Ira Glickstein is a funny one. He writes for Anthony Watts on occasion. I don't know if he writes for anyone else.
Today he starts off by claiming to accept the greenhouse effect and human-caused global warming (archived here). Then he tries to minimise it by making up whatever he feels like making up for the heck of it. In other words, he rejects science after all. (Sound familiar?)
Ira's figure plucking
Ira writes about how scientists have shown that earth has warmed by 0.8 degrees and most of this warming is attributed to human causes. Ira plucks a figure out of the air and says only 70% of it is from human causes. He writes:
I have interpreted “majority” to mean about 70% and have therefore allocated 1°F (0.6°C) to Human-Causation and the remaining 0.4°F (0.2°C) to Natural Cycles.
Ira's personal opinion
He has put up a chart with lots of "bars" and writes (my bold italics):
The seventh bar represents my personal opinion as to the actual Global Warming since 1880, discounting the “adjustments” made by the official Climate “Team” that I believe have inflated the temperature record.
And later he he writes:
So, unless we believe that the world temperature record is more reliable than the US record, it is likely the world record has also been similarly “adjusted”. Therefore, I have discounted the GISS estimate of Global Warming by about 30%, so actual warming is about 1.0°F (0.6°C). As for allocation of this actual warming to Human- vs Natural-Causes, I believe the IPCC has over-estimated Climate Sensitivity by a factor of two or three, so I have allocated the majority of the warming 0.8°F (0.5°C) to Natural Cycles, and the remaining 0.2°F (0.1°C) to Human-Causation.
Ira talks about reliability, but adjusting data has nothing to do with reliability. It's to do with accounting for different times of observation or if a weather station is moved or something else happens that needs adjusting. In regard to global data sets, the global anomaly may be adjusted when more data is added. (In any one month all the data from all over the world doesn't come in straight away all at the same time.)
Victor Venema is an expert on homogenisation of temperature data and has written a very good blog article about time of observation bias. These days with automatic weather stations, time of observation is no longer as big a problem. However weather stations still get moved and other things happen. If the record isn't adjusted to reflect changes, then the record won't be as accurate.
Basically what Ira is saying is that he doesn't like what the data shows so he's going to make adjustments himself based on nothing at all except for his own bias and "opinion". He has plucked some numbers he likes better out of thin (if warmer) air.
Now you'll have read how fake sceptics complain that climate sensitivity isn't definitely known to several decimal points. Yet here's Ira writing stuff like:
I believe the IPCC has over-estimated Climate Sensitivity by a factor of two or threeA factor of two or three! Not two. Not three. Not 1.5. Sheesh, why not go for five or ten while you're at it Ira? Or twenty or thirty? (No-one complains at WUWT about this.)
The IPCC has estimated climate sensitivity as "likely" being between 1.5°C and 4.5°C. So if it's overestimated it "by a factor of two or three", then Ira should be putting it at between 0.5°C and 1.5°C or 0.75°C and 2.25°C. In the end he doesn't say what he estimates it to be. He just writes:
... I have allocated the majority of the warming 0.8°F (0.5°C) to Natural Cycles, and the remaining 0.2°F (0.1°C) to Human-Causation.
Nor does Ira say what Natural Cycles (note the capitalisation, suggesting Ira's getting on in years) could possibly have caused a rise of his 0.5°C, except for his "natural cycles". What natural cycles? Why have those cycles never cycled before?
To sum up Ira's article:
- Global warming = 0.8°C - X = 0.6°C where X = Ira's opinion.
- The amount of warming from humans = 0.1°C which is derived from science less Ira's opinion.
Here's the science with Ira's opinion:
|IPCC Figure TS.9 showing observations with modeled "natural" forcing only, and Ira's "opinion".|
Ira's opinion is not what he stated. When you look at the above chart, in Ira's opinion, natural cycles have somehow managed to shift the temperature up by 0.6°C not 0.5°C. But I won't quibble over 0.1°C. What I will quibble about is Ira's notion of "natural cycle".
Why don't the cycles cycle?
Given that Ira reckon's that it's "natural cycles" that have caused almost all the warming of the past several decades, he must think we're about to get jolly cold. A cycle is a cycle so it's got to come down, right?
And if it was a "natural cycle" why hasn't it shown up already as such? If it were a natural cycle, then it should have been as hot as it is now in the recent past. Say the natural cycle had a period of 60 years. That would mean that sixty years ago it should have been as warm as it is today. Or if you like, as warm as it is today minus Ira's 0.1°C.
It didn't happen. Ergo, Ira is wrong. Well, you knew that already, didn't you. He's not just wrong in his "opinion" about the temperature record. He's not just wrong in his "opinion" about climate sensitivity. He's also wrong in his "opinion" about natural cycles.
From the WUWT comments
April 7, 2014 at 12:26 am
I like the point you are making, but that’s a pretty confusing graph. A straightforward bar graph, without the pictures, would be easier to follow.
April 7, 2014 at 12:39 am
The graphic is too cluttered. The valid points being made in the text are not being reinforced as well as they should be.
RoHa and robr have a point:
|Ira's messy drawing|
April 7, 2014 at 1:03 am
It would be nice to see a bargraph of typical daily/yearly variation (range) before warming next to the same thing after warming, it would illustrate that the warming was insignificant compared to daily/yearly fluctuations and that for most of each day/year the temperature after warming was within the normal range that occured before warming.
This is, of course, why the climate deceit community prefer to use a temperature anomaly instead of actual temperatures, because the numbers just aren’t scary at all.
Maybe where jaffa lives he's not had the sort of heat that some of us have endured lately. Compare the following two charts (click to enlarge them) and it's only just beginning.
|Australia's Angry Summer|
April 7, 2014 at 4:43 am
What “human-caused warming”? There very well could be a tiny amount, but if there, it gets lost in the noise of a complex, multi-layered, somewhat chaotic, and not well understood system. For all intents and purposes, even if theory says it should be there, it is non-existant. It is too small to ferret out, and too small to matter in the slightest.
CodeTech joined in a discussion of what is meant by doubling temperature and says:
April 7, 2014 at 5:06 am
steveta, looks like you fell for the trick question.
The language used by climate change believers and alarmists is often filled with deliberately confusing statements and concepts. In order to double a temperature you need to be aware of where your zero is (and I don’t mean the Oval Office). The only zero that makes universal sense is K.
It was 10C today. Tomorrow will be 20C. The temperature will not even remotely double.
Alex muses over radiation transfer vs kinetic energy says:
April 7, 2014 at 7:14 am
It’s always ‘radiation transfer’ with both sceptics and warmists. I’ve heard very little discussion about kinetic energy. A gas does not have ‘temperature’, it has kinetic energy that manifests itself as ‘temperature’ when it is involved in a physical contact with a surface or another molecule of gas ie exchange of energy. Why this process is never mentioned, I don’t understand.
Mike confuses global with local and doesn't know that he's not being rational when he says:
April 7, 2014 at 7:31 am
Here in Ottawa we have a 60-70 degree C yearly temperature range..a good reason why rational Canadians should ignore the alarmism.
On a related note: in the recently released IPCC impact statement the positive benefits to Canada of warming are trivialized. I cannot think of any negative impacts of 1-2C warming. I am sure the same case could be made for Russia, Scandinavia, Mongolia, etc.