AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (118 comments)

  1. Absolutely. A sane energy policy would revive our economy. Build the keystone pipeline, develop our own oil resources, use natural gas, start building some nuclear, and stop subsidizing pie in the sky “alternative” energy with no foreseeable commercial viability. These policies would go a long way towards fixing unemployment and preparing for the retirement of the baby boomers. (The impact of the retirement of the baby boomers is worsened by the birth dearth which followed, and the missing workers killed following Roe V Wade.)

  2. Jon Murphy

    It’s like Santa Claus: if you believe hard enough, it will come true

  3. Aiken_Bob

    The article is spot on — The AGW crowd doesn’t want facts or logic they want to rid the planet of evil fossil fuels – they have too much of their tied up in hating CO2 that they will never accept logic. AGW is truly a religion and is based on faith, and faith alone.

    Liked the article didn’t know about C3 and C4 plants – looks like something that will be interesting to learn about.

  4. Mr. Econotarian

    “We know that carbon dioxide has been a much larger fraction of the earth’s atmosphere than it is today, and the geological record shows that life flourished on land and in the oceans during those times.”

    In those times, life on earth had tens of thousands of years to evolve to the slowly warming climate, and many species went extinct in the process. But we have no record of global changes of up to 6 degrees C in 100 years, and no idea what will happen.

    I am sure there will be both benefits and costs to AGW. But I also believe it is hubris to imagine given all the non-linear interactions between the climate, geology, and biology that we can accurately predict it. The rapid increase in GHGs (methane and CO2) is an experiment that we can’t really know the results of.

    A reasonable person can believe that we should try to balance the potential downsides of enhanced AGW with the fact that energy use benefits humanity greatly, and that global improvement in the economic situation of people is a great way to reduce their personal risks due to warming. There are some solutions (such as nuclear fission power) that can meet both low-CO2 emissions and provide reliable energy. Natural gas from fracking may also be better regarding CO2 emissions, but we need to honestly determine if the amount of accidental methane emissions from natural gas production are not actually more warming.

    BTW, IPCC 4rth Assessment Report stated that it is projected with medium confidence that globally, potential food production will increase for temperature rises of 1–3 degrees C, but decrease for higher temperature ranges. So yes, some warming could be useful for agriculture (on a global basis).

    What scares me the most is the potential for mild CO2 induced AGW to set off massive methane releases from permafrost and oceanic methane hydrates that could lead to much higher warming.

    1. Actually there are indications that at various times in the past run away process did exist. One is cited is the end of the snowball (slushball) earth about 750 my ago. CO2 started going up the global ice melted and it melted fast.
      Now as some other posts on other sites have pointed out we are only getting to the level of CO2 that was present before the pleistocene (ice age). Records going back very far don’t have the resolution to tell how fast things happened except to a tens of thousands of years precision.
      Note also that there is an indication that the sun may be entering a quiet period like the little ice age (of which many arguments exist if it was world wide)
      Anyway the question is not the survival of the biosphere, its the survival of the human race. The biosphere has taken much worse shocks over short time frames, such as the end of Creataceous event, as well as the End of Permian extinction. In that event 70% of oceanic genera were wiped out but over 100 million years evolution did its thing and ecological niches were re-occupied.

      1. Vangel

        Actually there are indications that at various times in the past run away process did exist. One is cited is the end of the snowball (slushball) earth about 750 my ago. CO2 started going up the global ice melted and it melted fast.

        Ahh, how they remain ignorant of the facts. First of all, the Slushball Earth should not have been possible when CO2 levels were ten times current levels if the AGW theories are correct. That makes very questionable the false claim that the melting was driven by CO2 increases. In fact, the degassing of CO2 was caused by the warming of the oceans; CO2 concentrations followed the changes in temperature, not the other way around.

        Yet, the Slushball Earth episodes were perfectly predictable and expected. We got those episodes every time the solar system goes through the galactic arms and the CRF increases and creates more cloud cover. More clouds means less of the sun’s energy gets to the surface and less energy means a cooler planet. But we don’t have to go through the galactic arms to observe this because we have smaller cycles where changes in solar activity changes the amount of cloud cover and the average temperatures. It is these cycles that explain why we had the Minoan Warming, Roman Warming, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, etc. And it is these cycles that provide a much better explanation than anything the AGW frauds can come up with.

        1. There is another theory, that explains it as well. At that time there was one super continent Rodinia, which did not cover any of the poles. In addition it is well documented that the sun was not as bright (or produced as much heat) 750 million years ago. This is just like the theory that the closure of the gap where Panama is lead to the current ice age. The solar brightening is why the oceans will boil in 1 to 2 billion years (not that any of us needs to worry about it)

          1. In addition it is well documented that the sun was not as bright (or produced as much heat) 750 million years ago.

            And there is your problem. Why was it much hotter for most of the time when the sun’s output was much lower? No, the shift of continents cannot explain most of the changes. But solar activity can.

            The meteorite evidence shows that the sun was much more active during its early phases and that the solar wind was stronger. A stronger solar wind meant that the Earth’s lower atmosphere was protected from cosmic rays and that cloud cover was lower than during later stages. CO2 had nothing to do with the general temperature levels because the Earth froze when the solar system moved through the galactic arms where cosmic ray flux increased. Once the path through the arms had been completed the Earth thawed out again and CO2 was released from the warming oceans.

            http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0306477

          2. morganovich

            actually v, continent positioning matters massively for temperature.

            when you have a polar continent, the earth cools due to increase albedo from the ice.

            when you have equatorial mingling of the great oceans, the world warms. the current ice age that we inhabit began when the isthumus of panama closed.

            of interest, CO2 was more than 5 times current levels then.

            co2 is predominantly an effect of warming, not a driver.

            basic physics shows why this is so.

            a warmer liquid can hold less gas in suspension.

            when the earth warms, oceans outgas, and co2 rises.

            this has happened in every interglacial. temps rise, then co2 rises 1200-1500 years later.

            co2 cannot cause runaway warming. this is literally impossible.

            co2 adds insulation as a natural log function and one whose steep part we are way, way past.

            a doubling of co2 to 800ppm would add about 0.6 degrees to earth temperatures.

            all the IPCC hysterics come from using bad feedback assumptions that assume things like water vapor will amplify this.

            it has been pretty conclusively proven that water vapor, cloud formation, and precipitation systems provide negative, not positive feedback.

            as water is 80%+ of the greenhouse effect, it cannot possibly be swamped by co2.

            slush/iceball earth is largely due to galactic rays in extreme amounts. we have seen this time and time again. as you say, when earth passes through a bright arm of the galaxy, we get bombarded with galactic rays. these rays ionize the upper atmosphere and result in large amounts of high cloud cover which blocks sunlight. first we become “cloudy eath”. then the clouds turn us into iceball earth.

            this same effect can be shown with solar wind fluctuation. when the sun is inactive, solar wind drops. a drop in solar wind means more galactic rays reach us.

            this creates high cloud/albedo based cooling.

            this effect (well documented by svensmark) amplifies the effects of changes in solar output on earth and debunks a lot of the “it can’t be the sun, it did not change enough” arguments about recent warming.

            the dalton and maunder minimums of solar activity caused the little ice age. if you look just as solar output in terms of w/m2 hitting earth, the LIA cannot be explained. but when you add in the solar wind effects on upper atmospheric ionization, suddenly it works. this is why sunspot count has such a strong correlation to earth temperatures, somehting the farmer’s almamac has long known.

            note that not a signle one of the ipcc/giss/uea etc models factors this is.

            as a result, they get bad numbers and place too much emphasis on presumes co2 effects and feedbacks when they hindcast.

      2. Lyle

        Actually there are indications that at various times in the past run away process did exist. One is cited is the end of the snowball (slushball) earth about 750 my ago. CO2 started going up the global ice melted and it melted fast.

        As we know from more recent temperature changes, atmospheric CO2 levels don’t precede temperature increases, but follow them.

        Records going back very far don’t have the resolution to tell how fast things happened except to a tens of thousands of years precision.

        What type of records do you mean? And of course if ancient records don’t allow us to tell how fast something happened, how do you know the ice melted fast?

        1. Radioactive dating and the like, says that something happend fast in geologic terms, which of course far exceed human lifetimes. Within the time frame something could have happened in an instant or the time frame, and the geologic record could not distinguish it. The record does not have that detailed a time resolution.

          1. morganovich

            lyle-

            the vostok and gisp ice cores do.

            they are resolved at the decadal level. first pass on them was millennial and it was that pass that led many to (erroneously) posit that co2 drove warming. when they did the detailed work, they found that in every intergalcial of this ice age, temperatures rose 1200-1500 years before co2.

            there is some reasonable skepticism about some of the actual co2 levels shown in the ice cores due to the effects of pressure on the air bubbles from which gas is extracted and co2 shifting into temporary liquid state water due to ice movement etc, but the trends in levels would not be affected by that.

            what “radioactive dating” are you talking about?

            if you mean oxygen isotopes etc, then sure, there is a ton of evidence. pretty much all of it shows that the earth was considerably warmer in the medieval period than it is now.

            only the bad aggregation techniques of guys like man and the use of highly questionable proxies like tree rings (which grow more due to co2) and particularly bristlecone pine rings which rarle agree with any other proxy near them as they live so close to the edge of habitability that small changes i co2 drive most of their growth and they have repeatedly failed to line up with nearby thermometer records.

            http://co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php

            this site has hundreds of cites of published research using proxies to look at the MWP.

        2. As we know from more recent temperature changes, atmospheric CO2 levels don’t precede temperature increases, but follow them.

          The AGW crowd conveniently ignores the evidence as usual and only hints at it by saying that the relationship is ‘complicated.’

    2. A reasonable person can believe that we should try to balance the potential downsides of enhanced AGW

      There are a couple things wrong with this statement. No one calling themselves an “environmentalist” or screaming about global warming is interested in balancing anything. Time and again, these people have shown themselves to be misanthropes. They’re called watermellons for a reason.

      The second is the “A” in “AGW”. This is merely an assumption with zero evidence showing that human activity has anything to do with anything in the climate. The use of “GW” despite zero increases in global temperatures the last 15 years (and wild exaggerations before this) is also a misnomer. Did you not get the memo? It’s now “climate change”.

      personal risks due to warming

      Since warming would increase crop yields, make more of the earth’s surface inhabitable, and FAR more people die due to cold weather than warm, this is a dubious statement at best.

    3. Vangel

      In those times, life on earth had tens of thousands of years to evolve to the slowly warming climate, and many species went extinct in the process. But we have no record of global changes of up to 6 degrees C in 100 years, and no idea what will happen.

      Are you seriously expecting an increase of 6 C between 1980 and 2080? There hasn’t been any statistically significant warming for more than 15 years, the data shows no warming in the upper 700 m of the oceans since we came up with a way to measure heat content changes, and even the warmers are now talking about another decade or two of cooling even as CO2 emissions remain near record levels.

      From where I stand it looks as if the AGW argument has been totally discredited. As for the IPCC, it is hardly a scientific body that can present evidence in an impartial manner. It is made up of people appointed by governments to justify taxing carbon use and is mainly made up of activists who have a narrative to sell. It also stopped making predictions quite some time ago and now only talks of projections if the assumptions of warming are correct. It has no credibility and deserves contempt and ridicule, not respect.

      1. morganovich

        further, most of the plants and animals currently inhabiting earth evolved and thrived during much warmer times than these.

        it’s very cold right now for our most recent deglaciation.

        the medieval period was warmer, the roman warmer still, the minoan yet warmer, and the 3000 year holocence climate optimum was 2-3C warmer than today.

        that was only a few thousand years ago.

        today’s biosphere has not evolved much since then and would have no trouble dealing with those temperatures.

        what would kill us in droves is a drop back into glaciation.

        if ice spreads down from the artic to the carolinas again, humans are in deep trouble.

        warmer is easy to adapt to.

        but losing 80% of all arable land? nope. we will die in the billions from that.

        hell, just a return to the temperatures of 1400-1850, the little ice age, which was the coldest period in 9000 years, would kill off humans in numbers never before seen.

        go back and look at what harvests were like, how short growing seasons were, what happened in “years without summers” etc.

        if crop yields dropped by 25-30%, there would be mass famine.

    4. Mr. Econotarian

      In those times, life on earth had tens of thousands of years to evolve to the slowly warming climate, and many species went extinct in the process. But we have no record of global changes of up to 6 degrees C in 100 years, and no idea what will happen.

      First of all, no one – and I mean no one – is still hysterically projecting a 6 deg C rise in temperature in 100 years.

      In fact this chart from http://www.drroyspencer.com shows that actual temperatures in the last 15 years are now outside the error margins of 44 recent climate models. So much for predictions.

    5. juandos

      What scares me the most is the potential for mild CO2 induced AGW to set off massive methane releases from permafrost and oceanic methane hydrates that could lead to much higher warming“…

      A bit of the ole ‘chicken little‘ syndrome at play there, eh?

      AGW? Can it be credibly calculated that such a thing exists?

      BTW what about water vapor?

    6. What scares me the most is the potential for mild CO2 induced AGW to set off massive methane releases from permafrost and oceanic methane hydrates that could lead to much higher warming.

      Are you also scared by the same GW that isn’t A in origin?

  5. Benjamin Cole

    Greenhouses have used elevated CO2 for decades to increase production.

    That said, there is one alarming aspect of global warming: What you believe depends on your politics.

    If you are conservative, you believe the earth is not warming, or if it is, it is natural.

    If you are a liberal, you think man is causing global temps to rise.

    One thing is certain: Oceans can, and have, risen by dozens and dozens of meters in recent times.

    Only 10,000-15,000 years ago man crossed over the Bering Strait into North America, Ocean levels were about 130 meters lower than today.

    So, obviously oceans could rise a few more meters in the near future, the next hundred years. It might be natural, or man-caused. I do not know.

    But you might want to be careful about beach front property. Whatever your politics.

    1. morganovich

      dozens and dozens of meters of ocean rise?

      just what are you calling “recent”?

      in the last 70 years, sea level has risen by 20 millimeters.

      this rate of rise is indistinguishable from the rise in the previous several thousand years.

      the slope has been VERY consistent since long before man could have been doing anyhting.

      at 28mm a century, it would take 3500 years for a rise of even one meter.

      ocean levels were once much lower, but that was because there was thick, glacial ice down to virginia.

      the rapid rise of the beginning of the holocene deglaciation was dramatic, but it’s been tepid for 1000′s of years and has not accelerated even in this century compared to last one.

      http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Sea_Level.png

      in the last 4000 years, the rise has not even been one meter and shows no signs of accelerating.

      notions of “a couple meters in the next 100 years” are simply impossible.

      current rates will give us a rise of maybe 3 centimeters int he next 100 years. to get to even one meter, the rate of rise would need to go up by 30X.

      that is simply not possible.

      even during the peak periods of the meltwater pulse 14k years ago, a rise of 1 meter per century did not occur.

      this has nothing to do with politics. this is just science.

      a couple meters in 100 years is absolutely impossible.

  6. PeakTrader

    Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
    2/13/2013

    “Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

    1. Changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

    2. Consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life.

    3. They underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life.

    4. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.””

    1. PeakTrader

      My comment: With Peak Oil and the inevitable shift into alternative energy. We should let nature take its course.

  7. Zachriel

    Harrison Schmitt: Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.

    That is contrary to the scientific evidence. Increased temperatures will lead to disruption of human society. People will adapt, but it will be costly, and part of humanity’s natural inheritance will be lost.

    Vangel: First of all, the Slushball Earth should not have been possible when CO2 levels were ten times current levels if the AGW theories are correct.

    Sure, climatologists who discovered that the Earth was once largely covered by ice, and who determined that CO2 levels were once much higher, just happen not to notice when discussing current climate conditions. That’s just not a defensible position.

    There are a number of factors involved, including orbital variations, and positive feedbacks due to albedo. Most scientists agree that volcanic emissions of CO2 (and reduced geological weathering due to the ice) eventually raised the greenhouse effect sufficiently to melt the ice.

    Ken: No one calling themselves an “environmentalist” or screaming about global warming is interested in balancing anything.

    The vast majority of those concerned about global warming are very interested in finding the proper balance that allows continued development while reducing the risks.

    Ken: The second is the “A” in “AGW”. This is merely an assumption with zero evidence showing that human activity has anything to do with anything in the climate.

    That is incorrect. There is a great deal of supporting evidence, and very little contrary evidence, as even a cursory review of the literature would reveal.

    Vangel: the data shows no warming in the upper 700 m of the oceans since we came up with a way to measure heat content changes

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png

    PeakTrader: Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
    2/13/2013

    Not a “majority of scientists”, but a group of scientists and engineers working in or with the petroleum industry.

    1. z: That is contrary to the scientific evidence. Increased temperatures will lead to disruption of human society. People will adapt, but it will be costly, and part of humanity’s natural inheritance will be lost.

      Really? The evidence shows that the recent warming period was accompanied by a huge increase in agricultural productivity. It shows an increase in biomass around the planet as plants benefitted from both the increase in temperatures and the higher CO2 content. (Greenhouses increase the CO2 content for a reason.)

      z: Sure, climatologists who discovered that the Earth was once largely covered by ice, and who determined that CO2 levels were once much higher, just happen not to notice when discussing current climate conditions. That’s just not a defensible position.

      There are a number of factors involved, including orbital variations, and positive feedbacks due to albedo. Most scientists agree that volcanic emissions of CO2 (and reduced geological weathering due to the ice) eventually raised the greenhouse effect sufficiently to melt the ice.

      As I pointed out, there is a perfectly good theory that predicts and explains the episodes. But note that the theory also predicted glaciation during a period that was supposedly very warm. Not very long ago geologists believed that the Mesozoic Era was warm. When Nir Shaviv predicted a slushball period the evidence was against him. But once scientists looked deeper ice-raft data provided evidence of glaciation during the Cretaceous. The evidence was published in the early 2000s and the data fit the theory perfectly. This data makes life tough for the CO2 alarmists because CO2 content was very high at the time and low-latitude glaciation should have been impossible.

      Note that Shaviv did not try to make up a narrative after the fact and depend on convenient plug factors like volcanic activity that can be tuned to support any conclusion that we want. He relied on his isotope data and made predictions based on what that data suggested. Here is the general overview. The links to the scientific papers can be found near the end of the piece.

      z: The vast majority of those concerned about global warming are very interested in finding the proper balance that allows continued development while reducing the risks.

      Kyoto would have cost trillions but would not have made a noticeable difference to temperature trends. How is that ‘balanced?’

  8. z: That is incorrect. There is a great deal of supporting evidence, and very little contrary evidence, as even a cursory review of the literature would reveal.

    Actually, you are wrong. Even Phil Jones admitted that the alarmists were sure that CO2 was a cause because their models could not determine another cause. But we all know that the models are terrible and cannot make any predictions. And that the models ignored changes in cloud content and cloud albedo, cycles in ocean current activity, and changes in solar activity. This is not surprising because the IPCC was more interested in establishing a human link than in finding out the truth.

    z: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png

    Where is the pre-2003 data coming from? Note that we only have been able to sample temperatures and salinity sufficiently since the ARGO system went on-line. I suggest that you take a look at the NOAA change notices. It looks as if the NOAA is now admitting that since 2003, when the ARGO floats went on-line and began to transmit the most accurate data that we have ever had the buildup in heat content stopped.

    Bob Tisdale provides a great overview that sheds light on the problem that the AGW crowd continues to have.

    And note the difference between the AGW models and the post-ARGO reality?

  9. Zachriel

    Vangel: The evidence shows that the recent warming period was accompanied by a huge increase in agricultural productivity.

    The recent warming was also accompanied by modern scientific agricultural practices.

    Vangel: This data makes life tough for the CO2 alarmists because CO2 content was very high at the time and low-latitude glaciation should have been impossible.

    As pointed out above, climate is influenced by many different factors, not just greenhouse gases.

    Zachriel: There is a great deal of supporting evidence, and very little contrary evidence, as even a cursory review of the literature would reveal.

    Vangel: Actually, you are wrong. Even Phil Jones admitted that the alarmists were sure that CO2 was a cause because their models could not determine another cause.

    The physics of greenhouse warming were worked out over a century ago. It’s not based on simple correlations or gaps in scientific knowledge.

    1. morganovich

      “The physics of greenhouse warming were worked out over a century ago. It’s not based on simple correlations or gaps in scientific knowledge.”

      this is completely and utter nonsense.

      the insulating effects of a doubling of co2 in a vacuum with all other inputs held constant might be known.

      that is about 0.6 degrees.

      but to call that “the physics of greenhouse warming” is like calling middle c on a piccolo a symphony.

      the reason all the models have totally failed is that this relationships were NOT understood. in fact, they were mostly just making things up.

      you do realize that CO2 is not a big part of the greenhouse effect, right?

      water vapor is 70%+.

      and, contrary to the models, it turn out water vapor and precipitation systems provide NEGATIVE not positive feedback.

      guys like linden at MIT have been saying this for decades.

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/04/new-data-falsifies-basis-of-man-made.html

      that NASA data has made it very clear.

      if you think global climate and the role of insulating gasses and their interrelationships is well understood even now much less worked out a century ago, then you know very little about climate science.

      if this was all so well worked out, then why did the signle biggest source of warming in all the global models the IPCC, giss, uea, etc used HAVE THE WRONG SIGN?

      why did allt he models fail in just a decade to the point where they are outside 95% intervals and where co2 is higher than worst case inputs and temperature is lower than best case outputs if co2 had been modeled to drop?

      sorry, but this whole “the science is settled” thing has been a whopping lie since day one.

      this science is anything but settled and extremely primitive.

      the AGW hypothesis has been disproven over and over. the models have failed. the feedback assumptions were all wrong. the predicted tropospheric hotspot has not appeared.

      result after result has been shown to be from bad data handling and outright fraud.

      this thesis has been falsified at every turn by the data.

      there is not a shred of credible evidence left that recent warming was predominantly driven by anyhting man did.

    2. Z: “As pointed out above, climate is influenced by many different factors, not just greenhouse gases.

      Absolutely – and the question is to what extent those other factors affect temperature and climate. More and more indications point to those other factors being the primary drivers, not CO2.

      Z: “The physics of greenhouse warming were worked out over a century ago. It’s not based on simple correlations or gaps in scientific knowledge.

      And you repeatedly assert this fact, although no one is disputing it. The physics of CO2 warming are well known and not in question.

      The question is how much this trace gas, now at or near saturation levels with respect to IR absorption, has on global temperatures compared to other important natural influences. Then the question is how much of that trivial effect is anthropogenic, and therefore possibly within the ability of humans to change, even assuming change is desirable.

      You apparently either have a position you wish to defend for some reason, or you are ignoring more and more evidence that the catastrophe predicted from AGW just isn’t possible.

      As I’m sure you’re aware, the models have failed.

      You appear to be one of the ever-shrinking number of passengers who insist on remaining on a sinking ship.

  10. Zachriel

    morganovich: you do realize that CO2 is not a big part of the greenhouse effect, right?

    As that is part of the physics worked out a century ago to which we had referred, yes, we are aware.

    Vangel had claimed that climate science was based on a negative argument. That was incorrect.

    morganovich: that NASA data has made it very clear.

    NASA: Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

    1. Z: “As that is part of the physics worked out a century ago to which we had referred, yes, we are aware.”

      The problem for you is the data. It shows that CO2 levels lag changes in temperature trends by centuries, not that changes in CO2 levels are the driver of temperature trend changes.

      Z: “Vangel had claimed that climate science was based on a negative argument. That was incorrect.”

      I claim that the AGW argument is bogus and not supported by the science. That claim is correct.

    2. morganovich

      zach-

      actually, he’s right. the climate models looked at their guesses for inputs, then took the amount the could not explain and attributed it to co2 and co2 driven feedbacks.

      the agw models ARE based on negative argument.

      “that which our model does not predict must be man”.

      i actually have spoken personally to a number of these modellers and have this straight from the horse’s mouth.

      it’s a horrendously hubristic approach as it presupposed the model is otherwise complete and accurate.

      this is why all the models failed.

      what a doubling of co2 in the atmosphere does to actual climate on earth (as opposed to a ceteris paribus closed system in a lab) is far from certain and barely known.

      the basis of most models currently being used has been overturned.

      so, this gets a little semantic.

      not ALL climate science is based on negative inference, but the models used to support the agw theory are.

      you are missing the point on water vapor. we all know it is a major part of the greenhouse effect.

      but the big jumps in the agw models temperatires camde from assuming that water vapor levels ROSE when temperatures rose.

      the opposite is true.

      more heat means more storm systems which drop humidity and create convective cooling.

      lindzen at mit has been speaking of this “adaptive heat iris” for decades.

      there is not a shred of evidence that warming drives humidity on a global scale on any but the shortest (hourly) timeframes.

      the piece you cite is over 4 years old and has been completely disproven.

      that was just assumption.

      further, the key prediction of AGW, a tropospheric hotspot, is absent.

      http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/#more-21688

      the way you test a theory is to make predictions and then compare them to results.

      agw has failed every single time this has happened.

      it’s easy to use plug variables and statistical legerdemain to make models look like they hindcast any competent financial analyst has seen this 100 times.

      but if you take the climate models and use their inception date as the real “start” they have failed so badly it’s stunning.

      when your key input exceeds your worst case scenarios and your output is below the best case (which assumed a drop in co2), sorry, but your model is worthless.

      1. morganovich

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/

        this was leaked from the forthcoming ipcc ar5.

        look at the predict5ions of each model in turn from their inception dates.

        i don’t think any of them even made it 5 years before falling out of the 95% confidence interval on the downside, and that is using a terrestrial climate network that does not adjust for the rise in temps driven by urban heat island.

        that notion that this science is anything like good enough to be basing world energy policy is just absurd.

        if a doctor had killed his last 4 patients doing what he recommends for you (and has never had one get better) you really going to have the surgery?

  11. Zachriel

    Vangel: The problem for you is the data. It shows that CO2 levels lag changes in temperature trends by centuries, not that changes in CO2 levels are the driver of temperature trend changes.

    Those crazy climate scientists. What will they come up with next? In any case, in a complex system, such as climate, something can act as both cause and effect. For instance, a change in orbit can cause the Earth to warm. This causes the oceans to release CO2. This then causes additional warming. This causes the ice caps to melt, which causes additional warming. Which cause the oceans to release more CO2. And so on.

    Vangel: I claim that the AGW argument is bogus and not supported by the science.

    We’ll take that as a retraction of your previous statement.

    1. Those crazy climate scientists. What will they come up with next? In any case, in a complex system, such as climate, something can act as both cause and effect. For instance, a change in orbit can cause the Earth to warm. This causes the oceans to release CO2. This then causes additional warming. This causes the ice caps to melt, which causes additional warming. Which cause the oceans to release more CO2. And so on.

      Sorry but there is no way to claim that the cause can somehow take place 800 years after the effect. And orbital changes do not explain most of the cycles that we have observed. They certainly do not explain the faint sun paradox.

      As Ron pointed out, we know the effects of CO2 and know what part of the absorption band is affected. We also know that most of the effect comes in the first 100 ppm in the atmosphere and that the effects of additional CO2 are not material because the effect is logarithmic. And as he also pointed out, we know that the models are have failed. That leaves you with hand waving and narrative. Which is why the public has finally seen the light and is moving away from the alarmist position.

      1. morganovich

        v-

        it think he is trying to make the argument that even if early rises in co2 are a result of warming, that those higher concentrations can be a cause for future warming.

        this is likely true. however, this does not mean the effects are large and or that they can run away.

        the positive feedbacks posited by the agw crowd are impossibilities.

        positive feedback pretty much does not exist in nature (except maybe within stars).

        climate on earth has been VERY stable despite co2 levels 25 times todays.

        it is possible that more co2 from oceans does raise temps some, but that rise also tends to drive less water vapor and more energy and heat vented through precipitation systems.

        thus, the net effect is VERY small.

        a doubling of co2 from today’s levels would likely not even be enough to take us back to medieval temperatures, much less roman ones.

        and the peaks from this intergalcial never reached those of the one before.

        this whole argument that anyhting unusual is happening is baseless. if there is anyhting unusual in the last 9000 years, it’s how could it was from 1400-1850. it was the little ice age that was the abberation.

        today’s climate is still quite cold even for the holocenne interglacial or even for the period since the year 0.

        the romans would think it was freezing.

        regarding the faint sun paradox, i think you may be relegating continental shape and position to too minor a role.

        the closure of the isthmus of panama is what set off the current ice age.

        combined with the shape of continents, this causes polar water to flow down and convect instead of allowing intermingling at the equatorial latitudes.

        that drops the temperature of the planet a great deal, as does a polar continent.

        1. it think he is trying to make the argument that even if early rises in co2 are a result of warming, that those higher concentrations can be a cause for future warming.

          I know the argument. The problem is that the lag is around 800 years and the ice core data always has the CO2 concentration lagging the trend change. The simple explanation has to do with solubility of CO2 in water. As the oceans warm up they give off CO2 and as they cool they remove CO2 from the atmosphere. There is no way to look at the data and conclude that CO2 has anything but a very minor role. Yet, the AGW alarmists argue that it is the MOST important factor because that is the only way you get support for carbon taxes on a global scale.

          positive feedback pretty much does not exist in nature (except maybe within stars).

          That is the other big problem with their arguments. We have had periods where CO2 was ten times the current levels without having the type of runaway effect that these morons are calling for. When someone is talking about a 6C increase by 2100 or is calling for a 10 meter increase in sea levels s/he has no credibility left.

          regarding the faint sun paradox, i think you may be relegating continental shape and position to too minor a role.

          I am not. I simply point out that when you look at the evidence we see glaciation align with the periods where the planet goes through the galactic arms. We know the mechanism that can regulate cloud formation in the lower atmosphere and see it explain episodes like the Iceball Earth as well as the cooling during the Maunder Minimum, or the warming during the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warming, Minoan Warming, etc. The cycles are linked to solar activity. We cannot ignore that any longer.

    2. In any case, in a complex system, such as climate, something can act as both cause and effect. For instance, a change in orbit can cause the Earth to warm. This causes the oceans to release CO2. This then causes additional warming. This causes the ice caps to melt, which causes additional warming. Which cause the oceans to release more CO2. And so on.

      For instance, a change in orbit can cause the Earth to warm fall into the Sun.

      You haven’t acknowledged to role of water vapor in that scenario, nor the saturation level of atmospheric CO2. Like most models, yours is incomplete.

      It sounds like you have abandoned your claim that increased atmospheric CO2 levels are primarily anthropogenic. Is that correct?

      In any case, your positive feedback scenario doesn’t include anything over which humans have any control. Is the recent small amount of warming natural then?

  12. Zachriel

    Ron H: Absolutely – and the question is to what extent those other factors affect temperature and climate. More and more indications point to those other factors being the primary drivers, not CO2.

    Odd that the scientists who are most expert concerning those factors disagree.

    Ron H: The question is how much this trace gas, now at or near saturation levels with respect to IR absorption, has on global temperatures compared to other important natural influences.

    The direct effects of CO2 are not in serious question; they are based on straightforward physics. A doubling of CO2 will lead to an increase of about 1°C. The question is climate sensitivity.

    There are a number of empirical tests of climate sensitivity, with results ranging from 2-5°C per doubling of CO2.

    1. Odd that the scientists who are most expert concerning those factors disagree.

      There is no more support for this false claim as there is for your other false claims. Even the alarmists have began to point to changes in albedo and ocean currents to explain why their lousy models have failed to make accurate predictions.

      1. morganovich

        zach-

        oh, you mean the guys that created these models?

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png

        note that these models came out in the late 90′s and early 2000′s at the earliest, so the apparent correlation prior to that is hidcasting, not forecasting.

        you are also making the very bad assumption that the top guys in this field believe in agw.

        they do not. they never have.

        lindzen, spencer, cristie, soon, etc etc were never on board.

        it’s just that they guys who did jump on board got piles and piles of money and exposure. pretty much NONE of the ipcc scientists were considered important in the field pre ipcc. the uea guys are proven liars. (climategate)

        so is hansen at nasa who is a wild zealot to boot.

        mann of hockey stick fame has been so comprehensively debunked as a fraud that’s it’s impossible to overstate.

        just who are all these “experts”?

        if you look at climate science in the mid 90′s before the flood of carbon money began, pretty much none of the top guys bought into agw and they still do not.

        its’ a bunch of sensationalist “media scientists” pushing bad math, worse process, horrendous data and data handling, and suckling at the huge amounts of funding that comes only if you determine your conclusions first and find data to fit.

        if you get your info from mass media, it would be easy to see why you might believe that the top guys all agree, but i actually did a long project on this and have personally spoken to dozens and dozens of the top guys in the field. they sing a very different song than the media.

        like you, i went in expecting to find good science and strong data. what i found was stuff that would not get you into a highschool science fair and math and models that are monstrously complex, utterly speculative, and have failed in every prediction.

        the “consensus” that agw is real has never existed. the very fact that anyone tried to argue science based on consensus is a sign theat the facts are not on their side.

        science is not about consensus. it’s about what you can prove.

        the proof that agw is real is non existent. the proof that the theory is wrong is substantial and growing.

    2. Z: “Odd that the scientists who are most expert concerning those factors disagree.

      You are not paying attention.

      Z: “The direct effects of CO2 are not in serious question; they are based on straightforward physics.

      That’s what we said.

      A doubling of CO2 will lead to an increase of about 1°C. The question is climate sensitivity.

      A doubling from what level? Remember the log function.

      Z: “There are a number of empirical tests models of climate sensitivity, with results ranging from 2-5°C per doubling of CO2.

      There. FIFY

  13. Zachriel

    Vangel: Sorry but there is no way to claim that the cause can somehow take place 800 years after the effect.

    The initial perturbation is something other than CO2. The CO2 acts to amplify the original signal over time.

    Vangel: They certainly do not explain the faint sun paradox.

    Not sure why it would. The apparent paradox is paradoxically explained by greenhouse gases.

    Ueno et al., Geological sulfur isotopes indicate elevated OCS in the Archean atmosphere, solving faint young sun paradox, PNAS 2009.

    Vangel: We also know that most of the effect comes in the first 100 ppm in the atmosphere and that the effects of additional CO2 are not material because the effect is logarithmic.

    Add logarithms to things you don’t understand. Given a logarithmic relationship, each doubling will provide an equivalent effect.

    1. The initial perturbation is something other than CO2.

      If other factors are driving temperature change you don’t need CO2 to explain the trends.

      The CO2 acts to amplify the original signal over time.

      How do you know this? There is no direct evidence of it and the models that are used to support this view cannot predict anything.

      Not sure why it would. The apparent paradox is paradoxically explained by greenhouse gases.

      Actually, it isn’t. We had glaciation during a period in which CO2 levels were many times higher the current concentration. According to the models you keep citing that would not be possible.

    2. Add logarithms to things you don’t understand. Given a logarithmic relationship, each doubling will provide an equivalent effect.

      As usual, you are the one who is mixed up.

      Add logarithms to things you don’t understand. Given a logarithmic relationship, each doubling will provide an equivalent effect.

      http://tinyurl.com/bubr664

      http://tinyurl.com/cc5b47c

    3. Z: “The initial perturbation is something other than CO2. The CO2 acts to amplify the original signal over time.

      A miracle occurs periodically, causing global temperatures to rise which causes warmer oceans to outgas CO2, which amplified the effect of the rising temperature, until another, opposite miracle occurred which caused global temperatures to fall, even while atmospheric levels of that temperature amplifying CO2 continued to rise for hundreds of years longer.

      Is that about right?

  14. Zachriel

    Vangel: Even the alarmists have began to point to changes in albedo and ocean currents to explain why their lousy models have failed to make accurate predictions.

    Huh? Of course albedo is important. How else would you calculate Earth’s gray-body temperature?

  15. Huh? Of course albedo is important. How else would you calculate Earth’s gray-body temperature?

    Funny how clouds were ignored before the models broke down so badly that they fools had to start paying attention.

  16. PeakTrader

    Zachriel says: “Not a “majority of scientists”, but a group of scientists and engineers working in or with the petroleum industry.”

    It seems, you don’t believe it was poor science for 36 percent of scientists to believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

    What percent of global warming is caused by humans?

    1. Scientists have their own bias too. Many who believe have never done any research in the field. As such their belief is not very different than yours. We need to move away from belief and look to the data.

      1. PeakTrader

        The farther back you go, the less accurate the data. So, how can you compare the data?

        We don’t know how much dinosaurs had to do with the melting of the ice caps.

  17. Zachriel

    morganovich: the climate models looked at their guesses for inputs, then took the amount the could not explain and attributed it to co2 and co2 driven feedbacks.

    The simplest model would be Arrhenius 1896. He doesn’t assume, but calculates the basic feedback due to water vapor. More modern models use empirical estimates of climate sensitivity.

    morganovich: i actually have spoken personally to a number of these modellers and have this straight from the horse’s mouth.

    A citation would be appropriate—just in case you misunderstood something.

    morganovich: further, the key prediction of AGW, a tropospheric hotspot, is absent.

    The tropical tropospheric hotspot is predicted from the moist adiabatic lapse rate. It should occur regardless of the source of warming. The data is consistent with the what is expected, but the data is sparse.

    morganovich: positive feedback pretty much does not exist in nature (except maybe within stars).

    Of course there are positive feedbacks in nature, for example, a hurricane forms due to positive feedback.

    morganovich: climate on earth has been VERY stable despite co2 levels 25 times todays.

    Only if you consider going from the globe being nearly all frozen to no ice caps to be “stable”.

    Ron H: It sounds like you have abandoned your claim that increased atmospheric CO2 levels are primarily anthropogenic.

    Not over the geological history of Earth.

    Vangel: Actually, it isn’t. We had glaciation during a period in which CO2 levels were many times higher the current concentration. According to the models you keep citing that would not be possible.

    That is not correct, as we have explained many times.

    Vangel: As usual, you are the one who is mixed up.

    Are you arguing that “Given a logarithmic relationship, each doubling will provide an equivalent effect” is incorrect?

    1. Z: “Are you arguing that “Given a logarithmic relationship, each doubling will provide an equivalent effect” is incorrect?

      He is arguing that ““Given a logarithmic relationship, each doubling will absorb 1/2 of the remaining IR radiation from the Earth.” That doesn’t mean each doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause an equivalent increase in global temperature.

      At some point that additional absorption becomes so small an increase as to be meaningless. How close to saturation is the current level of atmospheric CO2?

  18. Zachriel

    Ron H: There. FIFY

    Here’s a review paper of various empirical measures of climate sensitivity: Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.

  19. Nicolas

    I fear I will have to mow my lawn more often.

  20. Zachriel

    Vangel: There is no way to look at the data and conclude that CO2 has anything but a very minor role.

    Sorry, but that doesn’t follow. While CO2 may not always be a trigger, it can serve to amplify climate shifts, which can be very significant. And volcanic emissions have probably changed the climate many times in the past, such as the Permian Mass Extinction.

    In any case, current increases in atmospheric CO2 are anthropogenic as the oceans are absorbing net CO2, not emitting it.

    Vangel: We have had periods where CO2 was ten times the current levels without having the type of runaway effect that these morons are calling for.

    Because CO2 is not the only factor in climate.

    1. Z: “Because CO2 is not the only factor in climate.

      If CO2 isn’t the only factor, or even the most important factor,

      – and if its effect is easily swamped by other factors so that global temperature over long time periods doesn’t even correlate with atmospheric CO2 levels,

      – and if, as it seems, a more powerful GHG – H2O – provides a negative feedback to temperature increases rather than the positive feedback assumed by climate models,

      – and if CO2 is likely at saturation levels with respect to IR absorption,

      – then WTF is all the alarm about, and why is AGW even a topic of discussion anymore?

    2. Sorry, but that doesn’t follow. While CO2 may not always be a trigger, it can serve to amplify climate shifts, which can be very significant. And volcanic emissions have probably changed the climate many times in the past, such as the Permian Mass Extinction.

      There is no evidence of amplification. As the data shows the CO2 levels lag the temperature changes and are simply explained by CO2′s solubility in ocean water. As Phil Jones pointed out, there was no difference in the rate of warming during previous episodes over the past two centuries and the warming episode that ended in the late 1990s. Since human emissions of CO2 could not be blamed for the magnitudes of those trends and since CO2 follows temperature changes there is no way to support your narrative with real data. (Which is why you guys always rely on stories about a distant past during which you have insufficient resolution to disprove your story.)

  21. Zachriel

    Ron H: At some point that additional absorption becomes so small an increase as to be meaningless. How close to saturation is the current level of atmospheric CO2?

    Doubling CO2, all else equal, will result in an increase of about 1°C.

    Ron H: – and if its effect is easily swamped by other factors so that global temperature over long time periods doesn’t even correlate with atmospheric CO2 levels,

    Greenhouse gases are important for explaining past climate change.

    Ron H: and if, as it seems, a more powerful GHG – H2O – provides a negative feedback to temperature increases rather than the positive feedback assumed by climate models,

    Overall feedback is positive. A simple method would be to determine climate sensitivity from natural experiments which will account for short term feedbacks, such as observations of volcanic forcings. Based on a number of measures, the likely range of climate sensitivity is 2-5°C per doubling of CO2.

    Ron H: – and if CO2 is likely at saturation levels with respect to IR absorption,

    Doubling CO2, all else equal, will result in an increase of about 1°C.

    1. Zachriel

      If water vapor were a negative feedback, then it would show in measures of climate sensitivity. It doesn’t.

      1. Z: “If water vapor were a negative feedback, then it would show in measures of climate sensitivity. It doesn’t.

        You are ignoring the current literature on the subject.

    2. juandos

      Doubling CO2, all else equal, will result in an increase of about 1°C“…

      Watt’s Up With That?

    3. Z: “Doubling CO2, all else equal, will result in an increase of about 1°C.

      You evaded our point. Did you not understand it? repeated doubling of atmospheric CO2 requires ever larger amounts, which at some point just aren’t available from burning fossil fuel. At some point, an observer in space would notice that the Earth had gone dark at certain wavelengths of IR. Adding CO2 beyond that amount would not make Earth appear darker by any meaningful measurement.

      That means all the possible greenhouse effect from CO2 had already occurred. What is that atmospheric concentration?

      After you’ve put the tenth blanket on your bed, adding 10 more won’t make you feel warmer.

      Volcanoes emit vast quantities of CO2 as well as ash, smoke, and other aerosols in various amounts. Ancient volcanoes can be made to tell whatever story you wish to tell.

      Notice that recent eruptions have caused cooling rather than warming.

      It’s really a stretch to compare massive eruptions that occurred 250mya over many thousands of years to the nearly undetectable effect of burning fossil fuels today.

      Z: “Greenhouse gases are important for explaining past climate change.

      Yes. What role did anthropogenic CO2 play in past climate?

      Overall feedback is positive. A simple method would be to determine climate sensitivity from natural experiments which will account for short term feedbacks, such as observations of volcanic forcings.

      If it were that simple there would no longer be anyone trying to determine sensitivity. Are you admitting that there is a lot not understood about Earth’s climate?

      Overall feedback can’t be positive given all the factors involved in Earth’s climate, or the relatively narrow range of estimated global temperatures that have existed over several billion years wouldn’t have been possible.

      Based on a number of measures, the likely range of climate sensitivity is 2-5°C per doubling of CO2.

      Based on a number of measures, the likely range is much lower.

  22. Zachriel

    Ron H: You are ignoring the current literature on the subject.

    You aren’t being very specific.

    juandos: Watt’s Up With That?

    http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html

    Ron H: You evaded our point. Did you not understand it?

    We understood it just fine. You said, “and if CO2 is likely at saturation levels with respect to IR absorption”. But CO2 is not at saturation levels. Doubling CO2 at current levels, all else equal, will result in an increase of about 1°C.

    Ron H: Volcanoes emit vast quantities of CO2 as well as ash, smoke, and other aerosols in various amounts.

    Handwaving. Valid conclusions can be reached in archaeoclimatology, including the effects of volcanism which often leave clear evidence of their effects, such as basalt flooding.

    Ron H: Notice that recent eruptions have caused cooling rather than warming.

    Of course. As climatologists have determined, volcanoes have a large short term cooling effect from aerosols, and a small long term warming effect from CO2.

    Ron H: What role did anthropogenic CO2 play in past climate?

    None before humans.

    Ron H: If it were that simple there would no longer be anyone trying to determine sensitivity.

    If it were that simple, no one would be trying to more accurately measure the gravitational constant.

    Ron H: Are you admitting that there is a lot not understood about Earth’s climate?

    Of course.

    Ron H: Overall feedback can’t be positive given all the factors involved in Earth’s climate, or the relatively narrow range of estimated global temperatures that have existed over several billion years wouldn’t have been possible.

    Indeed, studies of past climate are often used to estimate climate sensitivity. Most such studies place the value between 2-5°C.

    Ron H: Based on a number of measures, the likely range is much lower.

    You aren’t being very specific.

    1. Z: “If it were that simple, no one would be trying to more accurately measure the gravitational constant.

      LOL

      No one is predicting the end of civilization as we know it without a better understanding of the gravitational constant, and humans aren’t being blames for an increase in gravity from burning fossil fuels.

      You’re funny. Pick a better analogy.

    2. juandos
      1. Zachriel

        No, it’s not the “end times”. It’s just a milestone.

        1. juandos

          No, it’s not the “end times”. It’s just a milestone“…

          Hey Al Gore, er I mean zach you’re beginning to give me the impression that you think along the same lines as the leftie loons in Congress…

          H.CON.RES.36 — Recognizing the disparate impact of climate change on women and the efforts of women globally to address climate change. (Introduced in House – IH)

          1. Zachriel

            Sorry, but you’re not making a coherent argument, and don’t seem to be responding to anything we posted.

          2. the solubility of a gas in a liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of the gas above the liquid

            This from the guy who said that there was consensus and provided a link that showed that when asked 60% of scientists disagreed with the AGW premise? Come on. The fraud has been exposed and few are believers any longer. You boys are going to find something else to sell to the public.

          3. juandos

            Sorry, but you’re not making a coherent argument, and don’t seem to be responding to anything we posted“…

            LMAO! Yeah usre zach, keep telling yourself that…

            What’s painfully obvious is that you and those clowns pushing that House bill come from the same place, fraudulent science…

  23. Zachriel

    Vangel: There is no evidence of amplification.

    We’ve pointed to many studies showing climate sensitivity is greater than one. Here’s a few:

    Volcanic forcing
    Wigley et al., Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research 2005.

    Earth Radiation Budget Experiment
    Forster & Gregory, The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data, Journal of Climate 2006.

    Paleoclimatic constraints
    Schmittner et al., Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science 2011.

    Bayesian probability
    Annan & Hargreaves, On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity, Climate Change 2008.

    Review paper
    Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.

    Vangel: As the data shows the CO2 levels lag the temperature changes and are simply explained by CO2′s solubility in ocean water.

    Those crazy climate scientists. What will they come up with next? In any case, in a complex system, such as climate, something can act as both cause and effect. For instance, a change in orbit can cause the Earth to warm. This causes the oceans to release CO2. This then causes additional warming. This causes the ice caps to melt, which causes additional warming. Which cause the oceans to release more CO2. And so on.

    1. We’ve pointed to many studies showing climate sensitivity is greater than one. Here’s a few:

      Volcanic forcing
      Wigley et al., Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research 2005.

      It is an article about math models, not about reality. Try again.

  24. Zachriel

    Vangel: It is an article about math models, not about reality.

    All scientific theories are models.

    In any case, it’s called a natural experiment. It’s a real-time test based on observations of the effects of volcanic activity on climate. It’s like adjusting the parameters and watching the system’s response.

    1. All scientific theories are models.

      In any case, it’s called a natural experiment. It’s a real-time test based on observations of the effects of volcanic activity on climate. It’s like adjusting the parameters and watching the system’s response.

      Really? How do you hold everything else constant when looking at the changes solely due to volcanic activity? And how does this fit in with anything that may have happened in the past when you don’t have much in the way of data that tells you how much volcanic activity took place and what happened over the long and short term?

      Volcanic activity seems to be one of the plug factors that the AGW alarmists can use as they see fit to support a narrative that does not have anything in the way of sound data. No wonder everyone is turning against the AGW fraud and even some of the main players are now looking to abandon ship.

  25. Zachriel

    Ron H: Pick a better analogy.

    It’s not an analogy, but an example. There is strong empirical evidence that climate sensitivity is positive. You had suggested that we can’t know this because scientists are still trying to more closely estimate climate sensitivity. The argument is flawed. We can have confidence that climate sensitivity (or the gravitational constant) is within a certain range, while still attempting to determine a more accurate value.

    Vangel: Really? How do you hold everything else constant when looking at the changes solely due to volcanic activity?

    Um, by setting off a volcano, or by waiting for one to occur naturally. Volcanic aerosols cause a change in solar irradiance. We then measure the difference between the expected change in global temperature, and the actual change in temperature. If feedback is negative, then temperatures will change less than expected. If feedback is positive, then temperatures will change more than expected. It’s called a natural experiment.

    1. There is strong empirical evidence that climate sensitivity is positive.

      Not true. The IPCC relies on models to argue for a positive feedback that is required to support its alarmist predictions and has not cited any credible empirical evidence. In fact, the positive feedback hypothesis fails logically because the Earth’s atmosphere used to have more than ten times the current levels of CO2 without experiencing the runaway effect that positive feedback would predict.

      We can have confidence that climate sensitivity (or the gravitational constant) is within a certain range, while still attempting to determine a more accurate value.

      If by WE you mean the activists that is without meaning. Your confidence is no more important than was the confidence of geologists that the continents did not move not that long ago. What is needed to support your belief and confidence is credible empirical data. And the last time I looked you didn’t have anything.

    2. Um, by setting off a volcano, or by waiting for one to occur naturally. Volcanic aerosols cause a change in solar irradiance.

      We know this. When you put dust in the air less light gets to the ground and temperatures drop. Of course, we also know that when the dust settles at the high latitude areas it reduces the amount of light reflected off the snow and ice and more energy remains to heat up the Arctic or Antarctic. We also know that the effect is temporary. None of this tells us much about what happened hundreds of millions of years ago and why we did not have a runaway effect when the planet’s atmosphere had so much more CO2 or why we experienced glaciation during periods of high CO2 concentration where volcanic activity was normal. Or why it is that we got Iceball Earth conditions whenever the planet moved through the galactic arms. Note that we have a perfectly valid theory that can explain all of this and also explain why we got the Little Ice Age, Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period, and the warming that ended in the late 1990s.

      We then measure the difference between the expected change in global temperature, and the actual change in temperature.

      Expected. Note that the ‘expected’ temperatures that the models predicted have failed to show up.

      If feedback is negative, then temperatures will change less than expected. If feedback is positive, then temperatures will change more than expected. It’s called a natural experiment.

      It is called the pretence of knowledge. Take a very complex system in which there are many cycles and pretend that none of them matter except for what you are looking at and only during that period. Throw out data that does not fit, adjust data that could be made to fit, ignore the confidence intervals and uncertainty and come up with a story to tell people that you hope are dumber than you are. That is the AGW strategy in a nutshell.

  26. Zachriel

    Vangel: The IPCC relies on models to argue for a positive feedback that is required to support its alarmist predictions and has not cited any credible empirical evidence.

    We’ve cited several published studies on climate sensitivity, including a review article. We’d be happy to provide more. It’s a very active field of study.

    Vangel: In fact, the positive feedback hypothesis fails logically because the Earth’s atmosphere used to have more than ten times the current levels of CO2 without experiencing the runaway effect that positive feedback would predict.

    Positive feedback doesn’t necessarily imply a runaway effect. The Earth has experienced vast changes in climate, and climate is thought to have more than a single stable state. In addition, there are multiple factors involved in climate, so it is quite possible to have much higher CO2 levels and a cooler surface, such as when solar irradiance is reduced.

    1. We’ve cited several published studies on climate sensitivity, including a review article. We’d be happy to provide more. It’s a very active field of study.

      You are citing models that make assumptions that cannot be supported by real world data.

      Take a look at this and explain why the models did not predict it. And after you come up with your narrative try to see why it is that the opposite explanation makes just as much (actually more) sense.

    2. Positive feedback doesn’t necessarily imply a runaway effect.

      But that is what it means. Some heating creates the conditions for more heating, which create conditions for further heating.

      Hansen says, “…,once the planet gets warmer and warmer then the oceans begin to evaporate and water vapor is a very strong green house gas, even more powerful than carbon dioxide. So you can get to a situation where, it just, the oceans will begin to boil and the planet becomes, uhh, so hot that the ocean ends up in the atmosphere, …”

      The Earth has experienced vast changes in climate, and climate is thought to have more than a single stable state. In addition, there are multiple factors involved in climate, so it is quite possible to have much higher CO2 levels and a cooler surface, such as when solar irradiance is reduced.

      Yes, there are multiple factors involved. But the AGW alarmists elevate the role of CO2 because they claim that humans are responsible for it even though most of the CO2 comes from natural sources and plants are rapidly absorbing much of the newly released CO2 by increasing their growth rates. What was ignored until recently has been the role of solar activity, which can regulate cloud cover and has a far greater effect on climate than CO2 does.

    3. Z: “The Earth has experienced vast changes in climate, and climate is thought to have more than a single stable state. In addition, there are multiple factors involved in climate, so it is quite possible to have much higher CO2 levels and a cooler surface, such as when solar irradiance is reduced.

      Yes, so in your own words CO2 isn’t the most prominent driver of climate, its effect is overcome by other naturally occurring conditions, and any “stable state” is merely the sum of the all those conditions at any given time.

      In fact, it appears that Earth’s past and present estimated temperatures are more closely correlated to changes in conditions other than atmospheric CO2 levels.

      The fact that Earth’s estimated temperature has remained within a relatively narrow range of 285-295deg. K for billions of years tells you that overall feedbacks must be negative.

      And since the anthropogenic contribution to Earth’s carbon cycle is small, there is no reason to suspect that catastrophe will result from continued burning of fossil fuels, nor is there any reason to believe that political policies designed to reduce CO2 emissions will have any noticeable effect on future temperatures.

  27. Zachriel

    Vangel: None of this tells us much …

    It allows us to estimate climate sensitivity, as we explained.

    Vangel: Note that the ‘expected’ temperatures that the models predicted have failed to show up.

    Expected means what is expected from aerosol cooling, something fairly easy to estimate.

    Vangel: Take a very complex system in which there are many cycles and pretend that none of them matter except for what you are looking at and only during that period.

    Volcanic forcing is an excellent way to estimate climate sensitivity. It’s a natural experiment. Reduce solar irradiance and measure the change in surface temperature.

    1. It allows us to estimate climate sensitivity, as we explained

      Hardly. It just allows the alarmists to make stuff up to support their narrative so that the money can keep flowing from consumers and taxpayers into the pockets of the green industry and governments.

      Expected means what is expected from aerosol cooling, something fairly easy to estimate.

      It looks as if it not very easy at all because the model predictions tend to become worthless about five years out.

      Volcanic forcing is an excellent way to estimate climate sensitivity. It’s a natural experiment. Reduce solar irradiance and measure the change in surface temperature.

      There are many factors at play that are not kept constant. For example, we have seen links to Svensmark’s work that shows that close passages of coronal mass ejections from the sun can lead to clouds that contain far less liquid water,
      and lower levels of aerosols that can evolve into CCNs. The aerasol concentration is not independent of these other factors and as such there is no simple natural experiment that can tell us definitively what is going on. Like I said, all you guys really have is narrative.

  28. Zachriel

    Vangel: You are citing models that make assumptions that cannot be supported by real world data.

    Handwaving is not an argument.

    Vangel: Take a look at this and explain why the models did not predict it.

    It’s not a global average, so it’s hard to tell. It could be due to aerosols, for instance. Is that a readout from a pyrgeometer? Do you have a relevant paper?

  29. Zachriel

    Zachriel: Positive feedback doesn’t necessarily imply a runaway effect.

    Vangel: But that is what it means.

    Um, no. The new equilibrium depends on the relative effects of the various positive and negative feedback mechanisms.

    Vangel: Hansen says …

    Hansen is almost certainly wrong. Most climate scientists believe that the Earth will merely move to a higher energy level.

    Vangel: Yes, there are multiple factors involved.

    Thank you. That means pointing to CO2 levels doesn’t imply any particular temperature or trajectory.

    Vangel: But the AGW alarmists elevate the role of CO2 because they claim that humans are responsible for it even though most of the CO2 comes from natural sources and plants are rapidly absorbing much of the newly released CO2 by increasing their growth rates.

    Regardless of ocean or biotic absorption, humans are causing a net increase in atmospheric CO2.

    Vangel: What was ignored until recently has been the role of solar activity, which can regulate cloud cover and has a far greater effect on climate than CO2 does.

    Virtually all climate models include solar irradiance. As for cosmic rays and links to the heliosphere, they do not properly account for the current warming trend.

    1. Z: “Regardless of ocean or biotic absorption, humans are causing a net increase in atmospheric CO2.

      Yeah, so what?

    2. Um, no. The new equilibrium depends on the relative effects of the various positive and negative feedback mechanisms.

      Which can be made up to suit as required.

      The fact is that feedback is negative. When CO2 levels go up due to degassing the biosphere absorbs the extra CO2 pretty quickly. (The biosphere absorbs far more CO2 than humans emit.) More clouds mean lower temperatures as more energy is reflected out to space before it gets the opportunity to heat the surface.

      Hansen is almost certainly wrong. Most climate scientists believe that the Earth will merely move to a higher energy level.

      Most scientists? How do you know? There hasn’t been an actual clear poll to determine what most scientists believe. And as I pointed out, most scientists believed that the continents were stationary as late as the 1950s. Most scientists thought that ulcers were caused by stress and eating habits. They turned out to be very wrong.

      Thank you. That means pointing to CO2 levels doesn’t imply any particular temperature or trajectory.

      You seem to be confused. The IPCC ignores the many factors and focuses in on human emissions of CO2. (It even ignores the fact that most of the CO2 emissions come from natural sources.) Its models do not account for all of the factors that you admit exist because they want to imply that CO2 is the most important factor of all.

      Regardless of ocean or biotic absorption, humans are causing a net increase in atmospheric CO2.

      They are causing around 5% of total CO2 emissions. When you look at the total effect you notice that our contribution is immaterial. That would make humans only responsible for a 0.025C increase since 1950, hardly a crisis.

      Virtually all climate models include solar irradiance. As for cosmic rays and links to the heliosphere, they do not properly account for the current warming trend.

      None include solar activity and few look at changes in different parts of the spectrum. An aggregate change in solar irradiance is not very telling if the warming is primarily due to changes in a part of the spectrum or if changes in magnetic activity are far more important than other factors that the modellers are looking at.

      As we said, handwaving is not an argument. Scientists all over the world study climate sensitivity. They use many different methodologies and many types of empirical observations.

      Yes we do. And many say that the IPCC’s predictions are too high because it is wrong about sensitivity.

      The actual observations seem to show that the models are wrong.

  30. Zachriel

    Vangel: Hardly.

    As we said, handwaving is not an argument. Scientists all over the world study climate sensitivity. They use many different methodologies and many types of empirical observations.

    Vangel: For example, we have seen links to Svensmark’s work that shows that close passages of coronal mass ejections from the sun can lead to clouds that contain far less liquid water

    So, you explain the sharp cooling associated with the 1982 El Chichón and 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruptions as due to coincidental mass ejections from the sun? Do you have a citation?

    1. So, you explain the sharp cooling associated with the 1982 El Chichón and 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruptions as due to coincidental mass ejections from the sun? Do you have a citation?

      Those eruptions only had a cooling effect for a short period of time. They did not matter to the overall trend because volcanic activities rarely do. Volcanic activity is just a plug in factor to explain away data the falsifies the CO2 as driver narrative.

  31. Zachriel

    Ron H: Yes, so in your own words CO2 isn’t the most prominent driver of climate, its effect is overcome by other naturally occurring conditions, and any “stable state” is merely the sum of the all those conditions at any given time.

    Not overcome, but, as you say, the sum of conditions.

    Ron H: In fact, it appears that Earth’s past and present estimated temperatures are more closely correlated to changes in conditions other than atmospheric CO2 levels.

    Certainly, without the Sun, the Earth would be rather chilly.

    Ron H: The fact that Earth’s estimated temperature has remained within a relatively narrow range of 285-295deg. K for billions of years tells you that overall feedbacks must be negative.

    Not necessarily within those ranges. For instance, it could seesaw or tip between the two extremes, or different points of stability within the range.

    Ron H: And since the anthropogenic contribution to Earth’s carbon cycle is small, …

    It’s not the gross carbon exchange that determines the climate contribution, but the net change in atmospheric greenhouse gases.

  32. Zachriel

    Vangel: Those eruptions only had a cooling effect for a short period of time.

    That’s right. They emitted aerosols which reduced solar irradiance. From the change in temperature, we can estimate climate sensitivity.

    1. That’s right. They emitted aerosols which reduced solar irradiance. From the change in temperature, we can estimate climate sensitivity.

      Actually, you can’t because there are too many variables involved that you cannot hold constant. Not all volcanic activity is the same so you are just guessing about sensitivity. And as many researchers have shown the reduction of light can be offset by the decrease in albedo in snow and ice covered areas.

      It’s pretty clear the biosphere isn’t keeping up. Atmospheric CO2 has increased from 270ppm to 400ppm over the last century or so.

      But the biosphere has absorbed far more CO2 than humans have emitted into the atmosphere. As I pointed out, human emissions are around 5% of total emissions.

      Scientists changed their minds when evidence for plate tectonics was discovered.

      Actually, the evidence was presented quite some time before they changed their mind. As for any claim of consensus about AGW, there isn’t any. Hard scientists have not been asked about the issue clearly. What I found interesting is that when meteorologists were asked about it, they rejected the AGW claims. The whole claim of consensus is not true because the questions on which it is based would be answered in the same way by me as would be answered by Hanson. Yet, I reject the AGW argument while Hansen is one of its strongest supporters.

      Humans are the cause of the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2.

      No they are not. They emit around 5% of the CO2. No amount of cherry picking and data manipulation can change that fact. What I find questionable are the CO2 concentrations in the 19th century. There were many experiments done that measured CO2 and many had the concentrations set much higher than what the IPCC has claimed. The IPCC used a paper that cherry picked the results the author wanted while it ignored the rest. That is hardly scientific. And the data clearly showed temperature declines from 1945 until 1975 even though that was the beginning of man’s explosion in CO2 emissions. There was no correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels during this period just as there hasn’t been for the past decade and a half.

      It has to do with the net. Humans are introducing additional carbon into the atmosphere that had been naturally sequestered for millions of years.

      Who cares when it is only 5% of the total? Plants do not refuse to absorb human emissions while they take in naturally emitted CO2. Once again you are resorting to false narratives that defy the evidence and common sense.

      (If the ocean emits a molecule of CO2, but absorbs a molecule of CO2, there is no net change.)</b.

      But it is not doing that. As the oceans warm up the solubility declines and they will give off CO2. The process will reverse when they cool.

  33. Zachriel

    Vangel: When CO2 levels go up due to degassing the biosphere absorbs the extra CO2 pretty quickly.

    It’s pretty clear the biosphere isn’t keeping up. Atmospheric CO2 has increased from 270ppm to 400ppm over the last century or so.

    Vangel: And as I pointed out, most scientists believed that the continents were stationary as late as the 1950s.

    Scientists changed their minds when evidence for plate tectonics was discovered.

    Vangel: (It even ignores the fact that most of the CO2 emissions come from natural sources.)

    Humans are the cause of the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2.

    Ghosh & Brand, Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research, Journal of Mass Spectrometry 2003.

    Vangel: They are causing around 5% of total CO2 emissions.

    It has to do with the net. Humans are introducing additional carbon into the atmosphere that had been naturally sequestered for millions of years.

    (If the ocean emits a molecule of CO2, but absorbs a molecule of CO2, there is no net change.)

  34. Zachriel

    Vangel: Actually, you can’t because there are too many variables involved that you cannot hold constant.

    The signal from large volcanic eruptions are easily detectable in the climate data. Not holding the many variables constant is exactly the point, of course.

    Vangel: And as many researchers have shown the reduction of light can be offset by the decrease in albedo in snow and ice covered areas.

    That would *reduce* the measured climate sensitivity.

    Vangel: But the biosphere has absorbed far more CO2 than humans have emitted into the atmosphere. As I pointed out, human emissions are around 5% of total emissions.

    There is a constant transfer of carbon between the oceans, biosphere and the atmosphere. We are only concerned with net emissions, not total emissions. Are you really claiming that the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last century is not due to fossil fuels?

    Vangel: Actually, the evidence was presented quite some time before they changed their mind.

    Well, no it wasn’t. Wegener proposed continental drift, but lacked a mechanism. Plate tectonics is the theoretical mechanism which was developed in response to the discovery of seafloor spreading and other data.

    Vangel: As for any claim of consensus about AGW, there isn’t any.

    The consensus could be wrong, but there certainly is a consensus that humans are having a significant impact on the climate.

    Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

    “Climate change is real… It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth’s climate.” — National Academies of Science; Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, U.K., U.S.
    http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

    Vangel: No they are not. They emit around 5% of the CO2.

    You are very confused. Please provide a citation.

    Vangel: As the oceans warm up the solubility declines and they will give off CO2.

    Yes, but because atmospheric CO2 is increasing, the partial pressure is increasing. The oceans are absorbing additional CO2.

    “The ocean absorbs about a quarter of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean. Initially, many scientists focused on the benefits of the ocean removing this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. However, decades of ocean observations now show that there is also a downside — the CO2 absorbed by the ocean is changing the chemistry of the seawater, a process called OCEAN ACIDIFICATION.”
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time-Series

    1. The signal from large volcanic eruptions are easily detectable in the climate data. Not holding the many variables constant is exactly the point, of course.</b.

      No, it isn't easily detectible in the climate data. We have a hard enough time detecting them in the recent climate data so I do not see how you can pretend that we can see them in the climate data in the past. Of course, that is the goal of the alarmists; every time they see evidence where the temperature data falsifies their hypothesis they bring in convenient plug-in factors to direct the debate elsewhere.

      That would *reduce* the measured climate sensitivity.

      The temporary reductions in light would cool temperatures but the dark deposits on the snow will increase melting and temperatures. Even NASA admitted that much of the warming in the Arctic came from the deposition of carbon black and other particulates. That makes the volcanic effect much more complex. What may make it even more complex is the hypothesis that volcanic activity has a link to solar activity that also influences cloud cover and drives temperature trends.

      There is a constant transfer of carbon between the oceans, biosphere and the atmosphere. We are only concerned with net emissions, not total emissions. Are you really claiming that the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last century is not due to fossil fuels?</b.

      You are wrong. When the oceans warm they are responsible for a net increase of CO2 in the atmosphere while you pretend that the net effect is zero. When they cool they remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The same is true of CO2 due to respiratory activity and decomposition. A warmer climate means a net addition to the atmosphere while a cooler climate means a reduction from the atmosphere. These effects are larger than the effect of man. Like I said, humans emit less than 5% of the total that gets to the atmosphere.

      Well, no it wasn’t. Wegener proposed continental drift, but lacked a mechanism. Plate tectonics is the theoretical mechanism which was developed in response to the discovery of seafloor spreading and other data.

      Actually, Wegener was not alone and his theory had been proposed by many others before him. When he was writing his book there was already a great deal of literature that needed to be taken into account. He mentions that Green had proposed as early as 1857 about the crust floating on a liquid core and the fact that several authors had mentioned the possibility of rotation that altered relative positions and Wettstein’s in which he proposed ‘large horizontal displacements of the continents’. The fossil evidence was quite clear and quite convincing enough without nailing down the exact mechanism.

      Note that in the case of AGW the alarmists have a much harder time because they cannot explain why CO2 emissions have diverged from temperature trends and why periods during which CO2 levels were lower were warmer and where higher CO2 levels were present at the beginning of global glaciation episodes. Clearly CO2 is a minor factor that has a small impact on temperatures and is not a driver of trends. And just like they ignored Wegener some of the

      The consensus could be wrong, but there certainly is a consensus that humans are having a significant impact on the climate.

      First, consensus doe not mean being right. But even if it did, there is no evidence of consensus because scientists have never been asked clear questions that would allow us to come up with conclusions. The consensus lie is based on a survey in which a small percentage of those asked said that it was getting warmer and that CO2 played a role. In that survey Lindzen would be counted as being a part of the consensus even though he is one of AGW’s biggest critics. In an AMS study only 24 percent of the respondents agreed with the IPCC’s claim that “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.” I suspect that if the same survey were given to physicists, engineers, or geologists you would get similar results. But there is no such survey that has ever bothered to ask scientists for a clear opinion. What we have instead are surveys made up by alarmists that avoid direct questions so that they could be spun to mean whatever they wanted to mean and can claims that Lindzen agrees with the AGW position.

      Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
      http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

      Show us the survey please. Stop the had waving and provide a link to its questions and the results. The fact that you do not but keep appealing to authority tells us all we need to know about the validity of your position.

      “Climate change is real… It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth’s climate.” — National Academies of Science; Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, U.K., U.S.
      http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

      Show us the survey where 97% of the members agreed. If what you say is true it is easy to prove. But it isn’t true. The academies do not poll their members and do not let the members change the statements written by the people who are put in charge as they claim to speak for the membership.

      Until you can SHOW US THE SURVEY RESULTS you have nothing but empty appeals to authority.

      You are very confused. Please provide a citation.

      Come now. Even the worst and most rabid of the AGW promoters admit that humans emit less than 5% of the CO2 that gets into the atmosphere and that includes such sources as changes in land use.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Carbon_Cycle.gif

      Yes, but because atmospheric CO2 is increasing, the partial pressure is increasing. The oceans are absorbing additional CO2.

      No. As Gore showed in his movie, the oceans warm up around 800 years before CO2 concentrations begin to move up. As an interesting aside, all of the AGW graphics assume that temperature is static and do not show that the increasing temperatures are releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere than is being absorbed by plankton and other ocean life.

      “The ocean absorbs about a quarter of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean. Initially, many scientists focused on the benefits of the ocean removing this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. However, decades of ocean observations now show that there is also a downside — the CO2 absorbed by the ocean is changing the chemistry of the seawater, a process called OCEAN ACIDIFICATION.”
      http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

      Downside? Didn’t coral and current ocean life first evolve when CO2 concentrations were much higher than they are today? Don’t plants love higher CO2 concentrations because they help promote growth?

      As usual, you divert attention from reality because there is no evidence to support your false claims. A good way to refute part of what I have been saying is to provide an actual link to a survey and the responses of the scientists that you claim to support your faith based position. Until you can do that you cannot support one of your most basic and simple claim and will have no credibility in this argument.

  35. Zachriel

    Vangel: We have a hard enough time detecting them in the recent climate data so I do not see how you can pretend that we can see them in the climate data in the past.

    The effect was first noted by Ben Franklin in 1784. The 1815 Mt. Tambora eruption was followed by the “Year Without a Summer”. After the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991, mean surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere dropped 0.6°C, 0.4°C globally.

    Vangel: The temporary reductions in light would cool temperatures but the dark deposits on the snow will increase melting and temperatures.

    Which would *reduce* the measured climate sensitivity.

    Vangel: That makes the volcanic effect much more complex.

    That’s the beauty of volcanic forcing; it’s a natural experiment that allows us to estimate climate sensitivity without having to understand all the underlying details. Reduce solar penetration by 10%, and see how much it affects the temperature. If it is more than expected from the reduction in solar penetration alone, then there is positive forcing; if it less than expected, then there is negative forcing.

    Vangel: When the oceans warm they are responsible for a net increase of CO2 in the atmosphere while you pretend that the net effect is zero.

    You do realize we can measure the CO2 content of the oceans? While the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with temperature, in fact, the oceans are warming *and* absorbing net CO2, due to the higher partial pressure of atmospheric CO2.

    Vangel: The fossil evidence was quite clear and quite convincing enough without nailing down the exact mechanism.

    Contrarians posited landbridges. Until a plausible mechanism was discovered, continental drift was considered speculation.

    Zachriel: The consensus could be wrong, but there certainly is a consensus that humans are having a significant impact on the climate.

    Vangel: consensus doe not mean being right.

    As we just said, but worth repeating.

    Vangel: Show us the survey please. Stop the had waving and provide a link to its questions and the results.

    Geez, try reading the footnotes.

    Vangel: Even the worst and most rabid of the AGW promoters admit that humans emit less than 5% of the CO2 that gets into the atmosphere and that includes such sources as changes in land use.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Carbon_Cycle.gif

    According to your link, humans emit 29 bt, the oceans absorb 6 bt, the terrestrial biosphere absorbs 11 bt, leaving a net increase of atmospheric 12 bt.

    Zachriel: Yes, but because atmospheric CO2 is increasing, the partial pressure is increasing. The oceans are absorbing additional CO2.

    Vangel: No.

    Um, according to your own citation, the oceans are absorbing not emitting net CO2.

    1. The effect was first noted by Ben Franklin in 1784. The 1815 Mt. Tambora eruption was followed by the “Year Without a Summer”. After the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991, mean surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere dropped 0.6°C, 0.4°C globally.

      Let us look at >a href=”http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/volc/MSU1.jpg”>this graph and see if the Pinatubo eruption is obvious. Yes there is a sharp decline. But it does not really stand out in any way because there are very similar declines several times during periods during which there were no volcanic explosions. How about this graph? Does 1784 look very out of place?

      We need to try to avoid narrative and to actually look at the data. Note that I did not make up the data and often the data that I use come from the very gatekeepers who are pushing the alarmist view. Their own numbers show that your claim is not supportable. If you can’t find the evidence from the most accurate temperature record that we had at the time how are you going to be able to talk about how volcanic activity did this or that hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago when the CO2 narrative falls apart?

      Which would *reduce* the measured climate sensitivity.

      Volcano goes off and adds a bit of CO2 to the atmosphere. (Actually volcanic activity keeps adding huge amounts of CO2 but the alarmists tend to ignore that.) The soot it gives off lands on snow and ice covered areas and decreases albedo. There is more melting as the area warms up. A few months pass and the dust is now out of the atmosphere, which means that the cooling effect mostly disappears. But as the dust settles melting increases in snow and ice covered areas and temperatures near the poles go up. Doesn’t that mean that the alarmists will say that sensitivity is higher than it actually is? If you pay attention ‘everything’ is used to argue for greater sensitivity and if something is missing the data will be modifies and reanalyzed until it yields the conclusions that are desired.

      That’s the beauty of volcanic forcing; it’s a natural experiment that allows us to estimate climate sensitivity without having to understand all the underlying details. Reduce solar penetration by 10%, and see how much it affects the temperature. If it is more than expected from the reduction in solar penetration alone, then there is positive forcing; if it less than expected, then there is negative forcing.

      But that is the problem. There is no such thing as monolithic volcanic activity. You can pretend to understand the effects by looking at one or two events but there is no way to hold the other factors constant so your observations do not yield very clear conclusions that have meaningful precision or accuracy.

      You do realize we can measure the CO2 content of the oceans? While the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with temperature, in fact, the oceans are warming *and* absorbing net CO2, due to the higher partial pressure of atmospheric CO2.

      Of course I realize it. We discussed Henry’s law quite some time ago on Mark’s old site in relation not only to this but the acidification nonsense. Funny how you guys want to have it both ways. The ocean will absorb the extra gas even though it is warming but that will cause acidification that was not an issue when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and oceans were higher.

      Contrarians posited landbridges. Until a plausible mechanism was discovered, continental drift was considered speculation.

      A land bridge across the Atlantic between Brazil and Africa was not a plausible mechanism. The fossils were limited in range to very small areas that were nowhere near anyplace where a land bridge was possible. As I pointed out, scientists provided evidence for more than a century before the establishment finally accepted it. Large bodies do not like change very much because it complicates their business and scientific bodies are not very different.

      Geez, try reading the footnotes.

      I did. Let us begin with the first reference.

      Basically we are told that 97% of the scientists who go to most of the AGW conferences and publish on AGW in journals that agree with the AGW position agree that there is AGW. This is far different than saying that 97% of scientists agree that man is an important factor in global warming or that 97% of scientists in the field agree with the AGW position. There was never any attempt to look at the solar physics people who claim that the sun is the primary factor or the scientists who point out that we have had similar claims of a melting Arctic in the past. And note that the footnotes do not cite a study that talks about global warming but climate change.

      The second reference is actually more interesting because it is debunked by the survey resonses. Let me point out first that as early as page 5, when Zimmerman reviews the Bray and von Storch survey, we read, “The authors conclude that their response data suggests that the matter of global climate change is “FAR FROM BEING SETTLED in the scientific arena” because there is a lack of unanimous agreement on the majority of their questions. Conveniently, that survey and paper could be dismissed because the conclusions did not fit Ms. Zimmerman’s narrative.

      Note the logic. Ms. Zimmerman says that there are too many options in the survey and therefore it must be disregarded. The example is the response to the statement, “Climate change is mostly a result of anthropogenic causes.” She notes that in 1996, the highest single response (20%) was a strong disagreement with the statement, but 40% responded with some level of agreement. Note that 60% of the respondents did not agree with the statement, which is not very different than the result in the AMS poll of meteorologists. That means that the paper you cite admits that in the von Storch survey 60% of scientists did not agree with your thesis.

      What I found interesting were the comments in Appendix F where respondents clearly disagreed with the thesis that human emissions were a primary driver. Let me provide you with a few of the responses.

      Science is based on scepticism and experimental proof. Whereas human GHG emissions certainly have a warming effect, the breakdown between natural and anthropogenic contributions to warming is poorly constrained. Remember that the warming since 1650 AD (not 1900) is part of a real ‘millennial cycle’ whose amplitude cannot yet be explained by any quantitative theory. Also, the computer climate models are both too complex to be readily understood and too simple to describe reality. Believing their results is an act of faith.

      ….

      Possible natural climatic changes?

      Changing solar activity?

      Perhaps a small contribution from human activities

      ….

      Other natural causes of warming are difficult to differentiate from anthropogenic causes. Earth has been warming for 10’000 y.

      ……

      Personally I have no doubt that human activity is a contributing factor to increased average MGT, but I cannot evaluate unquantified, qualitative statements like ‘major,’ ‘important,’ or ‘significant’ and disapprove of their use in scientific discussions/conclusions.

      ….

      Science of CO2 relationship with warming is not clear

      Significant is a loaded term. Human activity has contributed to the increase in temperature, but how much has this activity impacted the global mean temperature? Additionally, how can one differentiate between human induced warming and the natural rise in temperature following the last glacial maximum? Ultimately, global mean temperatures have risen, with human activity being a likely contributor, but how much of the recorded increase is a direct result of anthropogenic CO2 is unknown.

      There are many such comments that refute NASA’s conclusion and that of Zimmerman.

    2. According to your link, humans emit 29 bt, the oceans absorb 6 bt, the terrestrial biosphere absorbs 11 bt, leaving a net increase of atmospheric 12 bt.

      Not me. That is the IPCC and warmist data. Humans emit 29 bt. The oceans absorb 338 bt while the rest of the biosphere absorbs 450 bt. The increase comes from the 771 bt of CO2 that are emitted from natural sources.

      Um, according to your own citation, the oceans are absorbing not emitting net CO2.

      The citation if from an alarmist site. It takes a snapshot and assumes that temperature is stable while CO2 levels are going up. If they accounted for the temperature increase they would note that as temperatures go up the oceans give off more and more CO2 to the atmosphere. The effect can be seen in Gore’s movie, which shows how CO2 levels trail the change in trend by around 800 years. That means that at least some of the increase that you are seeing is probably due to the warming during the MWP. Of course, given the fact that most of the warming took place long before human emissions became material I do not see why you guys are so excited about warming. Frankly, you should be much more worried about cooling as solar activity wanes and cloud cover increases.

  36. Zachriel

    Vangel: The increase comes from the 771 bt of CO2 that are emitted from natural sources.

    Seriously?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Carbon_Cycle.gif

    Human +29
    Terrestrial biosphere +439 -450 = -11
    Oceans +332 -338 = -6

    Of the 29 bt that humans emit, the terrestrial biosphere and oceans absorb about 17 bt, leaving a net increase due to human emissions of about 12 bt.

    Vangel: The increase comes from the 771 bt of CO2 that are emitted from natural sources.

    Furthermore, we can actually show which molecules come from fossil fuels. See Ghosh & Brand, Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research, Journal of Mass Spectrometry 2003.

    1. Seriously?

      Yes. Here are the emissions from the alarmists site:

      Human +29
      Terrestrial biosphere +439
      Oceans +332

      Humans give off around 3.6% of all of the CO2 that is emitted from all sources.

      And I notice that you have nothing more to say about your false claim of consensus. The second footnote in the link that you cite clearly shows that there is no consensus since 60% of scientists polled by the Bray and von Storch survey did not agree with the statement, “Climate change is mostly a result of anthropogenic causes.” That is in line with the AMS survey where 63% of respondents said that the warming was caused mostly by natural changes in
      the environment.

      The reason for doubt should be obvious. Scientists who do not make their money by selling the AGW story see the mess you guys have made and no longer trust the false narrative that you are pushing. They want to see the actual data, not cherry-picked numbers that are adjusted to give the ‘right’ answer.

  37. Zachriel

    Vangel: And I notice that you have nothing more to say about your false claim of consensus.

    No, felt it was sufficient to highlight the most obvious fallacy.

    1. No, felt it was sufficient to highlight the most obvious fallacy.

      The fallacies are yours my friend. It seems that your movement has gone back on a number of claims and I suspect that eventually this will be yet another of a long list.

      Remember when you guys were claiming that polar bears were in danger due to the warming? Now that everyone knows that the polar bear population is five times larger than it was in the 1960s we don’t hear the claim nearly as often.

      Remember when you guys were talking about meter increases in sea levels? We are now looking at a few inches.

      Remember all that sea ice that would go away forever? Well, global sea ice is above the 30 year average and was never much below it even when the alarmists were at their loudest.

      And remember when you guys use to talk about global warming? No longer; now it is global climate change.

      Remember the hurricane threat? That is gone too.

  38. Zachriel

    Vangel: The fallacies are yours my friend.

    Anyone who reads this blog and looks at the numbers above can see that the net increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions. Remove the human emissions, and atmospheric CO2 stops increasing.

    When you reject such basic facts, it undercuts any other argument you might make.

    Vangel: Well, global sea ice is above the 30 year average and was never much below it even when the alarmists were at their loudest.

    Peppering your comments with unsupported statements is just the spice.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalSeaIce.gif

    1. Anyone who reads this blog and looks at the numbers above can see that the net increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions. Remove the human emissions, and atmospheric CO2 stops increasing.

      When you reject such basic facts, it undercuts any other argument you might make.

      The facts are clear. Humans emit less than 5% of all of the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere. Most of the CO2 remains in the oceans and in the biosphere and is released as temperatures go up. As I pointed out before, Al Gore showed this perfectly in his movie when he had the CO2 content follow the rise in temperatures by around 800 years. Humans had nothing to do with the increase in temperature or with the CO2 levels at that time so I do not see why we need to blame them now when we see exactly the same thing.

      Peppering your comments with unsupported statements is just the spice.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalSeaIce.gif

      I have always supported my statements with data. Here is global ice cover on one graph. Today’s levels are above the mean. The chart also shows that there has not been any meaningful reduction during the satellite era. There is nothing much to see and certainly no global melting problem.

      http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

      Note that the recent studies have also backed away from the ridiculous sea level increase claims. Even the press has begin to notice.

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50559/abstract

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/14/climate-ice-idUSL6N0DV2V420130514

  39. Zachriel

    Vangel: The facts are clear.

    Yes, if humans stop emitting CO2, atmospheric CO2 will stop increasing—per your own citation.

    Vangel: Most of the CO2 remains in the oceans and in the biosphere and is released as temperatures go up.

    The oceans are warming, yet the oceans are absorbing CO2—again, per your own citation.

    Vangel: Here is global ice cover on one graph.

    Yes, it shows sea ice decreasing.

    1. Yes, if humans stop emitting CO2, atmospheric CO2 will stop increasing—per your own citation.

      No, it won’t. The citation that came from the pro-AGW site ignores the fact that as the oceans heat up they will give off CO2 to the atmosphere just as Al Gore showed in the movie that you guys used to promote. Humans are irrelevant because they give off less than 5% of the total CO2 that is added to the atmosphere.

  40. Zachriel

    Vangel: The citation that came from the pro-AGW site ignores the fact that as the oceans heat up they will give off CO2 to the atmosphere just as Al Gore showed in the movie that you guys used to promote.

    You continue to ignore our comments. The oceans are heating up, yet they are still absorbing CO2—per your own citation. If you thought the citation was in error, you shouldn’t have provided it.

    “The ocean absorbs about a quarter of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean”
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

    1. You continue to ignore our comments. The oceans are heating up, yet they are still absorbing CO2—per your own citation. If you thought the citation was in error, you shouldn’t have provided it.

      The point that I made is not in error. The oceans emit far more CO2 than human beings. In the citation emissions from natural sources are around 96% of the total with the rest coming from people. The source claims that most of what goes in the atmosphere is reabsorbed but that does not change the argument.

      “The ocean absorbs about a quarter of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean”
      http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

      It seems that the NOAA is unaware of the fact that sea life evolved during a period in which CO2 content was more than ten times the current levels. Corals love higher CO2 content because they use calcium carbonate as a building block as do many other life forms. Those shales that the alarmists are now worrying about were made from deposits of calcium carbonates that came from both chemical and biological processes. Nature has no problem with CO2 in water.

      And the last time I looked the oceans were not acidic but basic. And if you recall, you were given plenty of references that showed that this was never a problem the last time we had this argument.

      Note how the alarmists are changing the focus again. Now that sea levels or warming are no longer much of an issue and the argument has shifted from global warming to global climate change, the polar bear scam has been exposed, sea levels are no longer the issue that they used to be, hurricanes and tornadoes have not cooperated, temperatures are no longer going up, and polls show that 60% of scientists and 64% of meteorologists reject the AGW claim they need some other thing to get the public to worry about. Well, it isn’t working. Even the alarmist media is turning on the scam and the more you boys and girls distort the truth the more that they can claim that their propaganda was justified because you fooled them. From what I see the rats are abandoning ship as it is going down.

      What gets to me is that you boys and girls keep citing data that refutes your own position. You claim that human emissions are catastrophic yet show that they are only a small fraction of the natural emissions. You claim consensus yet quote studies that make clear that more than 60% of scientists that were polled disagreed with the position that human emissions of CO2 were responsible for the warming that we have noted over the past 60 years or so. To get the trust of the public again you are going to have to do a lot better than that.

  41. The oceans are warming, yet the oceans are absorbing CO2—again, per your own citation.

    I cite the AGW site to show that the oceans emit much more CO2 than humans do. As for what happens to CO2 solubility when water warms up we do not need to cite AGW sites but the solubility curves.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/co2_solubility_h2o.jpg

    Yes, it shows sea ice decreasing.

    How can that be when the ice is higher than the mean for the satellite period? If you can pretend to see something that clearly isn’t there you can’t be objective.

  42. Zachriel

    Vangel: I cite the AGW site to show that the oceans emit much more CO2 than humans do.

    The citation shows that the oceans are currently absorbing more than they emit. We supported that with a citation.

    “The ocean absorbs about a quarter of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean”
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

    Vangel: How can that be when the ice is higher than the mean for the satellite period?

    The trend line is clearly down. You compare the highest ice extent of the year, with the average.

    “For years we have been told the Earth is melting like a popcycle, and that humanity will would soon be boiled alive in a rising sea. Well, today that lie stands exposed with evidence that any child can understand. I give you frozen water, falling from the sky.”
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm

    1. The citation shows that the oceans are currently absorbing more than they emit. We supported that with a citation.

      Not if they are warming.

      http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/co2_solubility_h2o.jpg

      Of course, since we have not seen any recent increase in heat content in the oceans the citation might be right. But it is still too early to tell. I also hope that you have noted that all of the citations on this topic come from MODELS. These models know little of what is required to be known and are no more accurate than all of the climate models that failed to predict the current temperature level. Fortunately for us we have hard science in the form of solubility curves. That tells us that the ocean will give off more CO2 as it warms up, which is something that the AGW crowd says is happening. To offset this net degassing in the oceans it is required that life in the ocean grows more rapidly and more abundant due to the better conditions that come from the warming. But the alarmists say that this is not possible because warming oceans are not good for ocean life so it is up to you to explain the discrepancy.

      “The ocean absorbs about a quarter of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean”
      http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

      That would be true if the ocean did not warm up. But NOAA is claiming that the ocean is warming and we all know that warm water can hold far less CO2 than cold air. The NOAA is telling a story not looking for the actual facts. But where we do agree the facts are very clear. The ocean and decaying organic matter in soils are a much greater source of CO2 than man. The processes that emit the CO2 are not entirely dependent on the processes that act as carbon sinks so you cannot net out the effect as the failed models would want us to. The simple fact is that most of the emissions that come from humans are absorbed by the oceans and by the more productive biosphere.

      And let us end this little conversation by pointing to the many peer reviewed studies that came up with an average CO2 residency time that is around 10 times less than the IPCC chose. The fact is that the studies show that when you emit CO2 most of it is absorbed into the biosphere or oceans in around ten years, not the 100 years that the alarmists chose to pull out of thin air.

      http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_PART5_GREENHOUSEGAS_files/image046.jpg

    2. The trend line is clearly down. You compare the highest ice extent of the year, with the average.

      There is no trend line. Global sea ice area is around 20 million square kilometres and the annual variation is not very high. From what we can tell the greatest changes do not come from changes in temperatures but from wind and ocean current phenomenon in the Arctic. It is easy to find a period during which Arctic ice is well above the norm or well below the norm. There have been many periods during which there have been alarmist claims that the ice would all melt and many times when ice levels rose sharply after very low periods. That is natural variation that has nothing to do with man.

  43. Zachriel

    Vangel: The oceans emit far more CO2 than human beings. In the citation emissions from natural sources are around 96% of the total with the rest coming from people. The source claims that most of what goes in the atmosphere is reabsorbed but that does not change the argument.

    What matters to atmospheric content is the net not the gross.

    Vangel: It seems that the NOAA is unaware of the fact that sea life evolved during a period in which CO2 content was more than ten times the current levels.

    That’s irrelevant to the point under discussion. The oceans are warming, yet continue to absorb CO2.

  44. What matters to atmospheric content is the net not the gross.

    First of all, since higher CO2 content is better for life on this planet why do you want to lower the atmospheric content? CO2 is plant food and most life evolved during periods of much higher concentrations. And higher temperatures mean more biodiversity and more life. Since when it that a negative?

    That having been said, what matters is the source of emissions. It is hard to blame man when 96% of CO2 comes from other sources.

    That’s irrelevant to the point under discussion. The oceans are warming, yet continue to absorb CO2.

    No, they do not. The solubility of a CO2 in a ocean water is not just directly proportional to the partial pressure in the atmosphere. It depends on temperature as well. And as oceans warm up they give off more gas than is reabsorbed due to Henry’s Law.

  45. Zachriel

    Zachriel: The citation shows that the oceans are currently absorbing more than they emit. We supported that with a citation.

    Vangel: Not if they are warming.

    It also depends on partial pressure, which is increasing. The oceans are absorbing net CO2. Your citation says that. The citation to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says that. We can measure the acidity of the oceans. And we can determine from isotopes ratios that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is coming primarily from fossil fuels.

    Vangel: There is no trend line.

    There’s an obvious trendline, as anyone can see by looking at the anomaly line.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content