glassman's article. This was our communication: The author challenges Gavin Schmidt by name. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html [Response: That's pretty confused. He neither understands the physics of CO2, nor the implications of the Vostok record, nor the concept of positive feedback. We've discussed each of these issues before, and I would refer you there. - gavin] 3 Dec 2004
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runaway-tipping-points-of-no-return/
You know, at CrossFit there is a focus on fundamentals. Doing simple things well. Understanding the basics. Blocking and tackling, as applied to football by Vince Lombardi and many other great coaches. What are the basics of science? Isn't it the process of seeing something, developing it into a coherent idea, and then testing it? The process of abstracting a prospective principle from observation, then predicting future observations? Here is the Wikipedia link on Hypothesis, which appears decent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis Notable quote: "The hypothetico-deductive method demands falsifiable hypotheses, framed in such a manner that the scientific community can prove them false (usually by observation)." A non-falsifiable hypothesis is in my understanding BY DEFINITION non-scientific. In the discussion on global warming, computer modelling constitutes a hypothesis, not data. Data is actual measurements taken, say, at the poles, or core sampling, or CO2 measurements, etc. Any hypothesis which does not fit all available data is falsified ipso facto. There is no further discussion necessary. It is definitionally incomplete. For that reason, ALL computer generated models constitute failed hypotheses if they fail to account for past climate change. They further fail in being able to predict future events, such as the severity of Hurricane seasons. It's really that simple. This is blocking and tackling. To my understanding, current models in fact DO fail to meet these basic tests, and thus should be viewed as at best incomplete, and at worst outright frauds perpetrated for funding and attention. The reason this obvious fact is overlooked is that the models are THEMSELVES used as DATA. Thus, you have prospective models referred to in effect not as guesses, but "future data". What we say will happen, will happen. Trust us. Let's be clear: massive expenditures are being debated, which will be MANDATED by government agencies, which are based on models failing the most basic requirements of the scientfic method, as I understand it. At issue is not whether the Earth is growing hotter or not. Everyone on all sides KNOWS that the Earth's climate has changed often over long periods of time. Thus, floods in Bangladesh or wherever are irrelevant. My understanding of Dr. Glassman's idea is, in my layman's terms, that the ocean in effect acts as a CO2 buffering system, which prevents dramatic, quick escalations, or decreases. With respect to the Realclimate stuff, I'll leave that to Dr. Glassman. For the record, as Coach mentions, anyone who has studied the history of science at all understands that most paradigm shifts are the result of voices crying out in the wilderness. I will also add that peer review, as a process, means very little. It depends entirely on the intellectual integrity of the participants, and it's been my experience in this world that money makes most people funny. Not that they are lying, but perhaps not being as sceptical as they could be. Tenure notwithstanding, it's hard to keep a job if you're too far outside the mainstream. Comment #49 - Posted by: barry cooper at November 1, 2006 11:46 AMThe real question is this: Is Jeff Glassman a) a lone voice crying out for a new paradigm shift in science? b) one of a dying breed still clinging to an outmoded way of thinking? c) neither of the above? Comment #50 - Posted by: flog at November 1, 2006 12:02 PMFlog, You're obviously willing to commit time to this. Explain to me how models which definitionally fail to meet the most basic demands set forth in the philosophy of science should be used as the basis for global and expensive changes to our way of life? Comment #51 - Posted by: barry cooper at November 1, 2006 12:09 PMFlog, the answer to your question is "C". There are still those out there in the scientific community that still adhere to the "scientic method". More than you know! Skeptics of a particular hypothesis should not be shouted down simply because they ask one to support their conclusions with reproducable experimentation or verifiable observations. Dr. Glassman has simply pointed out a few failings of the computer models. The bottom line is that the universe and the Earth are far more complex and dynamic than the models take into account. Hence, they are not truly representative of the system. Dr. Glassman, I passed your paper along to a co-worker who used to write the EPA regulations for the state of Maryland under the former governor. He is the most qualified person I know to review it. Interestingly, he hypothesized an alternative theory. However, basically CO2 is a linear molecule with only one degree of freedom. Hence, it has only one angle at which it can draw solar energy. Water, however, is not linear and has numerous angles at which it can absorb solar energy. There may be a correlation between the Earth's albedo, the melting ice caps and CO2 at the polar ice caps... at the extreme tempuratures of the (ant)arctic, water is mostly ice. So, if you can picture a curve of Temperature vs time where there are short highs in the temps (where we are currently) and long cold periods (Ice Ages). At the high temps, CO2 encourages plant growth which eventually serves to trap or reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere. The temps decrease and the plant life is trapped under the ice. Over time the organic matter decays and slowly is released, thus warming the climate again until the cycle repeats. Is this a plausible hypothesis? I do not know. Comment #52 - Posted by: Blake at November 1, 2006 1:06 PMBarry it is easy how those models should be used as the basis for global and expensive changes to our way of life. They should be used to: 1: Rein in America as a world power and make the U.S. Taxpayer the main "contributor" to global socialist agendas. Make no mistake this is a money issue and has wealth redistrobution written all over it. 2: They should be used to keep politicians focused on a "Boogieman" that we will never be able to fix, stop or destroy (AGW). This way we don't ever have to focus on Terrorism, Illegal Immigration, and Nuclear proliferation. Since these are real dangers we can expect a great many of these people who focus on AGW to not have a response to any of these problems except to offer a catch-phrase or sound bite which involves the President. 3: They give Vice-President Al Gore the opportunity to fly jets and drive limos all over America. This serves a two-fold agenda...it keeps him in the public eye and it gives him a chance to scold America for using fossil fuels for flying and driving. Barry you seem like a smart guy...you really should think through these things more. :) Comment #53 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at November 1, 2006 1:22 PMFlog, You are very welcome. I thank you for your support. I also thank you for your engagement on rest day. If substantiation of our methods has come from the sources you’ve listed, your research has been limited to a very narrow bandwidth of available opinions and may have entirely missed the corpus of academic work on fitness. In this regard you have been very fortunate. You say, “What makes crossfit (sic) unique is the emphasis on the cross.” This is very much akin to observing that the uniqueness of the Gettysburg address lies in the ordering and selection of the words. Finding support for the program in recognition of the elements is something that may have swayed you but it most certainly has not had that impact on gymnastics and weightlifting authorities. (The tide is slowly turning as weightlifting, gymnastics, and rowing communities have come to learn that the majority of their current participants have come to the sports via CrossFit.) Dr. Glassman is not a climatologist but a world class authority on the tools they’ve elected to use to support AGW – mathematical and computer modeling. His claim is that they don’t know how to use these tools. He’s not alone in that claim among his peers – not even close. (Gavin Schmidt’s claim that Dr. Glassman does not understand positive feedback had me spit iced tea on my monitor. Schmidt is in way over his head, schooling, and experience. Let’s watch!) You’ve twice recommend (as I recall) that people not get their information on science from a fitness site. I’d recommend that YOU not derive your information on mathematical/computer modeling from climatology sites. Barry, I simply don't accept the premise of your question or your challenge. It wasn't long ago that climate skeptics were saying that there was no global warming. However, as the evidence from a wide variety of real world proxies (tree rings, ice cores, historical records, coral, speleotherms, etc. etc. etc.) continues to accumulate showing dramatic rises in temperature in the last century (as predicted by some lonely voices as far back as 1900), that argument has been abandoned. Now the climate skeptics harp on the failure of computer models to predict the future. But those computer models have shown successes and in some cases their predictions have underestimated the trend toward global warming. The theory of AGW is actually testable and has been tested and evidence accumulates to back it up. I'd turn the question around: what evidence would you and Jeff Glassman accept as proof of AGW? I do not want to, nor do I have the power to, silence scientific debate. Debate in good faith is a good thing. But just because some lone dissenters have been right in the past doesn't mean that Jeff Glassman is. Accusing every scientist in the world (other than Jeff Glassman) of being unethical dupes who serve some grand conspiracy strikes me, again, as implausible. Comment #55 - Posted by: flog at November 1, 2006 2:07 PMCoach, You say "Schmidt is in way over his head, schooling, and experience. Let’s watch!)" Yes, I'd love to see a debate. Here are Schmidt's qualifications, for those who are interested: 6 Dec 2004 He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He serves on the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection and the Earth System Modeling Framework Advisory Panels and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate. He was recently cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 40 peer-reviewed publications. More information about his research and publication record can be found here. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin/ Comment #56 - Posted by: flog at November 1, 2006 2:14 PMFlog: Here's Super-Duper Scientist Schmidt's rebuttal of the evidence showing CO2 lags temperature increases in the Vostok ice cores: "The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data." I suppose it's progress to get the admission that 800 years of warming was not caused by CO2, but as rebuttals go, the rest of it is a confession that he has no answer: "Could in fact have been caused ... for all we know ... ." Maybe later he'll be able to explain how that elephant got into the middle of his living room. Comment #57 - Posted by: Harry MacD at November 1, 2006 2:53 PMActually that was super duper scientist Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego who wrote that. I believe the argument is that CO2 rises as a result of natural temperature fluctuations and causes unnatural temperature fluctuations when it is introduced in unprecedented quantities by man. Look, everyone ... Personally I'm very open to alternative theories about global warming and certainly to corrections if a scientist makes a mistake. It would really be quite phenomenal if no global warming believer ever made an error. Obviously whenever so many scientists are working on an issue, some are going to get things wrong. But that is exactly why consensus is taken into account. No one gets it all right, but scientists correcting one another start to go in the right direction. But nothing I've read makes me accept Jeff Glassman's alternative theory. Comment #58 - Posted by: flog at November 1, 2006 3:55 PMYes, but Schmidt's rebuttal of Glassman was to cite Severinghaus, and it is no rebuttal at all. I think you have accurately stated the argument, and by stating it accurately you have laid bare that it is an argument, not a fact or a scientific law. Here's hoping that Glassman's paper provokes learned debate among persons more learned than me. Best regards, Comment #59 - Posted by: Harry MacD at November 1, 2006 7:40 PMFlog, Re. Your post #55, 1. “It wasn't long ago that climate skeptics were saying that there was no global warming.” The climate skeptics I’ve known and read have NEVER denied GW, and they aren’t denying AGW now. Their claim is that the scientific work supporting AGW is non existent or junk science, i.e., scientifically illegitimate. 2. “Now the climate skeptics harp on the failure of computer models to predict the future.” As I understand it the problem of the computer models is their complete failure to predict the past, present, and future. They don’t work in the least or most significant figures. 3. “The theory of AGW is actually testable and has been tested and evidence accumulates to back it up.” The AGW work does not meet the scientific standards for “theory”. AGW is “conjecture”. There is no AGW scientific theory of which I’m aware. 4. “I'd turn the question around: what evidence would you and Jeff Glassman accept as proof of AGW?” I don’t think science offers proof. That’s the exclusive province of math and logic. Ask what evidence would justify a theory of AGW and I suspect Dr. Glassman would provide an answer. You held Jeff Glassman’s lone voice as support for AGW. No one ever suggested that his lone voice made him correct in pointing out the failures of AGW proponents to make their case. 6. “Accusing every scientist in the world (other than Jeff Glassman) of being unethical dupes…” No one has accused “every scientist in the world” of being “unethical dupes” - just scientists promoting AGW. You’ve seemingly not found, noticed, nor been willing to admit to a strong, rational, and credentialed cadre of climate skeptics. Why? Will you admit that Schmidt's rebuttal of Glassman doesn't challenge his thesis? Or even remotely challenges his thesis? Would it be unfair to suggest that AGW is an integral part of your belief system? A concept in which you have faith? "I simply don't accept the premise of your question or your challenge." I don't think you understand what I'm saying, because it is so obvious that some responsible scientist other than Dr. Glassman (and likely a few others) ought to have pointed it out. A conjecture (let's call it a "guess" to make the point yet more obvious) which fails to account for all available data fails to rise even to the level of a hypothesis. It is wrong, plain and simple. The extent of wrongness is debatable, but the FACT of wrongness is not. It is explicit and clear in the philosophy--which is to say the process--of science. In my understanding, ALL computer generated models--including the ones we are supposed to use as justification for sweeping political and economic changes--fail to account for all available data. That means they are wrong, plain and simple. If you look at this issue formally, using philosophical rigor, this point is unambiguous and unavoidable. I honestly do no look at AGW is a matter of faith, or even a part of my personal belief system. And if you actually knew me you'd understand the relish with which I seek out challenges to my belief system. That may be partly why I check in here on Rest Days. However, AGW is a topic that I have followed for a while. I am not a scientist but I look at the arguments pro and con as best I can. So far I see the skeptics blowing a lot of smoke, saying that Greenland used to be green and other proven falsehoods. One skeptic, Patrick Michaels, famously doctored one of Hansen's graphs to make it look like one of Hansen's predictions had not come true (this bit of fraud was repeated as fact in "State of Fear.") I've seen skeptical counterargument after counterargument come and go (global warming isn't happening, global warming is a good thing, the glaciers are growing, the satellites show cooling, global warming is caused by the sun, the models don't work). In typical paranoid conspiracy-theory fashion, these half-truths and distortions are thrown out randomly. Does this mean that no counterargument or alternative explanation will ever be advanced to explain the obviously unprecedented changes now going on in our environment? Of course not. I promise I'll write you and publicly eat crow as soon as that happens. Or do you deny that the changes now happening in the environment are unprecedented? Because that statement is not based on models, it is based on literally thousands, if not millions, of independent observations of reality. Predicting the future is infinitely trickier than measuring the past of course, and one could argue philosophically and formally (if you wished to cloud the issue) that it is impossible. But here is one list of global warming predictions that have come true:
I have to ask Jeff Glassman. Is his essay serious? By that I mean, does he truly believe his own hypothesis? Is he willing to go to bat for it and test its predictive qualities? Or was it an exercise to, in effect, say "I can spin a bunch of bullshit as good as all those climatologists." That's a serious question. Why should I have "faith" in Jeff Glassman? As you apparently do? is my last post being withheld for a reason? Comment #63 - Posted by: flog at November 2, 2006 6:57 PMFlog, Your last post was indeed witheld for a reason. Three reasons, in fact, and by the spam filter. I manually freed it. (It is number #62) Comment #64 - Posted by: Coach at November 2, 2006 10:58 PMFlog, Dr. Glassman's paper made sense. You either ignored or couldn't comprehend the paper, but in either case did not respond to the paper's salient points. You then summonsed Gavin Schmidt who punted. You posted Gavin's punt as if it rebutted Jeff's thesis. The shark lawyer in the house pointed out, and it was obvious, that Gavin's response was in no way shape or form a rebuttal of Glassman's thesis. Asked to respond to your experts punting you punted. This is what losing an argument looks like. You have a faith in doom-saying climatologists' use of climate models that modeling experts from fields with vastly more successful and diverse experience with mathematical and computer modeling than climatology and climatologists cannot accept. Your reaction to their non-acceptance is, it seems to me, a mixture of avoidance, straw-man, and insult (Comment #62). Your characterization of the climate skeptics is absurdly inaccurate. Confronted with a climate skeptic not of your own making you revert to attacking the climate skeptics in your head. What is needed to validate the mathematical and computer models of climatologists is not a gaggle of grant suckling climatologists in chicken little mode but a nod from systems engineers with extensive and SUCCESSFUL background modeling. The ones I know aren't buying in. Dr. Glassman is one such system engineer and he's aghast at not only the misuse of the tools of his trade but the failure of the doomsayers to practice legitimate science. In fact, their failings are so profound, constant, committed, and pervasive that he's deemed their failings unethical.
Flog, A model that rose above the level of guess would be able to "Hindcast", as you put it, ALL recorded climate change. If CO2 is in fact the most important factor, then they should be able to account for ALL the warming and cooling that has been present throughout history, as indicated in various paleoclimatological records, using CO2 as the driving agent. Once a model is able to "predict" past data, it can be considered a hypothesis, in that it is not definitionally already falsified. Then it needs to make specific predictions which are then observed. At that point, it could plausibly claim to be a theory. In my understanding, this has not happened. Comment #66 - Posted by: barry cooper at November 3, 2006 7:32 AMCoach, I agree that Gavin Schmidt's short response to Jeff Glassman's article does not refute it. In exactly the same way, nothing you have said (insult, innuendo, broad generalizations) refutes the AGW argument. You punted on my list of climate predictions that have been born out by observations. Were those just lucky guesses? In what way were those predictions not successful? Barry Cooper, no one ever said that "all the warming and cooling that has been present throughout history" is the result of CO2. That is absurd. The whole point is that what we are seeing now is unprecedented. What happens when tons or C)2 are artificially introduced into the atmosphere? That's the question under discussion. One thing I will do is to thank Jeff Glassman for offering a counter theory in writing. This is definitely a step in the right direction, when compared to the outdated and well-refuted Sally Balliunas interview you posted some time ago, or the Senator Inhofe speech (which summed up many of the climate skeptic argument I mention), or Michael Crichton's speech that you linked to a few months ago. I do not have the scientific background to personally refute Jeff Glassman, so I need to trust others. But something looks fishy about it. Others apparently think so too. Gavin Schmidt did not answer in depth, but he has published many, many papers in the past that we can look at to understand his opposing theories. His work is not secret. Can we agree to segregate our discussion of climate models from our discussion of what has happened in the past? They are two separate issues, right? Please point me to the most serious anti-AGW argument you know of. I'd really like to see it. I guess I have a bias for well-credentialed, independent (not-industry funded) publications. But if you think the best work is on the web, please share it with me. "Can we agree to segregate our discussion of climate models from our discussion of what has happened in the past? They are two separate issues, right?" No, they are not. In order to assess the impact of human CO2 emissions on the climate, we need to have a good base model of how the climate normally works. If we don't have a solid hypothesis on how things normally work, then we are guessing, pure and simple. As I mentioned, this point is unambiguous. I'm not doubting that the models are internally consistent, contain vast amounts of data, and show predictions of substantial warming. That doesn't matter. Until they can predict the past, they cannot be claimed to have risen above the level of guess. It's that simple. This is freshman science stuff. Comment #68 - Posted by: barry cooper at November 3, 2006 9:45 AMThe theory of relativity does not explain every observed phenomenon. Yet it accurately predicts others. Does that mean it's only a guess? Does that mean you can't make a nuclear weapon using principles of relativity? Scientific theories often work in aggregate despite the observation of unexpected and unexplained exceptions. New theories evolve. Sometimes, but not always, the old theories are overthrown. Sometimes the new theory merely expands upon the old one. Discrepancies in the climate data and failed AGW predictions may be explained in the future by an entirely new theory (maybe Jeff Glassman's) or by relatively minor adjustments to our understanding of climate. We don't know yet. You are resorting to semantics. As coach would say, that's what losing an argument looks like. Comment #69 - Posted by: flog at November 3, 2006 10:43 AMGavin A. Schmidt [according to flog #48] – Where to start, and where to end! GAVIN SCHMIDT ON PHYSICS >>“The author challenges Gavin Schmidt by name. What is the relevant physics, and what is the misunderstanding Schmidt perceives? According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), jointly established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1988, the physics of CO2 includes an annual gross exchange of about 90 PgC (90 Gigatons of carbon) per year, that determines the fate of CO2 in the atmosphere, it must be calculated in a numerical model, and it depends on the solubility of CO2 in water, and in particular, on the solubility pump. The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide extensively addresses the solubility of CO2 in water. So what Gavin cannot reveal as my misunderstanding of CO2 physics must be an error of commission, not omission. What does Gavin say about solubility and CO2 on his website, www.realclimate.org? First, Google says: Your search - "solubility pump" site:realclimate.org - did not match any documents. So apparently he completely neglects the CO2 physics of the solubility pump! If you Google for solubility and “carbon dioxide” at realclimate.org, you’ll find the following six unique citations. (1) 16 May 2006, Current volcanic activity and climate? By Gavin. >>“There is an obvious spike in the rate of CO2 increase at that time -- in the other direction! >>“I've been all over the CO2 record from Mauna Loa, and I can tell you that just after the Mt. Pinatubo explosion, the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 decreased. From about 1977 to 1990, atmospheric CO2 was increasing at about 1.5 ppmv/yr, but from 1991-1992 the rate dropped to about 0.9 ppmv/yr. It rebounded quickly, and by 1994 was above 1.5 ppmv/yr. >>“Gavin? Could the Mt. Pinatubo explosion have caused a decrease in atmospheric CO2 increase rate? Or is the dip due to some other cause? >>“[Response: A small dip is completely understandable in terms of the carbon cycle response to the cooling. It could be a solubility effect (cooler oceans take up more CO2), but it's more likely a biosphere effect - reduced soil respiration maybe. I'd have to look up the relevant literature to be more precise... - gavin].” Comment #6. www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/ 2006/05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/. www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/ 2006/05/positive-feedbacks-from-the-carbon-cycle/ Gavin admits his confusion. Could solubility be playing a role, he asks! (2) 27 May 2006, Positive feedbacks from the carbon cycle, by David Archer. >>“The oceans are presently taking up about 2 Gton C per year, a significant dent in our emissions of 7 Gton C per year. This could slow in the future, as overturning becomes inhibited by stratification, as the buffer loses its capacity due to acidification. Eventually, the fluxes could reverse as with a decrease in CO2 solubility due to ocean warming.” www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/ 2006/05/positive-feedbacks-from-the-carbon-cycle/ Here the author admits only to the possibility that CO2 solubility could play a role. However, another aspect of this citation is far more important. Climatologists calculate that annually the oceans dissolve between 92 and 107 Gigatons of carbon, and emit variously between 90 and 103 Gigatons back into the atmosphere, accuracy unknown. (Google for 90 PgC/yr for an idea of the extent of this calculation.) The anthropogenic crowd presume that the 90 GT figure is natural equilibrium and that the excess uptake of 2 GT is associated with anthropogenic CO2. Of course, this is nonsense. The 2 GT figure is merely the difference between two large, uncertain estimates. The sources for both the 90 GT and 92 GT figures and the 103 GT and 107 GT remain a mystery, concealing the method of computation, its probable accuracy, and the dependence on conditions and assumptions, especially but not exclusively global temperature (climate). These observations point to one of several persistent scientific flaws in the AGW conjecture. In this case, the GCMs do not work in the most significant figures, but they claim validity in the region of the middle most significant figures. Now restricting the domain of a scientific model is a routine practice, and is quite acceptable. If the climatologists wish to restrict the domain of their GCMs to the present post glacial period, or even to the time since the Little Ice Age, they should so state this restriction. If they do so, however, they are bound to express their models against a doubly warming background: the post glacial period of about 60 to 80 thousand years, or to the post LIA period of a hundred and fifty years or so. Instead, the climatologists glue the dubious CO2 measurements of the last fifty years onto the record of several centuries or the record of several hundred millennia, thus to proclaim an unprecedented level of CO2 due to man. They fail to account for the differences in measurement methods and the problems that implies with regard to calibration. They fail to account for the global temperature and the effects that has on the CO2 concentration. They fail to account for the difference in sampling intervals. They ignore that some technicians making the modern measurements reported that they waited until the wind was from the sea because that lead to higher CO2 levels. [Gray, Vincent R. “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, letter 3/1/99, Re: paper on pre-industrial carbon dioxide. http://www.john-daly.com/bull120.htm.] They ignore the hint in that admission that maybe the CO2 was fresh outgassing and not manmade at all. (3) 8 Mar 2006, Art and climate, by Gavin, Comment # 17: >>“Similarly is there a graph somewhere giving the solubility of CO2 versus temperature in sea water?” www.realclimate.org/index.php/ archives/2006/03/art-and-climate/ Gavin never answered. The graph is in the Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide. (4) 5 Dec 2005, Debate over the Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis, by Gavin, Comment #36. >>“It seems that increases in ocean temperature and CO2 outgassing go hand in hand. [Citations] >>"‘The total amount of carbon in the ocean is about 50 times greater than the amount in the atmosphere, and is exchanged with the atmosphere on a time-scale of several hundred years. Dissolution in the oceans provides a large sink for anthropogenic CO2, due in part to its high solubility, but above all because of its dissociation into ions and interactions with sea water constituents" >>”‘CO2 solubility is temperature dependent, hence air-sea heat transfer contributes to seasonal and regional patterns of air-sea CO2 transfer (Watson et al., 1995). Net cooling of surface waters tends to drive CO2 uptake; net warming drives outgassing.’” www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/ 2005/12/early-anthropocene-hyppothesis/ Gavin never took the hint. The evidence of the CO2 solubility affecting the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is in the Vostok data, reported and measured in the Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide. Actually, climatologists’ calculations indicate a little more than one eighth of the CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged annually. The record indicates that CO2 stream has a transport lag of about one millennium, but the exchange is on–going at all times. (5) 7 Jun 2005. How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities? By the group. >>“Why are the ocean and land taking up carbon, when we know that warming of the oceans reduces the solubility of CO2 and warming of the land accelerates bacterial degradation of the soils? The answer is that warming is not the only process that influences the oceans and land biosphere. The dominant process in the oceans is the response to increasing atmospheric CO2 itself. If the oceans had not warmed, they might have taken up even more carbon, although we cannot say for sure because warming may have other impacts, for example on marine biota. On land, bacterial degradation of the soils may have increased in response to warming, but for the moment this effect is smaller than the land response to other processes (for example fertilization by CO2 and nitrogen, changes in precipitation, etc).” www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160 This is all qualitative, with no references to computations. It is dismissive of the effect on solubility of warming, which is, after all, the principal independent variable of the solubility curve (solubility as a function of temperature, with a parameter of partial pressure.) Once the climatologists integrate the ocean models with their atmospheric models, they are likely to discover that the uptake of CO2 is relatively constant (at least until the entire ocean freezes), and is limited by exposure time, partial pressure, wind velocities, and area. However, the outgassing is likely to be the more important parameter with respect to CO2 concentrations. At the same time, the greenhouse effect will be minor, mostly dependent on water vapor, and relatively constant. (6) 21 Jan 2006. Calculating the greenhouse effect, by Gavin, Comment #24 by Dave Nicosia (NOAA?): >>“Also, in the ice core data, CO2 appears to passively follow the inferred temperature trends through the millennia suggesting its concentration follows the glacial to interglacial periods and the increased solubility of the oceans at lower temperatures.” www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/ 2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/ Gavin did not answer. As the Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide shows, Dave Nicosia was insightful. GAVIN SCHMIDT ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF VOSTOK Next Gavin says of the Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide, “nor [does the author understand] the implications of the Vostok record … .” In support of his accusations, Schmidt refers to three papers he authored on his website. The first is “What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?”, 12/3/04, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/. This paper says what is NOT significant in the Vostok record. That insignificant fact, Schmidt asserts, is the lag of the CO2 concentration trace behind temperature trace. Actually, it is an inconvenient fact. Cultists must discredit this lag because their AGW theory rests on manmade CO2 causing global warming. That causal conjecture is severely damaged by the reversed timing: temperature changes precede CO2 concentration changes! The AGW crowd postulates a rehabilitating theory: CO2 amplifies global warming. But this residual amplification conjecture is equally bizarre. This model states that the amplified warming somehow releases more CO2, and hence the amplification is a positive feedback. First, to the extent that this amplification could be so, the instability would soon cause the CO2 record to lead temperature. It never has. Secondly, this relates to Schmidt’s next topic, feedback. Schmidt’s second citation, How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/, 12/22/04, includes only the following with respect to Vostok: >>“In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere -- which took many thousand years -- was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.” plus >>“CO2 levels are currently higher than for any time when we have direct measurements (directly, from 1950; before that, from air trapped in ice cores), which amounts to the last 780,000 years (see, e.g., a picture here for the last 400 kyr). Various considerations suggest that in the far past CO2 levels were considerably higher. From memory, the last time CO2 levels exceeded present was about 40 million years ago/” Response to Comment #4. This modern increase in CO2 is often found supported by a graph showing the Vostok CO2 concentration in time, with rapidly rising modern data linked added to the end of the Vostok record. Nowhere do the climatologists justify the method linking data taken by different methods, in different locations, and with grossly different granularity. The 12/22/04 paper also says, >>“If we see CO2 increasing in the atmosphere, and humans emitting enough CO2 to account for that rise, then you have to go through some odd contortions to avoid a connection. You would have to postulate a suddenly increased natural sink (to remove the human CO2) and then a suddenly increased natural source (to increase the atmospheric CO2)”. Response to Comment #6. To the contrary, to make the connection is to rely on correlation instead of a cause and effect model. This false reliance has blinded the AGW advocates to the on-going physics. Suddenly developed sinks and sources are not needed at all. The cold ocean is a sink to all atmospheric CO2, manmade, accidental, or ocean emitted. The cold sink is limited not by capacity, but by exposure, pressure, and winds. But for the ocean outgassing, the cold waters would scrub the atmosphere of all CO2 in less than a decade by the climatologists own uncertain carbon and flux estimates. The natural source is dominantly the oceans. CO2 concentration has increased because the oceans are warming, and have been since the Little Ice Age and since the last glacial period. The third paper, Runaway tipping points of no return, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runaway-tipping-points-of-no-return/, 7/5/06, helps little in gathering Schmidt’s take on the relevance of the Vostok data. Just as the first paper established that the CO2 lag in the Vostok record is not helpful, the third paper says the CO2 concentration record is not helpful in understanding the present record! Here in a response to Comment #4, Gavin says >>So if CO2 levels are so much higher now (26% higher than any point since 420K years before the industrial era), why aren't temperatures lining up? >>[Response: The orbital configuration was different, with warmer [Northern Hemisphere] summers than today (or even the early Holocene). That seasonal change may have been crucial for the ice sheets. See the recent Overpeck et al and Otto-Bleisner et al papers in Science for what climate differences one would expect. With respect to today's CO2, that is not being changed by anything like the same mechanism, and so simply correlations with past data are not going to help. -gavin] Bold added. So Gavin urges the mechanisms affecting CO2 concentrations in the Vostok record are nothing like the mechanisms today. Therefore, he says, one should not attempt to correlate the two records. To the contrary, that is exactly what climatologists do when they tack the Mauna Loa measurements onto the Vostok record, or when they make proclamations about the unprecedented CO2 levels in the post-industrialization period. Gavin seems to recognize a difference in geophysical processes, but not in the measurements. The first is a conjecture. The second is a certainty. GAVIN SCHMIDT ON POSITIVE FEEDBACK >>“[N]or [does the author understand] the concept of positive feedback”, urges Gavin. For this position, Schmidt refers readers to his 7/5/06 tome, “Runaway tipping points of no return”. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runaway-tipping-points-of-no-return/. He starts by asking for a name for his theory of “tipping points”. No one suggested “Bull Schmidt”. Gavin says, >>“The idea is that in many non-linear systems (of which the climate is certainly one), a small push away from one state only has small effects at first but at some 'tipping point' the system can flip and go rapidly into another state. This is fundamentally tied to the existence of positive feedbacks … . However, [tipping point] is currently being used interchangeably a number of potentially confusing ways and so I thought I'd try and make it a little clearer.” This introductory paragraph suggests the romantic, grammar school notion of the “Delicate Blue Planet”. This model has been so successful that it has distorted the thinking of climatologists, environmentalists, and chaos theorists. It holds that natural objects and systems are found in a delicate balance, and that the most minimal effect of man may upset that balance, and so produce a catastrophe. These systems and objects are always invisible, of course. But if the model were to extend to the observable, nature would contain cones standing on their tips and boulders perched on slopes. Climatologists need to rid themselves of this Delicate Blue Planet misapprehension. They need to abandon their pursuit, however profitable, of knife edges over catastrophes. They should reconfigure their models to account for the stable states, past and present, for all the parameters in their domain. These include not just global climate, but the gas mixtures, the water cycle, the carbon cycle, and the ozone layer. They should be modeling these phenomena in their natural, closed–loop states to discover the controlling parameters and their dynamic ranges. Where does the ozone come from? What controls its concentration? What controls the thickness of the ozone layer, and why is it as thick as it is? Next under the heading “Positive feedback”, Gavin begins, >>“A positive feedback occurs when a change in one component of the climate occurs, leading to other changes that eventually ‘feeds back’ on the original change to amplify it.” Leaving room for some climate jargon, this is almost a valid and workable definition. But it omits, among other things, the necessary control system context, and the concepts of gain, ordinary feedback, open loop and closed loop. Regardless, Gavin next attempts to explain what he thinks positive feedback means: >>“A simple example leads to a geometric series for instance; i.e. if an initial change to a parameter is D, and the feedback results in an additional rD then the final change will be the sum of D+rD+r2D...etc.” This explanation and Schmidt’s understanding of positive feedback, or even feedback, are fatally flawed. First, Schmidt’s equation expresses a change in the parameter value, not the value of the amplified, closed loop output in his definition, or anything related to it. By reference to “in an additional rD”, and by the plus signs in the series, Gavin reveals that he is thinking of the change as an additive amount. By his definition, the feedback is to cause an amplification of the original parameter. Amplification is multiplicative, not additive. If the original parameter value was P, after positive feedback the value would be rP, with r greater than one, or it might be written as (1+g)P, where g is now the feedback gain, and is greater than zero for positive feedback. Schmidt’s algebraic example does not represent his verbal definition. Second, Schmidt’s change formulation converges to a constant, D/(1-r), for |r| less than 1. This he urges is to demonstrate a positive feedback which does not run away, or in scientific terms, diverge. In fact, what he has demonstrated is a kind of feedback which converges to zero as the number of iterations, n, increases. What he calls feedback is only a transient, and its steady state value is neither positive nor negative, but is arbitrarily close to zero. This example briefly resembles a positive feedback, but in the long run Schmidt’s example has no feedback at all. In its Glossary, RealClimate.org provides the following definition dated 28 Nov 2004: >>Forcings in the climate sense are external boundary conditions or inputs to a climate model. Obviously changes to the sun's radiation are external, and so that is always a forcing. The same is true for changes to the Earth's orbit ("Milankovitch cycles"). Things get a little more ambiguous as you get closer to the surface. In models that do not contain a carbon cycle (and that is most of them), the level of CO2 is set externally, and so that can be considered a forcing too. However, in models that contain a carbon cycle, changes in CO2 concentrations will occur as a function of the climate itself and in changes in emissions from industrial activity. In that case, CO2 levels will be a feedback, and not a forcing. Almost all of the elements that make up the atmosphere can be considered feedbacks on some timescale, and so defining the forcing is really a function of what feedbacks you allow in the model and for what purpose you are using it. A good discussion of recent forcings can be found in Hansen et al (2002) and in Schmidt et al (2004). http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/forcings/ From this, a feedback is any model parameter which is not a forcing, that is, not a boundary condition. This is not the definition of feedback in control system theory, and it makes the concept of positive feedback awkward to define. Schmidt uses other definitions anyway. In a posting on 4/6/05, “Water vapour: feedback or forcing?”, Schmidt wrote, >>While water vapour is indeed the most important greenhouse gas, the issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days). Now either a positive feedback is not a subset of feedback, or Schmidt’s tutorial definition of positive feedback omitted the criterion of atmospheric residence time. According to RealClimate’s glossary, >>Water vapour act as a powerful greenhouse gas absorbing long-wave radiation. If the atmospheric water vapour concentration increases as a result of a global warming, then it is expected that it will enhance the greenhouse effect further. It is well known that the rate of evaporation is affected by the temperature and that higher temperatures increase the (saturated) vapour pressure (the Clausius-Clapeyron equation). This process is known as the water vapour feedback. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/water-vapour-feedback/. So warming increases water vapor, which causes warming. Consequently, water vapor amplifies global temperatures. This fits Schmidt’s definition of a positive feedback without reliance on Schmidt’s essential criterion of residence time. Schmidt contributes to the confusion he set out to settle. And why is water vapor a feedback and CO2 not? Because the persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere, Schmidt alleges, is greater than 100 years. “What If … the ‘Hockey Stick’ Were Wrong?”, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114, Gavin’s response to Comment #20. The IPCC puts the residence time of CO2 at “5 to 200 yr” with the note, “No single lifetime can be defined for CO2 because of the different rates of uptake by different removal processes.” IPCC, Climate Change 2001, ¶C.1, p. 38. Gat et al in “Environmental Isotopes in the Hydrological Cycle, Principles and Applications”, Volume II: Atmospheric Water, Chapter 1, The Atmosphere, p. 1, place the residence time of CO2 at 4 years. See http://www.iaea.org/programmes/ripc/ih/volumes/volume2.htm . Would a four year persistence for CO2 qualify it as a feedback? Gavin’s analysis doesn’t answer that question. Regardless, as the Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide shows, CO2 must be treated not as a forcing in order for the GCM to reproduce an output consistent with the Vostok record. Schmidt’s tutorial concludes at the title, “points of no return”. He waxes literary here, as if some being, human or spiritual, were in control and desirous of some outcome. He anthropomorphizes his science. Will the earth return to a glacial state? Most assuredly. Will it recover with similar flora and fauna and climate as the present. That's not so certain. At this point in his paper, Schmidt abruptly applies his errant tutorial to model based AGW via hypothesized ACO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. This is under the heading “10 years?” beginning with a reference to Jim Hansen's doomsday prediction. If this part is to have any validity, it must overcome the fallacy of the manmade CO2 increases in his citations. Schmidt’s switch from his tutorial is itself a tipping point -- a linguistic or literary tipping point. Nowhere does Schmidt suggest that the models on which he relies to frighten the public might have been validated. He relies on an incompetent tutorial to support the AGW conjecture. The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide survives Gavin Schmidt’s opening salvo. The burden remains on the GCM operators advocates to revise their models. They need to abandon CO2 as a forcing, and instead make the atmospheric CO2 concentration respond to global temperature as dictated by the solubility of CO2 in water. This should be a fatal blow to anthropogenic global warming. flog #62, Everyone of your citations relates to the existence of Global Warming (GW), and corresponding predictions. GW is not in serious dispute, and only the inability of the Global Climate Models (GCMs) to reproduce it would be remarkable. The Earth is still in recovery from both the last glacial epoch (the Würm, 70,000 years ago) and from the Little Ice Age (circa 1300-1850), two strong warming trends. Evidence is still literally and figuratively surfacing. However, none of your citations relates to man as the cause. That is Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), and the existence of GW is not proof of AGW. Climatologists support AGW with GCMs in which they make CO2 a boundary condition, what climatologists call a forcing. Then they simply allow the GCM to respond thermodynamically, but neither via the carbon cycle nor ocean modeling. The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide shows that historically the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere strictly follows the complement of the curve for the solubility of CO2 in water. This fact, founded in physics, denies legitimacy to the climatologists to treat atmospheric CO2 as a forcing. CO2 is dominantly a response to global water temperature, which must be oceanic. In climatology jargon, CO2 is inescapably a "feedback", a response from the system the GCM is supposed to represent. The data from Vostok deny to climatologists the very model on which they rely to report AGW, past or future. It should be a death knell for AGW. This is a deadly serious discovery with vast consequences. Comment #71 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at November 6, 2006 7:11 AM Jeff Glassman, I thank you for your very careful and thorough response. I will need time to digest it all, but I appreciate the effort and seriousness of these last two posts. One question: if GW is not in dispute, can mankind do anything to prepare or deal with it? Assuming that man is not the cause, can we predict the course of this warming trend? Comment #72 - Posted by: flog at November 6, 2006 9:10 AMPost a comment
|
