John Coleman
Rebuttal to John Coleman: ‘The Great Global Warming Scam’
By John P. Reisman – Original Post: May 11, 2008
Updates notated with dates – Logic headings added in July 2021
The founder of the Weather Channel has researched whether or not global warming is human caused. He has determined it is not.
Well, there’s an old joke that goes like this: “You know why the call them weathermen? … They don’t know whether it’ll rain or not.”
This assessment applies Socratic logic and scientific methodological application of evidence based statements with appropriately high confidence levels based on scientific assessments that have survived peer response.
John Coleman: Reported founder of ‘The Weather Channel’ and weather-caster at KUSI 51 in San Diego, CA
Learn more about the science and myths of this global warming event:
Preface: To all concerned,
It is not my intention to impugn the integrity of Mr. John Coleman – [Note: Link no longer on site] http://www.kusi.com/about/bios/weather/1838191.html. For his own reasons he has taken a stand on a highly controversial issue, that seems to be based on his ‘beliefs’ rather than the relevant science on the subject of climate.
However, it is my intention to impugn the integrity of his argument. It is grossly misleading and confusing many people. There is a big difference between weather and climate. Weather is short term, and studied largely by meteorologists. Climate is long term and studied largely by climatologists.
This I believe is an important distinction to the debate, as it gives proper perspective to the general understanding one group may have vs. the other.
We should all be concerned with getting to the truth of all matters of importance. Each of us needs to be humble enough to admit when we make mistakes. And we should be responsible for the stands we take on issues of import to the common good.
In the following materials
I examine Mr. Coleman’s arguments and apply reason to the science as well as the relevance of the data and arguments. It is my hope this helps Mr. Coleman understand the bigger picture of climate vs. meteorology. Further, it is my hope this helps those that have been confused by the disinformation that is being bandied about as fact to undermine the relevant understanding.
The question is about the truth of the data and what it means pertaining to climate… And the truth, and gacts, are all that matters.
While I have done a fair amount of research on the arguments, I must admit I can be wrong as well, at times, in any assertions I have made. It is best that anyone reading this article examine the evidence and relevant understanding in order to get closer to the truth of the matter at hand. It certainly involves all of us, one way or another.
John P. Reisman
[P.S. (note added Jul, 28, 2021) After this article was published Joe D’Aleo, whom worked with John Coleman, wrote me with what he felt was wrong with my assessment. I was able to correct one data item based on his comments. But he was still arguing in short term time periods whish fall sin the realm of natural variation. IT IS ONLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT LONG TERM WITH ATTRIBUTION THAT YOU CAN IDENTIFY TEH CLIMATE SIGNAL.]
Note: All rebuttal comments (indented) and reference links are indented from left margin.
NASA: The difference between weather and climate.
Compare the following two web sites thoroughly and see which one better represents the science on the matter of global warming. On one of the following sites, scientists that work with the data regularly say the evidence shows global warming is human caused/influenced.
The other site: only people that ‘believe’, this global warming event is a natural cycle, post their beliefs. They do not consider relevant, up to date knowledge on the matter of the climate on Earth. See if you can spot the difference.
Note: The most common means of misrepresenting the science is to use facts out of context. [Jul. 23, 2021]
But remember this, your ‘thoughts’ about the science are not what determines the ‘truth’ of the science. It is the evidence that tells us what is indicated when placed in relevant context. [Jul. 23, 2021]
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 1)
Comments on Global Warming
By John Coleman
Table of Contents
Title Page
- Global Warming is a Scam 2
- The Global Warming Frenzy 4
- Are Carbon Dioxide and Fossil Fuels Responsible for Global Warming? 7
- The Force Behind Climate Change on Earth 10
- Is Global Warming Melting the Artic Icecap? 13
- Carbon Dioxide “Forcing” Not Real 18
- 2007: Global Warming Swept Plant Earth. . or Did It? 23
- There is No Consensus on Global Warming 30
- The Associated Press Continues the Global Warming Hype 38
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 2)
Global Warming is a Scam
By John Coleman
Written about November 5, 2007
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming… it is a SCAM.
A very bold claim. Let’s see if it holds up against the relevant peer reviewed science, and the scientific ‘consensus’ view. Even more important is whether a peer reviewed paper survives peer response.
Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990’s to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental-extremism type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
[Above: Incorrect & False Claims]
There is no illusion of rapid warming. We are warming faster than the known natural cycle.
His argument is generally subjective and not supported by relevant peer review of the science.
22 June 2005 The Wall Street Journal vs. The Scientific Consensus
16 December 2004 Statistical analysis of consensus
Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.
[Above: Incorrect & False Claims]
Subjective argument not supported by relevant peer review of the science.
Just watch the news around the world. The effects have already begun. But this is just the beginning. The amount of forcing in the atmosphere will keep us warming for hundreds of years.
NASA: Earth’s Climate is Approaching ‘Dangerous’ Point
Now their ridiculously manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, schoolteachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
[Above: Incorrect & False Claims]
Subjective argument not supported by relevant peer review of the science.
I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.
However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise.
Mr. Coleman seems to not understand the difference between meteorology and climatology. The study of human caused Global Warming is ‘not’ predominantly “the science of meteorology”. Meteorology has to do with the weather, which involves short term regional events. Global Warming has to do with Climatology which involves long term climate trends and influences.
NASA: The difference between weather and climate.
meteorology 1 : a science that deals with the atmosphere and its phenomena and especially with weather and weather forecasting 2 :the atmospheric phenomena and weather of a region
It is the science of climatology:
climatology, climates 1: a region of the Earth having specified climatic conditions 2 a: the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation b: the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors <a climate-controlled office> 3:the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : atmosphere <a climate of fear>
And I am telling you Global Warming are a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.
[Above: Incorrect & False Claims]
This is a subjective argument not supported by relevant peer review of the science. He is merely stating his opinion based on the scope of his own research, which apparently is biased to certain non-science web sites, as is indicated by his source links found in his references throughout his proclamations.
NASA: Earth’s Climate is Approaching ‘Dangerous’ Point
I suspect you might like to say to me, “John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PhD’s in Meteorology.
[Above: Appeal to emotions]
Climate is studied mostly by climatologists, not meteorologists (see above).
They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PhD’s. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it.
The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.
[Above: are Specious Inferences]
[Above: Appeal to Emotion]
[Above; Argumentum ad absurdum lapidem]
Subjective argument not supported by relevant peer review of the science.
Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different.
[Above: Non Sequitur – Agumentum ad infinitum]
Subjective argument not supported by relevant peer review of the science.
I know this group well. My father was a PhD-University type. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PhD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.
[Non sequitur generalization]
Research bias can occur for many reasons. Most include commercial interests but can also occur in research institutions seeking grants. The funding process is subject to such occurrence, but not riddled with it. Even personal cognitive biases can alter ones view of evidence.
And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and the results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.
[Above: Incorrect & False Claims]
[Above: Non Sequitur]
[Above: Agumentum ad infinitum lapidem]
Subjective argument with no cited studies to support.
Science is more about examining our world and learning about its processes, elements and systems. Within that discipline or along the way knowledge and understanding is gained while problems are identified in our human interaction with the natural world. That is how we discovered that CFC’s were destroying the ozone layer and causing increased cancer rates.
Remember the United Nations had formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the late 1980’s with the mission of accessing and countering manmade climate change.
The UN had established this global bureaucracy on climate change. It had become the “world series” or “Olympics” for Climatologists and Meteorologists and scientists in related fields. You had to strive to be accepted, invited to present and review papers and travel to international meetings of the committee. Otherwise you were a nobody in your field.
[Above: Incorrect & False Claims]
[Non Sequitur]
[Agumentum ad infinitum lapidem]
Mr. Coleman seems to be representing his opinion as fact, not citing research on the matter.
Striving in science is done by success in peer review and consistent replicable assessment, study, modeling and method. Not by trickery or deceit. The scientific process of peer review is very successful at producing reliable results for public and policy makers to assess when examined in context with relevance.
20 January 2005 Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 3)
So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90’s they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like-minded PhD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.
There were a few who didn’t fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them and brushed their studies aside.
[Above: Incorrect & False Claims]
[Non Sequitur Facts out of Context]
[Agumentum ad infinitum lapidem]
Merely opinion, not supported by the scientific process or any relevant assessment of that process.
That is not how scientists work. When objections are made they are examined to see if they are relevant and/or valid.
Then findings are subjected to the peer review process which is designed to mete out the relevant arguments and fallacies in order to achieve better science.
20 January 2005 Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition
Correlation is not causation, but when a model is working it is a good indication, and further studies should then be done to verify and refine the model. Coincidentally non correlation does not mean no causation. To find what causes something, you have to look beyond the surface and examine the influences that impact the data you see. Then you are getting closer to the truth.
I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970’s to always be a skeptic about research.
[Non Sequitur]
The ice age scare was media sensationalism, not the scientists. There was never anything remotely close to consensus. In fact the study that made the news was done by 5 scientists who claimed in the study that a lot more research needed to be done.
In the case of global warming, I didn’t accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.
[Above: Incorrect & False Claims]
[Non Sequitur Facts out of Context]
[Agumentum ad infinitum lapidem]
[Agumentum ad vericundium]
Mr. Coleman is again stating his opinion as factual and without doubt. Yet the evidence to support his arguments were essentially bad or weak science and he systematically ignored higher level science, that was better vetted and had higher confidence.
He is not a climatologist and in review of his supposed research on the matter, one finds that he relies on non-scientific and even special interest web sites to support his conclusions.
The science has shown clearly that GHG’s are a forcing agent and what amounts of forcing can be expected with quantifiable amounts of certain GHG’s.
These are known quantities of GHG’s and forcing amount. They match the models and the observations. What peer reviewed evidence does he have that proves what he is stating as fact? None cited. But he assures you he is correct in his opinion.
I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PhD’s, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.
[Non Sequitur]
[Argumentum ad Populum]
[Irrelevant Argument]
The main question here is how can meteorologists, or anyone for that matter be taken seriously, if they have not even done basic fact checking for the relevance and context of their argument.
Unvalidated opinion is not good science. Unvalidated opinion that claims to refute good science is worse, it is a sham.
John Coleman and many others have made a tremendous number of mistakes in their claims and assessment as is pointed out throughout this document.
A lot of his argument is subjective and most of it is just plain wrong (obvious when placed in context of the relevant science). His opinions are not scientific, they are mostly narrowly scoped, poorly researched perspectives from a weatherman that apparently knows little about climatology.
NASA: The difference between weather and climate.
I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal (assuming he meant dismissal) of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
[There is no “high priest” of global warming]
[Appeal to Emotion Argument]
The term politically correct is a two edged sword [and thus non sequitur (Jul. 22, 2021)]. It is merely semantics as to whom is exercising political correctness.
Mr. Coleman is proclaiming poorly researched opinion from apparently, or potentially politically motivated bias in arguments to discredit relevant, peer reviewed science that is becoming more irrefutable in case after case.
Vermont Decision: Chrysler v. Crombie PDF
Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court PDF – (wiki)
Chrysler v. Witherspoon Supplemental PDF
State of California: People of the State of California v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Administration
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.
[Appeal to Emotion Argument]
[Argumentum ad lapidem]
In a decade or two, if we have done nothing, the world economy will be more severely strained than otherwise might be true (based on the speed of development of alternative energy systems; it will take longer to deal with the warming problem itself). If you think that a tomato, or a lemon at 1$ each is a lot, it is likely you will be wishing that they were only 1$ in “a decade or two”.
The problem with global warming is that will take a lot of effort to reverse, and in reality, time is running out on the return on investment and cost/benefit ratios.
It is accelerating decade over decade, it is non linear, and it is already having a socio-economic effect. One might say we have only seen the tip of the iceberg on global warming.
The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.
[Argumentum ad Lapidem]
If the climate were following the natural cycles, we would be going into an ice age at this time.
I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.
[Argumentum ad Lapidem]
Based on what? As Mr. Coleman incorrectly pointed out earlier “It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology.”
There is a difference between meteorology and climate change. Meteorology examines short therm weather in context of ‘regional’ climate. Climate change studies global and regional patterns.
–––––
METEOROLOGY
noun
the branch of science concerned with the processes and phenomena of the atmosphere, especially as a means of forecasting the weather.
• the climate and weather of a region.
–––––
CLIMATE CHANGE
noun
a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.
–––––
Thus, a good way to separate these two is this
Meteorology examines local to regional patterns for weather prediction in days to weeks.
Climate Change studies focus on global and regional patterns concerning long term changes from months, years, decades, centuries and millennia.
Also, while Coleman pointed out that the debate should not be about belief, now he is stating: “I strongly believe”. In context this is a rather strong contradiction on his part. He states many times in his writings on the matter of global warming ‘his belief’.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 4)
The Global Warming Frenzy
By John Coleman
Written about November 14, 2007
In the week since my article “Global Warming is the Greatest Scam in History” was posted, I have received hundreds of emails. Most have been supportive and thanked me for my statement. A few have been very hostile. And, many of them ask for the scientific evidence that supports my statements.
For them I am posting a series of briefs debunking the science behind the global warming frenzy. This is the first one.
The claim that Earth is in the grips of runaway Global Warming took off with this chart. It was produced by Climatologist Michael Mann and colleagues in 1999. His paper portrayed the climate of Earth as stable for 1,000 years before the activities of mankind caused temperatures to skyrocket.
[Argumentum ad Lapidem]
Incorrect. When considered in context of time, several points are controversial about Coleman’s statement above.
1. The Earth climate is anything but stable. It goes through climate changing events in the short term and the long term.
2. The chart trend shows the Global Mean Temperature as decreasing, not stable and only increasing during the industrial age.
3. The temperature increase is significantly above the natural trend observed prior to that time.
The chart just didn’t ring true with me.
[Argumentum ad Lapidem]
[Non Sequitur]
Scientific committee review including the National Academy of Science concluded that the Energy and Commerce Committee review “demonstrated clearly that “independent review” by non-climate scientists is an exceedingly ineffective way to make climate change assessments.”
House Committee on Energy and Commerce Testimony July 27, 2006
“This committee is seeking to know the significance of the criticisms leveled at the MBH reconstruction for climate change assessments. The significance is that these criticisms have resulted in the most thoroughly vetted single climate study in the history of climate change research.
Dr. Tom Karl summarized the impact most succinctly in his testimony to this committee last week when he said that he would stand by the IPCC’s original assessment: “If you ask me to give qualifications about the findings in the 2001 report with the same caveat in terms of defining likelihood, I personally would not change anything.” Hence, the impact of the MM critique, after being scrutinized by the NAS, the Wegman panel, and a number of meticulous individual research groups, is essentially nil with regard to the conclusions of MBH and the 2001 IPCC assessment.”
Regarding Expertise
“Also relevant to this committee’s questions about climate change assessments is the revelation that climate scientists do know their business, and that a lack of knowledge of geophysics is a genuine handicap to those who would seek to provide what they deem “independent review.”
If the assessment of climate science presented in Mr. McIntyre’s presentation to the NAS committee, the Wegman Report, and the WSJ is an example of what can be expected from those who have not conducted climate research, then the investigation launched by this committee has demonstrated clearly that “independent review” by non-climate scientists is an exceedingly ineffective way to make climate change assessments.”
http://www.pewclimate.org/node/2132
Hearing
Questions Surrounding the ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
July 27, 2006
2322 Rayburn House Office Building
2:00 PM
I was more used to the chart below.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 5)
[Argumentum ad Lapidem]
[Non Sequitur]
[NOTE: Coleman repeatedly and incorrectly asserts in most of his ‘evidence’ claims that regional temperatures represent global temperatures. COLEMAN IS WRONG.]
Though he has not cited the chart source, it is apparently a chart of the temperatures in Europe. Of course, the temperatures in Europe do not represent the temperatures of the Earth.
He should not be using charts he is “used to”. He should be studying the current relevant science on the matter of global temperature proxies, models, estimations and observations. Old data is just that. It is often replaced by new data.
Consider this:
If he were a surgeon, would you want him using techniques developed in the 50’s when he was in school? Or would you prefer he use new improved techniques that have increased survivability rates?
This chart includes the Medieval Warm period and Little Ice Age, both of which have been documented by historians and widely accepted by climatologists. Remember, it was during the Medieval Warm period that the Vikings settled Greenland and established successful farms. Strong support for this warm period worldwide can be found on the CO2 Science site.
Then came the Little Ice Age during which the Vikings had to abandon Greenland. Which chart is right? This is very important because Mann’s “hockey stick” chart has been the absolute bedrock of the global warming frenzy. It was a primary exhibit and cornerstone of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.
[Non Sequitur]
18 February 2005 Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy
Both charts are correct as general modeled representations of temperature proxies based on context and quality of modeling; at the time they were done; and the scope of the measurements pertaining to the particular chart.
The MWP (Medieval Warm Period) chart is generally correct (but it may not be based on plot data (no citation, so hard to verify).
It does seem to represent the regional temperature based on the northern Arctic Amplification effect. The Hockey stick is a peer reviewed and accepted model of the global mean temperature by consensus of the best science organizations in the world from large scope analysis and relevant science.
[Regional IS NOT Global.]
It appears that Mr. Coleman does not recognize that there is a difference between a regional temperature and the global temperature. It is important to note that weather and climate are two separate things. The temperature in one place on the planet does not represent all the temperatures on the planet.
NASA: The difference between weather and climate.
Example: A movie released in 2007 (The Great Global Warming Swindle) also claimed that the MWP was warmer than today.
They have committed what one might call the ‘lie of omission’. When you add the new data (see below), that was certainly available to the producers of the film, you can see how misleading their representation was.
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt1
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt2
A debate about Mann’s work has raged in the scientific community as other climate scientists take strong exception to his claims.
[Non Sequitur]
[Straw-man Argument]
There is no raging debate among relevant qualified scientists (expert climatologists that are examining the scope of the data and weighing the importance of the coupled models with relevance well considered).
It is merely raging among inexperienced non qualified people that have not reviewed the relevant science and its scope (mathematicians, economists, meteorologists); that do not know the ‘big picture’ but rather look at pieces of the picture and ‘think’ that they know the big picture.
This is not uncommon:
When one gains a bit of knowledge one tends to think one knows more based on the gain. But in context of the existing quantity of data beyond ones own personal knowledge, that often falls short of reality. Hence the saying, ‘A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing’ and ‘he/she/I know(s) just enough to be dangerous’.
I have waded through the research papers and blog exchanges by scientists on both sides. In the end, mathematician Steven McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick have proven to my satisfaction that the Mann Hockey Stick chart is not a valid display of long-term global temperatures. A congressional group formed a committee of scientists to settle the issue. Here are excerpts from their report:
[Argumentum ad Absurdum]
[Non Sequitur]
[Argumentum ad Infinitum Lapidem]
[Argumentum ad Psuedo-Vericundium]
NOTE: Coleman is asserting that his “satisfaction”, which are based in McIntyre/McKitrick’s statistical analysis, which was demonstrated to be “Statistically Insignificant” is all one really needs. Mr. Coleman claims to have “waded through the research papers and blog exchanges by scientists on both sides”. He should probably immerse himself in the papers. Apparently wading is apparently not enough.
18 February 2005 Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy
COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION
Coleman neglects to inform you that this committee is called the “Committee on Energy and Commerce”. NOT a committee of climate experts.
“This committee has reviewed the work of both articles (Mann’s research paper and McIntyre and McKitrick’s counter arguments), as well as a network of journal articles that are related either by authors or subject matter, and has come to several conclusions and recommendations. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.
[Non Sequitur]
Further review ‘experts’ at the National Academy of Sciences, and multiple university reviews of the committee findings found that by and large, the Hockey Stick was not flawed enough for them to consider it inappropriate for use as a model to represent the climate variability for the time period specified.
18 February 2005 Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy
In general, we found Mann’s articles to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of them to be valid and compelling. The controversy surrounding Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole time period. This mean is, thus, actually de-centered low, which will cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this de-centering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a…
[Non Sequitur]
When the centered data was removed the difference was not significant. Here is the plot corrected for the accepted changes. After the corrections, the changes were statistically insignificant and were determined to weaken the plot overall. They were accepted by the IPCC and NAS as well as many other relevant scientific organizations.
http://www.pewclimate.org/node/2132
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 6)
…”hockey stick” shape. The experts on this committee were Edward J. Wegman (George Mason University),
[Mathematician accused of plagiarism]
David W. Scott (Rice University),
and Yasmin H. Said (The Johns Hopkins University).”
[Associate of Wegman and accused of plagiarism]
My conclusion is that the cornerstone exhibit of the Global Warming proponents is bad science. It is not correct. There has not been an unprecedented rise in global temperatures in the last thirty years.
[Argumentum ad Lapidem]
[John Coleman’s conclusion is irrelevant because it is not based in relevant science.]
Mr. Coleman is making a conclusion on incomplete data. If the best scientists in the world have not yet made conclusions about the precise nature and indications of the data regarding human caused global warming; how can a lone meteorologist from a TV station in San Diego be considered qualified to make conclusions?.
Mr. Coleman either ignored the scientific review of the hockey stick or just failed to look deeper. The hockey stick was accepted based on its well modeled composition and data integrity but as with all models, it can be improved, which is the purpose of science.
In the process of review it was found that two arguments had some validity and the hockey stick was corrected. As you can see below, after the corrections were modeled in, it still looks like a hockey stick and the difference between the two was in the hundredths of a degree overall, and deemed insignificant.
18 February 2005 Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy
[NCAR review of the Hockey Stick]
The National Center for Atmospheric Research stated after review that:
Ammann and Wahl’s findings contradict an assertion by McIntyre and McKitrick that 15th century global temperatures rival those of the late 20th century and therefore make the hockey stick-shaped graph inaccurate. They also dispute McIntyre and McKitrick’salleged identification of a fundamental flaw that would significantly bias the MBH climate reconstruction toward a hockey stick shape.
Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of the MBH graph are unfounded. They first presented their detailed analysis at the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco last December and at the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting in Denver this year.
McIntyre and McKitrick’s papers were published in Energy and Environment (2003 and 2005) and in Geophysical Research Letters (2005).
SPECIAL NOTE:
[John Reisman met McIntyre in San Fransisco at the AGU conference shortly after this review and explained to McIntyre that while the statistical flaw was important it was found to be insignificant. In other words, it did not significantly alter the results of the hockey stick and was found to have other issues that reduced it’s importance to the result.
In response, McIntyre said: “I don’t pay attention to the rest of the science, I only look at the statistics.” In saying that he admits that he does not even look out how insignificant his result was in relation to the result of the MBH study.]
29 May 2007 The weirdest millennium
18 February 2005 Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy
So, what has been going on with temperatures worldwide? It is a difficult question since the raw data is often unreliable and there are many ways to process the data. The Winter just-ended was the coldest in many decades in many parts of the Southern Hemisphere. When the Secretary General of the UN recently visited Antarctica, the Associated Press report said the ice was melting under his feet with record high temperatures.
[Argumentum ad Absurdum]
[False Statement]
Coleman is lying and/or misrepresenting here. There is no record of the Sec. Gen. of the UN, Ban Ki Moon saying ‘the ice was melting under his feet’. Coleman made it up. Here is what Ban Ki Moon said in 2007: “The ice is melting far faster than we think.”
[Argumentum ad Passiones (Appeal to Emotion)]
Overlaying the raw and modeled data essentially showed the same result. Though the modeled data is considered a better representation as it typically reduced hot spots in the data.
The raw data is largely reliable based on the error reduction capacity built into the modeling to reduce anomalous readings of urban heat island effect and other station and/or measurement anomalies. The science is improving rapidly, so the measurements are only getting better.
For sure he wasn’t at the South Pole station where at that moment the temperature was -47. I am sure there was no melting there.
[Argumentum ad Absurdum]
[False Assertion]
Mr. Coleman is confusing the context. Obviously, if the statement is true, the Secretary General was not standing where it was -47 degrees, but he was apparently standing where melting was occurring (It is hard to believe the Secretary General would lie whereas it would be easier to believe that John Coleman would be mistaken about the statement itself as is indicated by most of his statements by virtue of the degree of inaccuracy.).
[Generally speaking, throughout Mr. Coleman writings on all these matters, he seems intent on either confusing the context, or he simply is not aware of the context.]
What Mr. Coleman is not explaining in his writings, is that if we were in the grips of the natural cycle, rather than human caused forcing of the climate system, Antarctica would not be melting as it is now.
NASA has recently reprocessed its annual data for US temperatures since 1840. Here is their revised list of the warmest years:
Three years from the 1990’s make the list, but only one in this new century. It seems clear to me that we are not in the grips of massive man-made heat wave called global warming.
[Argumentum ad Absurdum]
[False Statement]
I checked with NASA. The list below is accurate. Coleman is either being fed false information and repeating it, or is lying and misleading on purpose. I suspect he was fed false information on this point. But there is also the possibility he simply does not know how to figure out what is better data and what is junk data.
Hence, again, Mr. Coleman is incorrect in his assertions regarding ‘global warming’. He asserts/infers that the US temperature record represents the global record.
By a lack of context, Mr. Coleman seems to imply, or have you ‘believe’ that the 10 warmest years were not as recent as facts have shown, by showing you ‘only’ US data, that is not averaged into the ‘global mean temperature’ assessments.
Here is the most recent data, as reported, that is cited from the World Meteorological Organization:
Global 10 Warmest Years Mean Global temperature (°C) (anomaly with respect to 1961-1990)
-
- 1998 0.52
- 2005 0.48
- 2003 0.46
- 2002 0.46
- 2004 0.43
- 2006 0.42
- 2007(Jan-Nov) 0.41
- 2001 0.40
- 1997 0.36
- 1995 0.28
World Meteorological Organization (2007, December 13). Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years.
While Mr. Coleman would infer using US regional data that only one of the warmest years occurred in this century, the WMO report shows that 7 out of 10 occurred in this century and the other three occurred in the 1990’s.
NASA/GISS Global Temperature Trends: 2007
This brief is just the first of several. There is important research that attempts to tie global warming to carbon dioxide emissions and a long list of supporting research and observations from polar ice melting and polar bears to strength and number of exceptional storms. I will deal with all of those points in future blog postings.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 7)
Are Carbon Dioxide and Fossil Fuels Responsible for Global Warming?
By John Coleman
Written about November 23, 2007
In the Al Gore movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, we see the famous hockey stick chart as proof that global warming is sweeping the Earth. Time and research has taken its toll on that chart. It is no longer regarded as accurate. In fact, it has been quietly dropped by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
[False Statement & Misleading]
The graphs used in IPCC reports are updated with each report because new information is available. The Hockey stick however has not been dropped, it has been updated, and it still looks like a Hockey Stick.
18 February 2005 Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy
Now the global warming advocates point to the increase in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. Its up, way up; no argument about that. Our modern civilization, powered by fossil fuels, sends tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere as we generate electricity to power our lights, furnaces and air conditioners, computers, television sets, cellphone and ipods and as we drive gasoline powered cars and fly in airplanes. Our modern standard of living is absolutely linked to CO2. And it has increased in our atmosphere from around 218 parts per million in 1900 to about 375 ppm today.
[Non Sequitur]
[Argumentum ad Passiones]
This a type of strawman argument. Coleman asserts that benefitting human development form fossil fuels implies excess, and increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is okay. It is a false argument. Besides, 375 is old data (2004), we are now up to 385ppm (spring 2008) of Co2 concentration.
You need to understand immediately that CO2 is a naturally occurring trace element in our atmosphere. For one thing, we humans produce it every time we breathe. Plants and trees must have it grow. So CO2 was already in our atmosphere before we discovered oil. CO2 is not a pollutant.
[Non Sequitur]
[Misleading]
This is one of those too much of a good thing arguments. Naturally occurring Co2 is not a pollutant but it can be easily argued that Co2 from burning fossil fuels is a pollutant, by definition:
Pollute: 2 a: to make physically impure or unclean : befoul, dirty b: to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste
Therefore, in accord with the definition, Co2 becomes a pollutant by virtue of its addition to the atmosphere via manmade industrial output. Especially when you calculate real (current measured) and projected costs.
Thus, we can conclude that naturally occurring CO2 is natural and human induced CO2 in the ocean/atmosphere is a pollutant.
The pollutants produced by burning fossil fuels have been largely controlled by catalytic converters, reformulated gasoline, smoke stack scrubbers and other improvements in ignition, fuel management and exhaust systems. Nonetheless, it is in our civilization’s best interest to find ways to eliminate fossil fuels from our livings within the next few generations. But, there is no climatic emergency from our use of them.
[Non Sequitur]
[False Argument]
Some pollutants have been controlled as Mr. Coleman describes. However, there is no Co2 capture from car exhaust, so his statement is misleading, by virtue of other improvements being exemplified (inferring that co2 is also scrubbed out of car exhaust), which it isn’t.
Now the really good news: The increase in our atmospheric carbon dioxide during the 20th and early 21st centuries has produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate.
[False Statement]
Impacts are already manifesting in the Earth System. Loss of Arctic ice alone causes increase warming effect on top of the warming from CO2. John Coleman simply does not know what he is talking about.
NASA: The difference between weather and climate.
His use of the word deleterious is subjective. It can be argued that there are no deleterious effects on Earth and climate because Earth really does not have feelings like humans, but it is having effects. What should be of concern is the human population on Earth in relation to the effects of global warming.
[Climate Impacts]
There are already deleterious effects for the human population. Food and water supply issues are one. Human migration and socio-political ramifications are also to be considered further strained as droughts and other weather events change with the shifting climate due to the forcings human industrial output has imposed on the climate system.
There is absolutely no correlation between the increase in CO2 and average worldwide or US temperatures. And, predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and resulting increases in minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge or have any scientific basis.
[False Statement]
The scientific basis for correlation is massive and proven well beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, at this point, ‘only’ those that are unreasonable or have not studied the larger scope of climate influence would doubt the validity.
The connection between Co2 and other industrial greenhouse gases are quantitative. We know how many billions of tons of Co2 mankind produces and we know that that increases positive climate forcing (warming in the atmosphere). We also have measured other greenhouse gases including methane, and nitrous oxide. There are many others, but their quantities are much smaller, though cumulatively, they add to the positive forcing of the climate.
On the other hand, increased carbon dioxide has markedly increased plant growth. Forest growth and farm crop output pe acre have grown proportionally with increased atmospheric CO2 that is a key to photosynthesis in plants.
[Non Sequitur]
There may be some benefits to plants, in some areas, but we those advantages will likely be offset by loss of growing land due to latitudinal shift and increased droughts in other areas.
Plus, the FACE experiments done during the George W. Bush presidency demonstrated that increasing CO2 causes a drop in protein in legumes that do not fix nitrogen. Coleman is misleading his audience with this statement.
The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3 C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age.
[Non Sequitur in context of current global warming.]
“The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 1 C during the past 2,000 years. [Jones Mann 2004]
It would be improper to estimate with high confidence to 3000 years based on current understanding. One can certainly postulate with lower confidence as it seems Mr. Coleman has done. This is not improper as long as context is given.
He is probably guessing based on the data from the GRIP ice cores. But that data does not represent the global average temperature, so it is incorrect to state as fact for Earth global mean temperature.
Indications:
Assessment indicates that the Earth is not recovering from the little ice age. The Earth is supposed to be going back into an ice age. Mankind interrupted the natural cycle. (see Milankovitch Cycles)
Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity; by the greenhouse effect, which is largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood. While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use and CO2 production since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperatures.
[Non Sequitur in context of current global warming.]
21 January 2006 Calculating the greenhouse effect
Well, no noticeable effect other than an increase of atmospheric temperatures.
About 50% of global warming may be attributed to water vapor, about 25% clouds, and trace gases are the last 25%, which we have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial age. Nitrous Oxide up 18%, Co2 up 38%, Methane up 148%.
The cooling between 1940-1970 is likely due to a combination of natural forcing in the negative and the large increase in sulfate pollution from industrial output which caused tremendous smog and acid rain, which caused the Montreal Protocol to reign in sulfate and CFC production.
The sulfates were actually blocking the sunlight and causing a cooling effect. Consequently, the sulfates removed from the atmosphere removed the threat of acid rain and CFC but allowed the human caused climate forcing to resume its course.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 8)
Historically we can clearly see that hydrocarbon use does not correlate with temperature changes.
[Non Sequitur]
[False Representation]
[Facts Out of Context]
[Cherry Picking the Data Correlation]
Coleman is VERY UNCLEAR here. He is talking about ‘global’ warming. Yet, he is using a chart that uses regional Arctic temperature instead of global temperature. The truth is that global temperatures show a different picture. The main problem here is the polar amplification effect.
This is essentially a cartoon chart ??? Where did this chart come from? Can not locate in scientific literature. What is it’s relevance? Need source? If it is arctic, need to couple GHG mix to GCM variance and relevance of GCR in polar v. GMT
??? Context? If this is only temp related to solar IR at poles? how does that differ from TSI and variables such as magnetic flux variation at poles +++ plus other variables.
[Correlation is not causation…]
…but when a model is working it is a good indication, and further studies should then be done to verify and refine the model. Coincidentally non correlation does not mean no causation. To find what causes something, you have to look beyond the surface and examine the influences that impact the data you see. Then you are getting closer to the truth.
The lack of correlation he is referring to is likely the sulfate anomaly between 1940-1970. But he may also be referring to solar correlation even though solar irradiance does not correlate with global warming.
Coleman is Incorrect…
…That is only true if you ignore the multitude of factors that influence climate. Co2 is not the only climate driver of negative and positive forcings. Mr. Coleman would have you believe that Co2 is being claimed as the only climate driver in order to narrow the scope of his argument for the purpose of discrediting a certain aspect of the argument. Such an assertion is improper as it is too narrowly scoped.
Temperature rose for a century before significant hydrocarbon use. Temperature rose between 1910 and 1940, while hydrocarbon use was almost unchanged. Temperature then fell between 1940 and 1972, while hydrocarbon use rose by 330%.
[Non Sequitur]
[False Representation]
[Facts Out of Context]
[Cherry Pick: Misrepresenting Correlation]
The main problem with Coleman’s representation is that he does not understand the cause and effect relationships. Or worse, he does understand and failed to explain it to his audience. If that was the case, then he is lying.
Scientist Guy Calendar, back in the 1920’s, had already done calculations demonstrating warming was already occurring.
Two main factors are most likely involved with the disconnect and one last point regarding the dilemma.
[Coleman is missing the point.]
1. WWII was the beginning of a large industrial surge and sulfates were in the industrial output. During the period of time when Co2 and temperature rise were not coincident 1940-1970 industrial output of sulfates increased dramatically. Those sulfates are an aerosol that cause global cooling (i.e. a negative climate forcing).
When mankind realized that sulfates and other gases such as CFC’s. The Sulfate cooling mechanism is also evidenced whenever there is a high ejecta mass volcanic eruption, which causes a measurable cooling effect, for about 3 years after an eruption; until the sulfate particulate aerosols diminish in the atmosphere to the point that they become negligible.
Sulfates were causing harm to the environment. We stopped using them. Those old enough remember how thick the smog was in the 70’s, the acid rain damaging crops and of course the ozone layer being damaged. We lowered the sulfate output and the cooling effect was reduced. Then the other problem of Co2 pollution from industrial output increased the positive forcing and the temperature rose.
[Natural Cycle]
2. The Earth was supposed to be cooling anyway according to the natural cycle. So the added negative forcing from sulfates were aided by the natural cycle forcing.
3. The problem, in this context is that it is unwise to increase sulfate production to aid in global cooling as that would kill all our crops anyway (acid rain) and increase human health problems. It’s a catch 22.
The historical record does not contain any report of “global warming” catastrophes, even though temperatures have been higher than they are now during much of the last three millennia.
[Argumentum ad Ignorantiam]
[Lack of knowledge is not knowledge.]
Coleman is also ignoring his own arguments. Coleman points out in his presentation “The Little Ice Age” AND “The Medieval Warm Period”. Both of these events are indicated int eh historical record of causing impact on human economy. Thus the history does show problems occurred. Coleman’s use of the term catastrophic is hyperbolic. What constitutes a catastrophe is subjective, not scientific. But there were large scale impacts and some people likely did assert catastrophe if various circumstances.
Cost of global warming is directly connected to the advancement of economic systems and human productivity; including construction and population coincident with industrial processes and the burning of fossil fuels. The human population has increased dramatically, from 1 billion in 1815 to 6.6 billion in 2008.
[Global Warming Costs Related to Human Infrastructure]
The fact that there were no high rises, condos, south beach hotels, 3000 years ago is a pretty good clue as to why, or what a catastrophe might be considered in relating that time to our current time pertaining to direct costs. Other considerations would have to include cost adjusted basis for inflation and a per capita v. regional, or national cost basis.
An increase in CO2 is said to increase the radiative effect of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But, how and in which direction does the atmosphere respond? Hypotheses about this response differ. Without the water-vapor greenhouse effect, the Earth would be about 14 ºC cooler.
[Non Sequitur due to incomplete context.]
Mr. Coleman is only mentioning one greenhouse gas here. According to NASA, the major GHG’s are: “Atmospheric gases that cause this effect include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) and fluorinated (high global warming potential gases, as well as halons). If the amount of these gases in the atmosphere increases, then the greenhouse effect will be magnified and warmer global temperatures will result.”
Mr. Coleman would be correct on this point if he had mentioned that the Earth would be 14C cooler without Greenhouse gases if measured from the preindustrial level. Now the number would be around 15C of cooling due to the additional GHG’s and consequent forcing on Earth temperature.
[Here, Coleman continues to assert CO2 impact as minor:]
The radiative contribution of doubling atmospheric CO2 is minor, but this radiative greenhouse effect is treated quite differently by different climate hypotheses.
The hypotheses that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has chosen to adopt predicts that the effect of CO2 is amplified by the atmosphere, especially by water vapor, to produce a large temperature increase. Other hypotheses, predict the opposite—that the atmospheric response will counteract the CO2 increase and result in insignificant changes in global temperature. The experimental evidence favors hypothesis 2. While CO2 has increased substantially, its effect on temperature has been so slight that it has not been experimentally detected.
[False Application/Assertion]
Coleman is likely implying experiments at CERN showed CCN’s (Cloud Condensation Nuclei) experiments showed that after two to three weeks, clouds reacting to GCR’s could help cool the Earth. He might also be referring to a cooling theory based on increased clouds due to warming that could increase reflective albedo and thus cool the planet. He does not say what he is referring to though.
A few problems are immediately visible. if the Earth can auto cool itself when it warms, how does he explain higher temperatures in the past, which he claims also as evidence in a different argument. Coleman’s arguments are confused at best, and generally misleading. Tests pertaining to these hypotheses have shown they are not substantial.
Due to the amount of forcing that has been added to the system, the negative feedbacks are not expected to outweigh the positive feedbacks, therefore additional warming is expected.
Radiative forcing can and is expected to create positive feedbacks that will amplify global warming in a non-linear accelerating progression. In relation to what is currently known, it almost appears as if he is making up some of his assertions?
[Uncertainties?]
With regard to his “other hypotheses, predict the opposite” he may be referring to cloud effects or increased albedo due to the expectation that increased global warming increases snowfall in the northern and southern latitudes; or the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation of the ocean.
Although these are important considerations, due to the amount of forcing human industrial output is causing, the ability for increased negative feedbacks to override the human caused positive feedbacks are not expected to reverse the warming.
[Coleman’s non-specifity…]
I’m not sure what experimental evidence he is referring to favoring “hypothesis 2.” “While Co2 has increased substantially, its effect on temperature has been” detected, modeled, observed and measured as a forcing component with great accuracy. (ref. IPCC AR4)
Roger Revelle of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Harvard University and University of California San Diego was the co-author of the seminal 1957 paper that demonstrated that fossil fuels had increased carbon-dioxide levels in the air. Under his leadership, the President’s Science Advisory Committee Panel on Environment Pollution in 1965 published the first authoritative U.S. government report in which carbon dioxide from fossil fuels was officially recognized as a potential global problem.
He was the author of the influential 1982 Scientific American article that elevated global warming on to the public agenda. For being “the grandfather of the greenhouse effect,” as he put it, he was awarded the National Medal of Science by the first President Bush.
[Specious Claim]
Here Coleman says Revelle called himself “the grandfather of the greenhouse effect”. Roger Revelle was a careful and conservative scientist as I’ve heard. I (John P. Reisman) recall discussing global warming with Justin Lancaster in Roger Revelle’s office, I think that was early 90’s.
Based on those discussions and my reading of Roger’s life and his scientific assertions, it seems uncharacteristic of him to refer to himself in such a manner. I would have to ask Justin if he did so. Justin worked with Roger for many years.
Note: Revelle was well aware of all the work that had been done before him going all the way back to Fourier in 1824. If anyone should be called the grandfather of the greenhouse effect it would be more applicable to Joseph Fourier.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 9)
However, he understood that the impact of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was a tricky issue. In a letter he wrote in 1988 shortly before he died of a heart attack, he said that: “Most scientists familiar with the subject are no yet willing to bet that the climate this year is the result of ‘greenhouse warming.’ As you very well know, climate is highly variable from year to year, and the causes of these variations are not at all well understood.
My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.” A few days later, in another letter he cautioned “… we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer.” Today we know his caution was merited.
[Important to note:]
Coleman is acknowledging above that “climate is highly variable from year to year”. But in many other ares of his presentation he relies on short term variability to refute long term climate trends.
Roger Revelle died in 1988. as quoted by John Coleman “My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.”
[Geez, John Coleman could not even get the year of Rogers death correct. Roger Revelle died on July 15 1991, not in 1988. ]
Roger Revelle said we should wait 10 to 20 years to see if this is “important for human beings”. It has been 20 years since Roger Revelle wrote the letter proclaimed by Mr. Coleman. We now know that Co2 and other human caused greenhouse gases are not only driving climate but have significantly altered the natural cycle of climate on Earth.
In context, human added GHG’s have positive and negative effects, however it is clear that the negatives outweigh the positives in relation to the human population and socio-economic systems.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace element essential to plant growth and a natural product of human breathing and many other normal processes. Yes, it is way up in the atmosphere; but still it is only 37 of every 100,000 atmospheric molecules. Despite all the shouting by global warming advocates that CO2, carbon dioxide, is the smoking gun of global warming, there is absolutely no proven evidence that CO2 has effected temperatures and plenty of evidence it has not.
[Non Sequitur Argument]
[Argumetum ad Absurdum]
[Argumetum ad Vericundium]
[Argumetum ad Lapidem]
Coleman argues there is no proven evidence CO2 is a factor in current global warming. Point of fact There is no proven evidence CO2 can not, does not, will, not affect global temperature. Without CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere the Earth would be a frozen ball in space. CO2 in combination with the Milankovitch cycles facilitate moving in and out of ice ages. CO2 has a long atmospheric lifetime unlike CH4 and is thus a significant atmospheric gas.
NCDC/NOAA:
“There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000.
The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).”
NASA:
NASA: Global Warming [updated Link] Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space.”
As of May 2008 “37 of every 100,000” is no longer correct, it is 38.5 (that is 15 molecules in ppm of increase in a very short period of time).
The smoking gun is industrial GHG output and it is still smoking. The claim that “there is absolutely no evidence that Co2 has effected temperatures and plenty of evidence it has not.” at this point in time, is patently absurd.
[Natural Cycle]
The Earth climate system has its own rhythm that it achieved without human interference. By increasing GHG output through industrial processes we have essentially added the straw that broke the camels back with regard to interfering with the natural cycle of Earth climate.
Said another way a lever in equilibrium will tilt when weight is added to one side and not the other. Essentially we have tilted the equilibrium.
So if atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not causing the Earth to warm up, what is? The answer seems to be Sun cycles. I will post a brief on that topic soon.
[Argumentum ad Ignorantiam]
The short film below explains solar influence in relation to our current global warming event.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 10)
THE FORCE BEHIND CLIMATE CHANGE ON EARTH
By John Coleman
Written about November 28, 2007
[WRONG AGAIN]
The longest record of solar cycle research goes back to 1612, when Galileo because tracking solar cycles. His talks the previous year did inspire others to begin examining solar cycles in 1611.
Actually, it is not a clear match. If you ignore other relevant factors such as forcing amounts and albedo as well as time scale, then you are still missing the big picture.
31 March 2006 Another study on solar influence
3 August 2005 Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?
In the ‘Great Global Warming Swindle (2007)’ they tried to correlate solar forcing and temperature.
Unfortunately they committed the lie of omission. They only showed the parts that fit, and ignored the actual data that did not support their swindling ways.
[Below is the same image before manipulation:]
Here is the same image with the actual solar influence plotted in. There is a complete disconnect between the warming and the solar activity. The blue line is the warming and the red line is the solar activity. This is not to say that solar is not an influence as it is but that the additional greenhouse gases are overriding the system.
[Facts Out of Context]
[Misleading & Cherry Picking]
??? Where did this chart come from? Can not locate in scientific literature. What is it’s relevance? Need source?
Coleman’s article is GLOBAL WARMING. He uses this chart to show a regional temperature to correlate to a global influence. You don’t have to be a genius to see that this is designed to mislead the reader. His continual use of facts out of context are a strong bias that establishes the presentation as misleading.
Note (Jul. 22, 2021): The graphic shows US temperatures compared to what is supposed to be a representation of solar activity. Regional temperatures are NOT global. This is a non sequitur application of ‘Facts out of Context’. This also falls into the category of cherry picking data.
31 March 2006 Another study on solar influence
This significantly complicates the claims of man-made or anthropogenic global warming.
[Reductio ad Absurdum]
In reality, Coleman’s misleading claims and representations complicate and confuse the understanding his audience is getting from Coleman about man-made or anthropogenic global warming.
Note (Jul. 22, 2021): Since Coleman was using regional temps. to instead of global temp, nothing he is asserting here makes any scientific sense.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 11)
All energy on earth comes from the sun in the form or both radiation including visible light and invisible ultraviolet and from variable streams of charged particles from solar eruptions or from holes in the suns corona.
When the sun is very active, there is more radiation to directly warm the earth and ultraviolet to form and destroy ozone in low and middle latitudes in the high atmosphere, both reactions releasing heat.
[Red Herring]
[Facts Out of Context]
Coleman here is using real science to establish authority. After which, and habitually, he uses argument from authority [argumentum ad vericundium lapidem] to assert he is correct in his incorrect arguments. This is sophistry.
The 11.1 year solar cycle is well known and oscillates up and down in the cycle causing an average forcing shift of .3 W/m2. Any other real effects he is referring to, (I have not checked) are obviously part of the natural cycle unless one were referring to CFC pollution that resulted form human industrial output.
5 April 2007 Ozone Hole Leaks and Other Tales
31 March 2006 Another study on solar influence
When the sun is more active and the earth’s magnetic field in energized, less cosmic rays that have a low cloud enhancement capability can penetrate the atmosphere from space. Low clouds cool the earth by reflecting the sun’s radiation. And during these active sun times, there are less low clouds and more sun to warm the earth. For all these reasons an active sun means a warmer earth, a quiet sun a cooler earth.
[Artgumentum ad Vericundium]
Coleman is explaining his knowledge here to impress in order to make a non factual claim. This is a type of straw-man argument. He is conflating multiple issues and without strong context his assertion ends up being misleading. He infers radiation effects, lens effect, albedo, sunspots, et cetera as basis for is following assertions. Influences have been noted but direct correlations to this global warming event are not established.
The Sun contains 99.8% of the mass of solar system. Its constant hydrogen fueled atomic fusion consumes more mass in a second that all the fossil fuel ever burned on Earth. It is difficult to imagine man’s activities overwhelming the heat from the Sun. But, that is exactly what global warming advocates want you to believe.
[Non Sequitur Reductio ad Absurdum]
To be sure, “It is difficult to imagine man’s activities overwhelming the heat from the Sun”. But again context is key. Man’s activities are not overwhelming the heat from the sun. They are only adding forcing to the Earth climate system here. I am quite confident that we will never “overwhelm the heat from the sun”. But here on Earth, 93,000,000 miles away from the sun, we can and in fact have, affected our own climate system.
Forget about global warming advocates and concentrate on global warming science. The Earth system has it’s own balance, which has been achieved over billions of years. In the past 150 years, mankind dug up fossil fuels from under the ground and burned them, releasing billion of tons of Co2 into the atmosphere. This altered the natural balance of trace gas concentrations, which has interrupted the natural climate forcing cycles.
Indeed, as the chart above showed clearly, the solar cycles clearly synchronize better with historical ups and downs in temperatures far better than anything man has done.
[Non Sequitur False Assertion]
The chart above is not a scientifically vetted chart. It is used to misrepresent the reality of global warming. Using it as a’truth’ is a lie. CLICK HERE TO UNDERSTAND SOLAR INFLUENCE
According to the NASA solar experts Earth is emerging from an 11-year solar cycle that began in May of 1996. In theory that cycle would have ended a couple of years ago. Longer cycles are often precursors to a quiet sun.
It is hard to tell what Mr. Coleman is talking about here? He is not citing any references, so we are left to wonder if the concept has validity, or even any relevance?
Thus far, there is insufficient evidence to judge longer solar cycles. Besides he forgot to define what emerging from a cycle means?
Where he says, “in theory that cycle would have ended a couple of years ago”, what does that mean?
In theory it should follow its average 11.1 year solar cycle and increase and decrease the sunspot number as it goes through the cycle, which increases or decreases the solar forcing around .3 W/m2.
Then he says:
“longer cycles are often precursors to a quiet sun”. Based on what? Is he referring to the Maunder Minimum? Long term solar cycles are not very well understood, so unless he has some special knowledge that experts in solar don’t have, it’s hard to tell what this is.
And many solar scientists are now predicting a much quieter sun in our very near future, some suggest as quiet as during the last little ice age. The Russian Academy has actually issued an Imminent Global Cooling Warning. The late Rhodes Fairbridge, an eminent Astronomer, became particularly expert on the solar cycles during his long academic career at Columbia University. He developed the interesting hypothesis that the orbits of the major planets had a strong impact on the amount of energy radiated from the Sun and the pattern of that radiation in the form of solar cycles.
[Non Sequitur False Assertion]
First and foremost. The solar cycles going quiet is not enough to cool Earth because we have loaded too much CO2 into the climate system, thus throwing it out of itw natural balance.
Again no citations. An “interesting hypothesis” is actually not relevant. Maybe this is a mix up of Milankovitch Cycles with something else? Never the less, the sun is a fusion reactor of immense proportions, while one must admit possibility of such an influence one might also consider Mr. Coleman’s own statement (see above)
“The Sun contains 99.8% of the mass of solar system.”
So here, this astronomer is postulating, “that the orbits of the major planets had a strong impact on the amount of energy radiated from the Sun and the pattern of that radiation in the form of solar cycles.”
One must admit to possibility, but think about it.
He is saying that less than .2% (he is only including the major planets) of the mass of the solar system is regulating the sunspot cycle. While this is certainly possible, then you must consider the relevance.
The sunspot cycle has an average variance of .3 W/m2 on the thermal forcing inside the Earth climate system. We are now estimated to be around 2 W/m2 in the forcing above pre-industrial levels of forcing. So even if this is a factor what is it’s relevance to current warming? The 2 W/m2 is 1500% more forcing than the .3 W/m2. Again, how are the above claims from Mr. Coleman and the late Rhodes Fairbridge relevant?
He and other experts have identified more than a half dozen solar cycles ranging from 11 years to 420 years. Here is a plot of solar energy reaching the Earth in the last 30 years (last 3 solar cycles).
[Coleman asserts ‘conjecture’ as ‘strong’ science.]
[False Assertion, Argumentum ad Vericundium]
Okay, here is another question. If an expert has identified a 420 year long solar cycle and we have only been looking as sunspots for about 400 years (since the invention of the telescope in 1608) that would mean that this person has observed less than one full cycle of information?
Therefore, since the cycle is not yet over, how does he know the cycle will end in 20 years? And how can he rule out long term natural variability in a system like the sun that is 8 billion years old?
Mr. Coleman…
…Have the support materials for this argument been peer reviewed by relevant peers in the relevant community of study? Please provide citations for these claims and relevance to the current understanding.]
While one must admit to possibility, there really is not enough data to make strong assertions beyond the 11.1 year solar cycle. Unfortunately we will have to keep measuring on this one, to see how it plays out.
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 12)
You may have heard of the solar constant when you were in school. It is a figure that is the sum total of the Sun’s output received on Earth. It turns out, however, to be an average, not a constant at all. The chart above makes that very clear.
[Reductio ad Absurdum via Misleading Assertion]
It’s true. When the solar constant was defined in 1862 they believed it was actually a constant at 1370W/m2 ref. Webster
But that was a long time ago. Luckily, since then Our government created this great new agency called NASA. They look at things like this Solar Constant and since 1978 when we started taking direct satellite measurements of solar output from outer space, where they could see more clearly the solar variance.
Well, as you can imagine, back in the day when Mr. Coleman was in school they might have still called it a constant. Mr. Coleman seems to want you to ‘believe’ that because it is an average, global warming can’t be human caused. It must be the sun!
NASA: The Inconstant Sun
If you plot average annual temperatures on Earth, solar cycles and mankind’s supposed most significant climate altering activity, the burning of fossil fuels, the solar cycles and temperatures match and the use of fossil fuels seems to be unrelated.
[False Assertion]
CLICK HERE TO UNDERSTAND SOLAR INFLUENCE
Correlation is not causation, but when a model is working it is a good indication, and further studies should then be done to verify the potential, and refine the model. Coincidentally non correlation does not mean no causation. To find what causes something, you have to look beyond the surface and examine the influences that impact the data you see. Then you are getting closer to the truth.
In this case when the larger scope of the data is examined there is no correlation between solar irradiance and this global warming event. As is pointed out further above (the Swindled images), there is a strong disconnect between solar influence and this global warming event.
[History Lessons]
The cooling between 1940-1970 is likely due to a combination of natural forcing in the negative and the large increase in sulfate pollution from industrial output which caused tremendous smog and acid rain, which caused the Montreal Protocol to reign in sulfate and CFC production. The sulfates were actually blocking the sunlight and causing a cooling effect. Consequently, the sulfates removed from the atmosphere removed the threat of acid rain and CFC but allowed the human caused climate forcing to resume its course.
[False Representation]
This is essentially a cartoon chart, which Coleman uses repeatedly ??? Where did this chart come from? Can not locate in scientific literature. What is it’s relevance? Need source? If it is arctic, need to couple GHG mix to GCM variance and relevance of GCR in polar v. GMT
??? Context? If this is only temp related to solar IR at poles? how does that differ from TSI and variables such as magnetic flux variation at poles +++ plus other variables.
When they run out of counter arguments to the solar cycle explanation of the climate change on Earth, Global Warming advocates often turn the polar ice melt at the North Pole. Pictures of ice calving from the Arctic ice pack and polar bears stranded on ice sheets drifting in the frigid water bring an emotional charge to the discussion. I will deal with all of that in my next brief.
[Non Sequitur]
[Argumentum ad Vericundium Infinitum Lapidem]
[Reverse Strawman]
[Facts Out of Context]
The Solar cycles add and remove about 0.1 W/m2 of warming/cooling capacity to Earth in each cycle. Current human influence on global warming is orders of magnitude larger, thus rendering Coleman’s argument irrelevant and out of context.
Here are some links on solar cycles:
Perhaps the most publicized recent example was the publication of a study by astronomer Willie Soon of the Harvard University-affiliated Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-authors, claiming to demonstrate that 20th century global warmth was not unusual in comparison with conditions during Medieval times. Indeed, this study serves as a prime example of one of the “myths” that we have debunked elsewhere on this site. The study was summarily discredited in articles by teams of climate scientists (including several of the scientists here at RealClimate), in the American Geophysical Union (AGU) journal Eos and in Science.
[Reductio ad Absurdum]
It is easy to make false claims. And it takes time and energy to properly refute false claims. That’s part of why so many people still don’t understand global warming.]
However, it took some time for rebuttals to work their way through the slow process of the scientific peer review. In the meantime the study was quickly seized upon by those seeking to sow doubt in the validity behind the scientific consensus concerning the evidence for human-induced climate change (see news articles in the New York Times, and Wall Street Journal).
The publication of the study had wider reverberations throughout the academic and scientific institutions connected with it. The association of the study with the “Harvard” name caused some notable unease among members of the Harvard University community (see here and here) and the reputation of the journal publishing the study was seriously tarnished in the process.
[Shenanigans Galore]
The editor at Climate Research that handled the Soon et al paper, Dr. Chris de Frietas, has a controversial record of past editorial practices (see this ‘sidebar’ to an article in Scientific American by science journalist David Appell). In an unprecedented (to our knowledge) act of protest, chief editor Hans von Storch and 3 additional editors subsequently resigned from Climate Research in response to the fundamental documented failures of the editorial process at the journal.
A detailed account of these events are provided by Chris Mooney in the Skeptical Inquirer and The American Prospect, by David Appell in Scientific American, and in a news brief in Nature. The journal’s publisher himself (Otto Kline) eventually stated that “[the conclusions drawn] cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper”.
icecap.us_Solar_Changes_and_the_Climate.pdf
icecap.us/FORECASTING_SOLAR_CYCLE.pdf
next_solar_cycle_late_and_likely_to_be_a_dud_the_implications/
www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023429.shtml
icecap.us/solar_cylces_24_and_25_and_predicted_climate_response/
FYI: 11.1 is the average.
The cycles can vary from 9 to 13 years.
One of the problems these projections run into is that in the relevant known/understood 11.1 solar cycle, a ‘quiet sun’ removes .3 w/m2 from the forcing. If we remove that .3 W/m2 from the current forcing, the we still have around 1.7 W/m2 of positive forcing and will therefore continue warming.
icecap.us/joes-blog/a_critical_review_of_lockwood_and/
20 January 2005 Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition
Global Warming Comments by John Coleman (Page 13)
IS GLOBAL WARMING MELTING THE ARCTIC ICE CAP?
By John Coleman
Written about December 8, 2007
The alarming headlines were everywhere during the late summer and early fall:
The Melting Arctic Melting Ice Displaces Walruses In The Russian Arctic Ice Melt Causing Death of Polar Bears And there were the pictures of polar bears stranded on sheets of floating ice, accounts of their deaths “as a result of Global Warming” and even a documentary about the plight of the polar bears.
Unite America with The Centrist Party
- Enough is enough. We must unite to reclaim our government. Join the Centrist Party. Work together to heal our nation and return balance in governance and common sense for the nation and the people.
The Centrist News
Check out Centrist News & Perspectives for centrist media intelligence: