One letter to faze them all and in the darkness blind them

Professor Howard C. Hayden, physicist, makes a simple promise: he’ll show us a one-letter proof that the theory of a dangerous human influence on global temperature (DHIGT) is false.
Can you fault his logic? – RT

October 27, 2009

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Jackson:

I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called “Endangerment Finding.”

It has been often said that the “science is settled” on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.

The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.

Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.

We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.

Let me next address the horror story that we are approaching (or have passed) a “tipping point.” Anybody who has worked with amplifiers knows about tipping points. The output “goes to the rail.” Not only that, but it stays there. That’s the official worry coming from the likes of James Hansen (of NASAGISS) and Al Gore.

But therein lies the proof that we are nowhere near a tipping point. The earth, it seems, has seen times when the CO2 concentration was up to 8,000 ppm, and that did not lead to a tipping point. If it had, we would not be here talking about it. In fact, seen on the long scale, the CO2 concentration in the present cycle of glacials (ca. 200 ppm) and interglacials (ca. 300-400 ppm) is lower than it has been for the last 300 million years.

Global-warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming.

(A) CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind. The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution. Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply assume that it would be the “pre-industrial” value.

a. The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

(B) The first principle of causality is that the cause has to come before the effect. The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2 changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the current warming?

Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect, and nobody doubts that CO2 concentration is increasing. But what would we have to fear if CO2 and temperature actually increased?

• A warmer world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better.
• The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. But a quick trip to the museum can make that case in spades. Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is not productive enough. CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.
• CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition.
• A warmer world begets more precipitation.
• All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms.
• The melting point of ice is 0 ºC in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else. The highest recorded temperature at the South Pole is –14 ºC, and the lowest is –117 ºC. How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists?

Consider the change in vocabulary that has occurred. The term global warming has given way to the term climate change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If it warms up, that’s climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change.

In a way, we have been here before. Lord Kelvin “proved” that the earth could not possibly be as old as the geologists said. He “proved” it using the conservation of energy. What he didn’t know was that nuclear energy, not gravitation, provides the internal heat of the sun and the earth.

Similarly, the global-warming alarmists have “proved” that CO2 causes global warming. Except when it doesn’t.

To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense.

Best Regards,

 

Howard C. Hayden
Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn

 

h/t Gary Kerkin

24 Thoughts on “One letter to faze them all and in the darkness blind them

  1. Mike Jowsey on February 4, 2017 at 2:14 pm said:

    To the point and logical. I look forward to Simon’s counter. Not so much to Dennis’.

  2. There are quite a lot of points in that letter, and in order to play devil’s advocate for a change, I might take a couple or three

    The idea that there are several models that all predict different things doesn’t, in my view, invalidate models. As Tamsin Edward’s (a climate modeller) states on her blog – “All models are wrong, but some are useful”

    The other issue I would argue with is that the CO2 increase that we see can, apparently, be attributed to humans due to the isotopic nature of the carbon.

    Also, though I agree that CO2 has been much higher in the past, yet the relative rate of increase, percentage wise, over time, is fairly high compared with geological timescales.
    Finally, science doesn’t deal in “proofs”. This is the realm of mathematics (a point on which I find myself in unusual agreement with Michael Mann). Science should deal with falsifiable propositions, if one subscribes to the Popper view of science philosophy

    So far, as the letter alludes, the science of anthropogenic climate change seems fairly resistant to defining what would falsify it

  3. Richard Treadgold on February 4, 2017 at 6:40 pm said:

    “The idea that there are several models that all predict different things doesn’t, in my view, invalidate models.”

    I believe it does, as wrong means wrong and who wants to use data known to be wrong? Edwards’ comment refers to a process of choosing the least bad. If there are different results, some, perhaps all, will be incorrect. Unless you want to use incorrect models to determine policy, how do you select a correct model? Hint: when the US was terminating atomic testing, they validated computer models against live tests. Eventually they got the model right and haven’t fired off a nuke since.

  4. I agree that climate models are not suited for developing public policy.
    They also have some fairly built-in assumptions about anthropogenic forcing

  5. The funny thing is that the left are freaking out about some comments made by KellyAnne Conway re. the Trump inauguration numbers about “alternative facts”, yet that is exactly what climate models provide us: “alternative facts”

  6. Gary Kerkin on February 7, 2017 at 9:16 am said:

    Andy is correct, Richard. It is quite possible that among the assembly of models assessed by the IPCC there is one that has a reasonable description of the physics. It is quite possible that the things wrong with some of the models are the assumptions which have to be made to estimate those parameters which are not known precisely. And that is the fatal flaw—Garbage In = Garbage (not Gospel!) Out.

    In my past lives I have used modelling successfully but in closely and tightly defined systems. For example 36 years ago I used a combination of linear and dynamic digital modelling to predict the conditions over an alumina digester up to 30 minutes ahead with an accuracy for temperature to within 1ºC where temperatures ranged between 120º and 220º (so I’m talking about an accuracy of better than ±1%). There were something like 110 temperature, pressure and flowrate conditions.

    The difference is, of course, that I had no preconceived notion of the results I needed. I needed as accurate a picture of the future of the plant conditions as I could get. But, as I indicated, the boundary conditions and system constraints were tightly defined. This can never be true of a climate model—it is an unconstrained system which has chaotic elements. For my system I could describe the energy, mass and momentum balances. This is extremely hard to do for an unconstrained system like the atmosphere. Too many assumptions have to be made.

  7. Mike Jowsey on February 9, 2017 at 1:15 pm said:

    Gary, “It is quite possible that among the assembly of models assessed by the IPCC there is one that has a reasonable description of the physics.”

    None of the models predicted the Pause, ergo no “reasonable description of the physics” exists. Prof. Hayden says it better in his letter above: “Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.”

  8. May I draw your attention to Tamsin Edward’s blog:

    http://blogs.plos.org/models/whether-environmental-modellers-are-wrong/

    Note the respectful tone in the comments thread, that includes several well-known sceptics

  9. It is actually impossible for one climate model to be “right”, since it is an approximation of many variables. In the same way, it is impossible for an economic projection 20 years out to be “right”.

    Both, though, may give us ways of exploring scenarios that may assist in “what-if” type of studies.

    The RCP models are a combination of both types of models: climate models with some fairly arbitrary parameters about “forcing”, and poorly defined boundary conditions, overlaid with some economic scenarios that are equally arbitrary (esp the insanely pessimistic RCP 8.5)

    The problem we have is that these models, based on some serious arm-waving, are used to define local government policy about sea level rise, right down to drawing lines on planning maps.

  10. Dennis N Horne on February 15, 2017 at 7:20 am said:

    https://www.desmogblog.com/howard-hayden
    Publications
    According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Hayden has not published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.
    In 1996, Hayden authored an article stating that the science around the hole on the O-zone layer was “shaky.”

    Publications? Hayden doesn’t even understand elementary climate science or what “settled” means in science. But hey, where does truth fit into the world of climate science deniers.

    Never mind reality, feel the warmth of confirmation bias.

  11. The science around the “hole” in the ozone layer *is* shaky

  12. Dennis dear boy,

    If Hayden is incorrect about a ‘science is settled’ ‘consensus’, then which exactly of all the climate models is the one the ‘consensus’ agrees is the correct one, and which empirical temperature dataset is the one the ‘consensus’ agrees is the correct one?

    Also, what does the ‘consensus’ agree is correct – the theoretical models that are falsified by the empirical temperature datasets, or the empirical temperature datasets that falsify them?

    Here dear boy, I’ll give the graph of the temperature datasets and models published by the IPCC – show us which one the ‘consensus’ agrees is correct:

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigTS-14.jpg

    See dear boy, your little ad hominem proves absolutely nothing except your hilarious desperation.

  13. Dennis N Horne on February 15, 2017 at 10:46 am said:

    I have found a simple explanation of climate science for you. I know it’s hard to face facts. More comforting to find one or two scientists out of several million to mumble what you want to hear, even if it’s total bollocks.
    http://www.corporateknights.com/channels/climate-and-carbon/sensitivity-training-14750388/#.V-vc3WY0cNc.twitter
    Climate scientists are certain that human-caused emissions have increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 44 per cent since the Industrial Revolution. Very few of them dispute that this has already caused average global temperatures to rise roughly 1 degree. Accompanying the warming is disruption to weather patterns, rising sea levels and increased ocean acidity. There is no doubt that further emissions will only make matters worse, possibly much worse. In a nutshell, that is the settled science on human-caused climate change.

    What scientists cannot yet pin down is exactly how much warming we will get in the future. They do not know with precision how much a given quantity of emissions will lead to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. For climate impact it is the concentrations that matter, not the emissions. Up until now, 29 per cent of human emissions of carbon dioxide has been taken up by the oceans, 28 per cent has been absorbed by plant growth on land, and the remaining 43 per cent has accumulated in the atmosphere. Humans have increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere from a pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million to over 400 today, a level not seen for millions of years. (continues)

    So. Settled science with some uncertainty. We’re in trouble if we don’t reduce GHG emissions but could vary from bad through very bad to catastrophic. Depending on what we do.

    First: ignore liars, deniers, loonies, cranks, crackpots …

  14. Scientists do not agree that CO2 has resulted in nearly one degree of warming. It might have cause some of that warming, but not all.

    The IPCC state that “most” of the warming since 1950 is very likely due to human caused CO2 emissions, without explaining what caused the warming prior to 1950, or the warming that occurred since the Little Ice Age

    I don’t think any of us are disputing that humans have increased the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.

  15. Maggy Wassilieff on February 15, 2017 at 12:22 pm said:

    It’s that uncertainty that is the problem.
    The World does not have a clean data set with which to monitor temperature change.
    This account of the manipulation with the temperature stations that are used for the historical record shows that the measurements that underpin all the climate models are ridiculously compromised.
    http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/13/more-data-manipulation-by-noaa-nasa-hadcrut-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/#sthash.JIdlHgJR.dpbs

  16. Dennis dear boy,

    ‘What scientists cannot yet pin down is exactly how much warming we will get in the future.’

    Yes, now you’re getting the idea. There is no ‘consensus’ on what the warming will be, and the models that have projected the warming have all failed.

    As far as I can see from the IPCC reports there is no ‘disruption to weather patterns’, no acceleration in ‘rising sea levels’ and barely any ocean acidification at all – i.e. ‘the pH decreased by 0.1 since the preindustrial era’ (hardly worth worrying about).

    Where is the evidence for the article’s statement below?:

    ‘Very few of them [scientists] dispute that this has already caused average global temperatures to rise roughly 1 degree’.

    Given that the article is incorrect about ‘disruption to weather patterns & rising sea levels’, I’d say the statement above is more than likely rubbish also. Unless you can present some quality evidence that is.

    You really should just stick with empirical facts dear boy, they’re far more reliable than unfounded speculation from an online climate activist magazine article. 🙂

  17. Dennis N Horne on February 15, 2017 at 1:01 pm said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/the-gef-partner-zone/2016/sep/22/goodbye-forever-friendly-holocene

    The Holocene has been good for us. It began 11,700 years ago as Earth slipped from the grip of a deep ice age – as it has, like clockwork, every 100,000 years. Since then, the average temperature of the planet has fluctuated no more than one degree Celsius or so. Without this remarkable stability, which provides us with reliable growing and rainy seasons, we would not have developed agriculture. It is the reason why we have complex societies. It is the foundation for our cities and science, art and culture. It is how we can feed seven billion people, cure diseases and land on the moon.

    Unfortunately, this stability can no longer be relied upon. Records keep getting smashed. August was the warmest month globally since modern records began 136 years ago. September is the tenth straight month of record temperatures. According to NASA, it is now “almost a certainty” that 2016 will go down in history as the warmest year on record, beating the warmest so far, 2015. Alarm bells are ringing in the Earth research community. (continues)

    But what would the global community of scientists know about science? Compared with the “special class”. They “know”. No papers. No evidence. No explanation. Know nothings.

  18. The Guardian?! HAHAHAHA!!

    Try the IPCC dear boy:

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigTS-14.jpg

  19. But what would the global community of scientists know about science?

    Quite a lot, I would imagine, which makes me wonder why you chose to cite The Guardian

    I note that the author is not a climate scientist

  20. Dennis N Horne on February 15, 2017 at 3:54 pm said:

    This is about liars and deniers in the Daily Mail but it’s a universal problem: Brainwashing. Doesn’t take much when you’ve got only a small brain.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable

    Propaganda disregards facts in favor of promoting an agenda
    The intent of propaganda is to mislead people in order to advance a particular agenda. Undermining and delaying climate policies is one such agenda promoted by the Mail on Sunday and other conservative media outlets. This is quite clear in Rose’s writing, as he rails against the supposed high costs of those policies from ‘green cons.’

    Fake science journalists in biased media outlets keep writing false and misleading pieces about climate change. They don’t learn from their mistakes, despite being constantly debunked by climate scientists, because that would require caring about facts and truth. Doubt is their product, and they peddle it well. When they’re caught, they just double down on the misinformation. (continues)

    The climate scientists and the global community of scientists as represented by the RS, NAS, AAAS, etc etc etc have studied the evidence, part of which is the report (ie review of the literature) from the IPCC, and is warning us Earth is retaining more energy and if we don’t reduce GHGs we are going to change the climate to an uncomfortable degree.

    If you don’t believe Earth is warming abruptly now, doesn’t matter. You won’t be around when the following generations call you selfish arseholes and lunatics.

  21. “Propaganda disregards facts in favor of promoting an agenda”

    and the Green agenda isn’t an example of this?

  22. If you don’t believe Earth is warming abruptly now, doesn’t matter. You won’t be around when the following generations call you selfish arseholes and lunatics.

    it is always heartening to get this abuse on a regular basis. Since the demise of Hot Topic, I don’t get called “white supremacist”, “racist”, “rent boy” and the stream of baseless accusations that were hurled at me, so there is some comfort

    However, leftists do seem to be getting more unhinged by the day. Anyone who shows any allegiance to their country, or who indicates political views to the right of Lenin is now a “Nazi”
    It amuses me how leftists are now opening advocating violence on TV and how a left wing professor in the USA was defending rape.

    So, I have installed a solar hot water system in our new home. It doesn’t work that well and we have had several trips from engineers, many of whom think that they are a waste of time. We persist, however, having shelled out over $7000 on it.

    Presumably, my complaint about a solar panel makes me a Nazi and a White Supremacist that should be punched in the face.

    If you follow the news, this makes complete sense

  23. So what have you done Dennis, to make you a non-arsehole?

    Installed some solar panels?

    Virtue signal from your pedestal about how morally superior you are?

    I’m just asking a question.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation