The fact that Marc Morano doesn’t present a synthesis view of the science of global warming will come as no surprise to my regular readers or anyone who knows of him. Morano grasps at anything that might (but frequently doesn’t) cast any doubt whatsoever on global warming, regardless of whether it contradicts other points he has previously pushed.
As we have discussed earlier this lack of synthesis is a sure fire way to identify deniers. Of course we already knew that Marc Morano was a denier, but his latest rants focus a bright light on the depth of his self-contradictions.
His first rant is about temperature trends since 2006! Anyone with a clue can already spot problems with this, but lets ignore those for now. Morano states:
The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveals yet another drop in the Earth’s temperature. This… means [that] despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006… Gore — who is fond of saying the Earth has a “fever” — has not yet addressed the simple fact that global temperatures have dropped since the release of his global warming film.
Now Gore, may or may not have addressed this ‘fact’ (I don’t keep close tabs on Gore, I prefer to get my science from scientists not politicians), but just a couple of months ago there was a paper in Geophysical Research Letters that directly addressed this issue.
But as difficult as it may be lets ignore these errors from Morano and move on. His next rant features the shocking admission from Gavin Schmidt (of RealClimate fame) that climate models can’t predict weather.
Another government scientist — NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt — admitted last week that the “chaotic component of climate system [aka weather]…is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically.”…
Schmidt made this admission during a recent interview. Read the whole thing, it really is quite interesting.
So did you spot Morano’s self-contradiction?
That’s right, in one breath Morano claims that a short term cooling of global temperatures somehow invalidates climate models and casts doubt on global warming, and then in the next breath admits that climate models can’t predict short term temperature trends with any confidence, and therefore can’t be invalidated by any short term cooling of global temperatures, and thus no doubt is cast on global warming.
Denialist cake is the best, the more you eat it, the more of it you have!
UPDATE: Looks like Morano is still reading this site, he just called me a ‘climate fear promoter’ and sent a bunch of traffic to my site. Thanks! That is what I get for accepting the conclusions of every single scientific body of national or international standing.
I guess he prefers to pick on the small fish (me) rather than the big dogs (climatologists) who will really tear his arguments apart. That’s alright, Morano’s arguments are so boneheaded that it doesn’t take much to trash them! Even I can do it.
“Temperature”, not “weather” is at issue here.
It is not contradictory. Temperature does not equal weather.
So are you saying that models can predict temperature with confidence over short time time scales (since 2006!), despite the fact that that is demonstrably false, as this recent paper makes clear:
But more importantly temperature is a major component of weather, and models cannot predict either in the short term, thus Morano’s claims are most certainly self-contradictory.
The time scale is not that short compared to the frame of reference of the supposed warming. The great warming spike that started this millenarian episode is only 30 years old. We have been told that temperatures have skyrocketed just in the last few decades due to C02.
The entire arctic ice record that got everyone excited is only 30 years old.
The lack of warming, according to satellite data, is 10 or even more, years. Check it out graphically: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/uah_jun09.png
There is nothing trivial about the current cooling. It represents a profound failure of the catastrophic global warming theory.
Um, no. The warming spike, isn’t what started the concern over AGW. Actually concern over CO2’s effect on the climate go back over 100 years, before we even realized that it was accumulating in our atmosphere. The law of conservation of energy is very powerful. Of course it is only more recently that we have been able to quantify what the changes might be.
That you think that the evidence of climate change is based on a 30 year spike in temperatures, shows that you have not bothered to read the actual science.
And that means what exactly? Certainly the melting of arctic ice over the past 30 years or so (which is as far back as satellite measurements go) isn’t what is used as evidence of AGW. Though it is a nice confirmation of the models. The reason people are ‘excited’ about it is because of the tipping point it represents.
ooo, the classic 1998 cherry pick. Such compelling evidence!
Did you even bother to read the study I linked to?
Nope I guess not. Well if you want to continue this discussion you are going to have to read it (or at least my post on the subject), if you really want the whole thing let me know and I can email it to you.
And if that wasn’t enough. Tamino over at the Open Mind blog has done an analysis of the temperature data for past 4 decades (I wrote about it here). In every instance 10 years of data produces an error estimate that is far greater than any temperature trend, meaning that the uncertainties are so great that the from these data we would estimate global temperature change as somewhere between rapid cooling and oh-my-god-we’re-all-going-to-fry warming. Or in other words useless. Hence the current 10 year trend is meaningless.
If you want ANY credibility you are going to have to show me an equally detailed statistical analysis that shows that the past 10 years are statistically significant.
And even then it would still be in line with model expectation (see the linked study above).
Also please read my comment policy if you wish to continue posting here. Specifically I need you to answer the following questions:
Why they don’t accept the conclusions arrived at by the overwhelming majority of scientists.- Why they think the vast majority of scientists are wrong.
- What would change their mind and make them accept anthropogenic global warming and why they chose those criteria.
and to stop repeating already debunked denier talking points without at least adding a rebuttal to the debunking, and to cite your sources.
Your problem isn’t Morano, it is the lack of warming. It is the complete lack of evidence that CO2 forces climate. it is the total failure of the CMs.
You problem is that science changes to fit the facts and AGW zealots change or ignore the facts to fit their theory.
Am I missing something? You claim a contridiction when Morano (who has always asserted that climate modeling can not predict future climate short, mid, or long term) points out that Global Temps have fallen since 2006 which invalidates the climate modeling done prior to 2006, and then highlights that Gavin Schmidt admitts modeling can not predict short term [AKA weather]. (which begged the question “If you can’t tell me the weather next month, how can you tell what the climate will be next century?”) I have a question for you. What would disprove your contention the human activity is causing global warming?
1) The overwhelming majority of scientists have historically made grave scientific errors including: eugenics, geocentricism, atomism ect.. I would make the historical argument, in fact, that the vast majority of scientists is necessarily wrong on a controversial issue because scientific progress is always marked by the vast majority of scientists being wrong at a particular point.
2) The same.
3) a) I would accept the global warming theory if climate models were able to make accurate predictions that they could be held accountable for. I will not accept global warming just because there is a model out there that says it models climate, I want to verify actual hard numbers it spits out against reality and thus test it. Once again, just the existence of a global warming model will not convince me of global warming, the model must output correct predictions.
b) I am more likely to accept global warming already because you conduct civilized scientific debate. I actually used to believe in global warming gung-ho, but then after witnessing how skeptics were treated I became very suspicious, I got thinking, rightly or wrongly, that these people have something to hide.
@ realist
Lack of warming? No.
Complete lack of evidence? No way.
Total failure of the models? What are you smoking.
The only way you can honestly accept that is if you have absolutely no clue about what the science is saying.
The evidence for climate change that is available to the casual person of interest, including most students, is simplified to the point of being misleading, false, or useless. In other words, the popular argument for climate change is bullshit, independent of the underlying reality of climate change or the evidence available to experts in the field.
Unless you understand the science is saying you have no business commenting on it.
@ Dave N
Yes you are missing something. Mark says that short term trends invalidate models (they don’t), and then admits that models have no confidence to predict short term trends. If they can’t predict short term trends, then how can they be invalidated by them?
As for you question “If you can’t tell me the weather next month, how can you tell what the climate will be next century?” the answer is easily available with google (or in my archives), but since I have some time I’ll answer it here (again.)
Imagine you are rolling some die. You would be hard pressed to predict what the next roll would be, but predicting the average is trivial. And suppose that average were to change (by switching to weighted die), we could (after enough rolls) detect that change with a high degree of confidence. Despite the fact that predicting individual rolls is not possible.
Another example is measuring tides and waves. Predicting the height of an individual wave is very difficult, but predicting the height of the tide is easy.
The same goes for climate. Over long periods the weather noise cancels out. This is precisely why short term trends are meaningless in regards to climate.
I answered this question here.
@ anon
Thanks for answering my questions.
You answer to question 1 and 2 is a recipe for not accepting any science. Yes science has been wrong in that past, and yes science will be wrong in the future, but overall science has a great rack record. So there is little reason to dismiss it. Your notion that climate change is a controversial issue is also not true. Climate change may be controversial in the media, on blogs, and other popular spheres, but it is not controversial within the scientific community.
It also smacks in the face of the way we operate on a daily basis. On economic issue we trust economists (even if they don’t always get it right), on medical issues we trust doctors (even if they don’t always get it right)… etc. And when several experts in a field get together and say the same thing (consensus) we put even more stock in their conclusions. In short expertise matters.
And finally your notion that “that the vast majority of scientists is necessarily wrong on a controversial issue because scientific progress is always marked by the vast majority of scientists being wrong at a particular point. isn’t quite right. Science rarely advances in the manner. Much more often than not it advances by slow progression. Paradigm shifts are rare, though are usually well remembered.
Basically what I am saying is that it doesn’t logically follow to discount climate science because scientists have been wrong in the past. As a non-expert neither you nor I can make such a judgement call. We don’t have nearly enough data or understanding of the issue.
On to question 3
You say:
Then you will be happy to know that this has been done. Climate models are made hindcast (usually the past 100 years or so) and do a remarkable job (remember that they aren’t designed to make short term predictions). This gives us a great deal of confidence that they will do well in the next 100 years.
Models are held accountable all the time, the problem with your (and others) notion of the recent ‘cooling trend’ is that it is an inappropriate test for the models. But that doesn’t mean the models get a free pass. They don’t.
You will be happy to learn that climatologists feel the same way. There is far more to the attribution of global warming than models. That being said due to the nature of the problem (we only have one planet and no time machine) climate models do play an important role… but they are never given a free pass.
Most of the hostility directed towards skeptics is because they are not really skeptics at all. They apply they skeptisism to unrealistic levels to the science yet are willing to accept anything, no matter how absurd, that casts doubt on global warming. And the lie outright. Morano is a prime example of this. They repeat the same arguments over and over again despite the fact that they have been addressed. In short they are not interested in advancing the discussion forward, they are interested in obfuscation.
For anyone who deals with them on a frequent basis they are extremely irritating, and hostility is a real possibility. But this is the Internet, one can easily find hostility directed toward any group, Including climatologists. Doesn’t that invalidate your answer?
More importantly how skeptics are treated in popular spheres says nothing about the scientific case for global warming. They could be treated like scum, and called every name in the book and it still wouldn’t matter to the scientific case for climate change.
Look at the peer-review literature. That is where the case for global warming has been made, and if it is to be challenged that is where it will happen.
I don’t think “the overwhelming majority of scientists” can be claimed anymore .
But it doesn’t matter . Classical physics proves the temperature of objects in our orbit are about 1/21 the temperature the sun decides to be . ( See my CoSy.com for the implementation . )
You do recognize don’t you that the “green” gas you so fear is provably increasing crop yields in every corner of the planet ?
@ Bob
Really?
Remember I only care about relevant experts.
And then we have the fact that the IPCC the National Academies of Science from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the USA, the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Geological Society of London, the Geological Society of America, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and thousands of peer-reviewed journals, all agree that climate change is not a political concoction or a scientific hoax, but very real and is caused by our greenhouse gas emissions.
In fact no scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of the human influence on the recent climate.
I’d say that still qualifies for the overwhelming majority of the relevant experts.
So objects outside our atmosphere (at least most of it anyways) aren’t influenced by the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. SHOCKING!
Even more shocking is the fact that you seem to think that the worlds climatologists (many who have very strong physics backgrounds) somehow overlooked this. Honestly do you think that is likely?
I suggest you read up on Liebig’s law of the Minimum. Really this is rather basic stuff.
Of course while CO2 may have some beneficial properties for some plants, the situation is ultimately anything but certain.
And that doesn’t even take into account the negative effects on food supply caused by ocean acidification.
And for those who want more on the ‘CO2 is good thing‘ talking point, read this post, and the comments.
@ Scruffy .
Your graph was 2008 . Intelligent people are getting more POed at this BS much more rapidly than the temperature is declining .
“Remember I only care about relevant experts.”
How convenient !
I always wonder when I see such abject subservience of independent thought to central authority what the individuals on @ Scruffy .
Your graph was 2008 . Intelligent people are getting more POed at this BS much more rapidly than the temperature is declining .
“Remember I only care about relevant experts.”
How convenient !
I always wonder when I see such abject subservience of independent thought to central authority what the individual’s own bono fedes . I couldn’t find yours .
Now , to your inability to understand the most basic science :
The Earth is a “an object in our orbit” ! ITS temperature is constrained by the Stefan-Boltzmann/Kirchhoff relationship with the Sun just like any other object . If the temperature of the Sun changes 10c , the Earth changes about 0.5c . Very Small changes in our spectrum , including our atmosphere , can make only very small changes in our temperature .
Let me ask you a black and white question :
Do you believe the extreme temperature of Venus is caused by a “runaway” greenhouse effect ? Caution , your answer shows whether you have the faintest clue as to the 120 to 150 year old physics . ( Those dead guys are my “relevant experts” . )
As to any ambiguity about the CO2 being the life sustaining “green” gas , YOU are 93% CO2 + H2O . CO2 is not just a “fertilizer” , it is the bulk of the actual physical structure of the plant – and thus the entire food chain , including us .
I applaud your openness , Scruffy . But if you really have an honest concern for human and biosphere wellbeing , think for yourself ; don’t just parrot the vultures .
Don’t know what happened to dup the first portion of that last post . Sorry .
And exactly what has changed since then? My reading of the peer-reviewed literature hasn’t shown any change regarding the reality of global warming. Certainly none of the scientific bodies I linked to above have revised their position.
Your claims to the contrary aren’t very convincing. They contradict what I see everyday, and you back them up with absolutely nothing.
Yes it is convenient. It is also rational. Just as I don’t want climatologists building bridges, or opining on the economy, I don’t want civil engineers, or economists opining on climate science. As I said expertise matters.
Really you wonder when people accept the conclusions of experts? Who do you trust for medical advice? Who do you trust on complicated matters where you could easily be mislead by poor arguments that fall apart under more expert scrutiny?
Personally I DO trust the experts. I trust what my doctor says (even more if I get a second opinion, or see a specialist). Why, because he is an expert in medicine. His knowledge of the subject dwarfs mine, and thus the probability of him being wrong is less than my probability of being wrong.
The same applies to climate.
Um, no. It sounds like you are quoting Gerlich and Tscheuschner here. And you talk about my ‘inability to understand the most basic science’ Ha!
The Earth’s blackbody temperature is estimated to be -19 Degrees Celsius [edit: This is not quiet correct. -19 Degrees Celsius is the greybody temperature of the earth. It takes into account the albedo of the earth] the reason it is much warmer (14 degrees on average is because of the greenhosue effect. Your claim that our atmosphere can’t have a large effect on the temperature falls flat on its face due to this simple fact.
If such simple physics could disprove climate change do you really think every single national or international science body would accept it? Do you think thousands of peer-reviewed studies would have overlooked it? Or is it more likely that you are missing something?
My understanding of the temperature on Venus is quite limited, so I canoot comment on whether or not it is a runaway greenhouse effect (not to mention that there isn’t a standard definition of runaway greenhouse effect). My understanding is that the Venus is far hotter than it should be based on its distance from the sun due to a very strong greenhouse effect. It is hotter than Mercury for example.
Yes CO2 is important, immensely so, but that doesn’t in any way speak to its effects on the climate, nor the fact that too much of it is a bad thing.
Good afternoon Scruffy Dan
First off, I will address your questions as requested:
1. Why they think the vast majority of scientists are wrong.
I don’t belive the vast majority of scientists are wrong, I believe your question is. There are numerous scientists on both sides of the fence and to attempt to pretend that “the vast majority of scientists” are embracing climate change is either delusional or disingenuous.
2. What would change their mind and make them accept anthropogenic global warming and why they chose those criteria.
The same standard that works in every other scientific field with the exception of climate study – Reproducible real world experimentation backed up with empirical data.
Correlation does not equal causation, but the absense of correlation means there is no causation. Would you argue that the temperature has dropped over the last decade? (Not even including 1998.) If not, here is the UAH MSU data (Notice empirical data which hasn’t been smoothed or adjusted and could be independently verified through weather balloons.) http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
Yes, you can have short corrections in trends but its pretty hard when your claim is that one factor (CO2) is the primary driver of temperature and as it rises temperature drops for a decade. I think a better question is how long do you hold on to the global warming theory when all real world data has been pointing in the opposite direction and what will you need to discard your beliefs?
@ Andrew
Really? Numerous scientists? Yet no scientific body of national or international standing rejects anthropogenic global warming. The last peer-reviewed literature review I have seen (which admittedly is a bit dated now) found zero peer-reviewed studies challenging global warming.
Have things changed since then? Not by my reading of the peer-reviewed literature, but go ahead prove me wrong. Show me studies (peer-reviewed of course) that conclude (I am not interested in your conclusions of said studies) that global warming is either not happening or not caused by humans. You saying that there is dissent in the scientific community doesn’t count for anything.
Every other scientific field depends on replication? Sorry, but that is false. Many of the ‘dirty sciences’ simply have no practical way to achieve replications. Do you demand replication in evolutionary biology? Sure it would be nice, but without a time machine it simply isn’t going to happen. What about in geology? Or astronomy? I could go on, but you get the idea.
The same thing goes for climate science. We have one planet and no time machine. Replication is simply not possible. Of course that doesn’t mean that we can’t generate confidence in our conclusions in other manners.
Ugh… this again! How many times to I have to answer this in a single comment thread? As a recent paper in GRL (which I have linked too numerous times here in the comments already!) makes perfectly clear, a decade of cooling is completely consistent with global warming and with model predictions. Please read it (I can email it to you if you need), or read my post on it. I don’t want to repeat myself again!
Do you even bother to read my responses here? I have already linked to my answer of what it would take for me to question global warming. My answer is here.
My apologies on you reposting on my repetitious question – the consequences of posting several hours after writing. Having read your response I would find the argument flawed. Although you claim different your opinion is clearly an argument of authority. Science can always be presented in a fashion whereby a reasonable person can understand it and decide if the work is convincing. You should question your doctor or any other professional – that’s just common sense. You must question a scientist – to not is to illustrate a complete lack of comprehension of how science works. In short I need to be convinced, as the natural variation scientists have done an outstanding job of doing that you claim don’t exist.
Elaborating on that point, are you seriously making the outlandish claim that no scientific papers challenging the anthropogenic global warming claim exist? Are you suggesting that individuals such as Ian Plimer, Richard Lindzen and Roger Pielke Sr. don’t exist? Are you implying that they never published peer reviewed papers before???? I will venture forth that such a statement is very telling of how little you have opened your mind on this subject. It is one thing to refute another view but to deny there is a scientific debate is childish. Better to be open minded like the Polish Academy of Sciences: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Polish-Academy-of-Sciences-Questions-Gores-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Theory-43618922.html I’m reasonably confident that some of these guys have published scientific papers as well. Skeptics tend to be very familiar with the works of individuals such as Mann, Hansen and Schmidt. Why isn’t the AGW camp as knowledgeble as the sceptics?
Your evolutionary biology example is well off the mark. They do go back with a time machine, its called a shovel. They do put forward reproducable findings and of course there is always the prospect for doubt – that is true with any and all scientific claims. Except apparently global warming. That is undebatable in spite of the fact half the N. American population attribute it to natural causes. So in summation, I have no problem with the work done in evolutionary biology. Where I would have a problem is if they claimed man-made CO2 was going to cause significant mutations in multiple species and that they had a computer model to prove it. All science needs to be verifiable – otherwise its just opinion.
Speaking of verifiable, thats where most scientific fields like to embrace data. I appreciate the paper you linked explaining their opinion as to why a decade of cooling is irrelevent but I respectfully disagree. The reason is the data. CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere while the oceans are cooling. That means heat is being lost. That means CO2 is not the primary driver. The question is how much of a role does CO2 actually play – a subject for intense debate. Unforutnately that is a debate you seem too emotionally invested in to even acknowledge exists.
I trust the experts on matters in which I am not an expert. I make that perfectly clear on my post explaining why I accept global warming.
Of course you can question a scientist. I do it all the time, but there is a big difference between questioning a scientist and what people like Marc Morano do.
SO I assume you have read the IPCC, then? What about the paper in GRL I linked too? And If so why to continue do you repeat the cooling canard? If you wont read the actual science then you will never be convinced.
NO, I am making the claim that the latest peer-reviewed literature review I read on the subject found zero papers that questioned AGW.
As for Ian Plimer, Richard Lindzen and Roger Pielke Sr (I could even name a few more if you want) Of course they exist, but take a look at their published work, and then take a look at their other comments. The difference is quite astounding, They say thing outside of their published work that are absolute crocks. And to top it off much of their published work hasn’t really gone anywhere. When was the last time you read a study on the Iris hypothesis?
But the real question is why I would weight these three heavier than the thousands of studies that support global warming. The balance of evidence is clearly not in their favour.
I am still waiting to be proven wrong. Show me a debate in the scientific community? All you have done is droped a few well known names, and linked to a Washington Examiner article about the Polish Academy of science, which contradicts their official statement. I need a better source than the Examiner, to be convinced of such a substantial change of position.
None of this is evidence of a debate, much less a substantial debate.
And speaking of the polish academy of science, even if they have dramatically changed their position why would I take what they say over the academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Again the balance of expert opinion is simply not in your favour.
Prove me wrong. Show me the studies. Without them you have nothing.
Clearly you have no idea about what evolutionary biologists do. There was a reason I didn’t say Paleontology. But really my example can be expanded to many aspects of field biology, and as I mentioned geology and astronomy.
Of course you do. Never mind the fact that this is to be expected in a noisy data set, nor the fact that such colling is indeed constant with climate models.
So why do you disregard the study? Oh right because the Oceans are cooling. Yet you cite no data. Hopefully you didn’t get your data ARGO diving buoys… because some of those buoys has systematic biases, and once they were corrected the cooling trend disappeared.
And of course that was only a measurement of ocean surface temperature, not the whole ocean as you imply.
But never mind all of that, surely your conclusion about the oceans is right, and surely that means that global warming is bunk.
I just have one simple request: show me a peer-reviewed study that arrives at this conclusion. If it is so obvious that you could figure it out, then surely there must be at least one scientific publication that arrives at the same conclusion. If not, why do you think that is?
You seem to epitomize the success of the American school system in turning out perfect slaves incapable of independent analysis but totally accepting of all those making their living from the bountiful billions of State trough and totally rejecting of the 10s of thousands of independent minds , far more educated than you appear to be , a significant number of whom have the highest possible credentials and/or have left the IPCC in disgust who see nothing unusual in variations of a couple of tenths of a percent in our temperature . Growing up I had the highest respect for many of the various organizations you trust ; It has saddened me to see , as their rice bowls became almost totally dependent on the government’s taken-money dugs , they have become mouthpieces for the ever power seeking political class . You would have been an excellent citizen of the Soviet Union . You would have gone along with Lysenkoism because all the State Academies supported it . There is increasing agitation within a number of the various societies to either reform , or be abandoned by large cohorts of their members .
But whether there are 10s of thousands or 100s of thousands of technically educated realists whose existence and rationality you deny in deference to the battalions of State funded , is irrelevant .
It is NEVER rational to cede your rationality to anyone else’s claims . Yours is the statement of a model slave . You use your submission to the mind of the State to excuse not even evaluating the now overwhelming amount of disproof .
Um, Yes ,
It appears you don’t even have a decent high school math background . If you read my implementation of Stefan-Boltzmann/Kirchhoff , now available in 3 array programming languages , you would see it involves nothing more that SB’s law that radiant power of an object is proportional to its temperature raised to the 4th , and Kirchhoff’s 150 year old , this year , observation that the tendency of an object to emit equals its tendency to absorb radiation . It has nothing to do with G&T . None of this depends on anything since Planck , a century ago . The rest is geometry and clearly explains why with the sun about 6000k , we are about 300k . To be more precise , if the Sun changes 10k , the earth’s mean temperature will change about 0.048k , depending on where it is in its orbit .
This is not optional .
This equation is the relationship which explains why the earth is about 300k rather than 3k . It is the “null hypothesis” any deviation from which must be explained . ( And , of course , the total change in temperature in a century you want to reverse the industrial revolution over is only about 1 part in 300 .)
You are doubly wrong about the estimate of the Earth’s black body temperature [Scruffydan: You are correct. The value I gave included albedo, which upon reading your site I realize you completely discount! No wonder your results are so out of whack]. We are actually within a few degrees of it by best estimates of the mean effective solar and earth temperatures . your -19c number comes from a wrong equation , whose wrongness became obvious last year when the equation for earth’s temperature on Wikipedia’s “Black Body” page was modified by adding a term for earth’s absorptivity to one side of the equation but not a matching emissivity term to the other side . Thus the resulting all too ubiquitous equation has the earth absorbing like a gray body , but emitting as a black body . This leads to absurdities which are detailed on my CoSy.com .
I am quite astounded by it . Apparently the SB & K laws are not even mentioned in the IPCC reports . The error I point out is apparently in a number of “climate science” texts . It appears a great deal of the profession has become quite divorced from the underlying physics .
In this peer-to-peer internet age , traditional “peer review” seems quaint . As my “peer” , anybody can review my work directly , and I encourage you to seek review by the experts you trust . The SB/K equation produces very precise quantitative experimentally falsifiable predictions . I have never found an equivalent quantitative derivation of the purported greenhouse effect . Why not ? Where is it . Surely someone could construct little miniature earths painted to maximize the effect and with a few experiments in a vacuum chamber quantify the effect and end all skepticism immediately . On the scale of a ping-pong ball , the atmosphere is only about as thick as a heavy coat of lacquer .
Your understanding of temperature is quite limited . The temperature of Venus is twice what any object in its orbit could absorb from the sun . Thus it is radiating about 16 time as much energy as it is receiving . That this absurdity has not long since been quashed by your experts like Al and Jim is an indictment of their intentions to honestly inform the voting population .
WRT CO2 , you are right that it’s role in greening the planet says noting about its effects on the climate . ( It does effect ( dampen ) the variability of our temperature altho it has almost no effect on the mean . ) However , there is rather massive experimental data , by USDA and others , that plants love as much as 10 parts per 10,000 CO2 , versus the our current 3 or 4 . We are nowhere near a geological maximum .
PLEASE pass my arguments on to some “peers” you respect and have them post my errors for the all to see on my CoSy.com forum . You’ll find us “realists” seeking falsification rather than just declaring the opinions of 10s of thousands of the scientifically trained , from engineers to weathermen to astronauts to some of the most honored physicists alive , to not even exist .
@ Bob
And you epitomize American arrogance (see how two can play at this game?), thinking that you know better than thousands of relevant experts.
Oh, and I am most certainly NOT the product of the American school system.
Conspiracy, oh no! Lets discard the conclusions of respected scientific organizations and thousands individual studies because they have all become mouthpieces for the ever power seeking political class… well expect those that have arrived at a certain conclusion (like those free thinking Poles), those guys are still ok!
Sure that makes all sorts of sense.
Wait what happened to your conspiracy theory? It would hardly be a conspiracy theory if thousands of people were publishing studies that conclude that global warming is bunk.
But I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Andrew: Show me the studies! Without them your argument is hollow.
Or is the peer-reviewed process part of this grand conspiracy?
Oh and how many of these ‘independent minds’ have arrived at the same conclusions you are pushing?
Right, lets not trust the experts. What do they know? Instead I should put my faith in a random commenter on my blog.
Actually, I have taken a look at much of this so called disproof, and found is lacking. That fact that the relevant experts agree, gives me great confidence.
Even if I accept your numbers (a big if), that model completely ignores the atmosphere and its effect on surface temperature. Hardly what I would call convincing evidence.
I wonder how you explain the climate forcing caused by large volcanoes (which is accurately predicted by climate models)?
But what really made me laugh is the fact that when asked why so many people who dedicate their professional lives to understanding the issue don’t agree with you just said: “I am quite astounded by it.” Have you even bothered to figure out why your theories aren’t discussed by the experts? Nah, obviously you are right, and they are wrong. Talk about arrogance!
Could it be because the earth is NOT a black body? Nah, not when it can be blamed on a conspiracy!
How nice, meanwhile in the real world peer-review remains a bedrock of scientific discourse. It is the minimum standard to be accepted into the scientific debate, it ensures there are no obvious errors in the study or its conclusions.
Surely you are not serious are you? Wow, and I thought I had heard everything.
Frankly such an experiment would be far worse than even a rudimentary climate model, for obviosu reasons. Surely you can think of a couple?
But the radiative properties of the various atmospheric components can and are thoroughly tested in the lab. And with that it is possible to compute (with almost no uncertainty) what the direct (aka with NO feedbacks) effects of the changing atmospheric concentrations of various gases would be. Of course excluding the feedbacks (much like excluding the atmosphere in your model) means that the results aren’t a good approximation of the real world, and thus not very good at predicting the climate response.
Wait, what? Venus is so hot, thus it radiates 16 times as much energy as it receives? How does that make any sense? That would make its energy balance negative and thus make it cold, not hot.
So are you saying that is is an absurdity? Your writing is anything but clear. Who else, but you, is making such a claim?
But why would you want Al Gore, and Jim Hansen to quash this absurdity? Al Gore isn’t even an scientist, he is just a politician. An expert he is not. As for Jim Hansen, he is an expert on earths climate, but not on the climate of Venus. Hardly the man I would listen too for information on Venus. If I want information on Venus, I’ll go look for an expert on Venus, if I want information on the climate of Venus, I’ll look for a Venus climate expert.
Remember what I said about relevance? Expertise matters, not everyone’s opinion is equally valid.
So why don’t you cite it! Much of the USDA experiments are done in greenhouses (where CO2 indeed does boost productivity), but greenhouse experiments are hardly representative a farm ecosystem. Again please Liebig’s law of the minimum.
Also if you wish to claim that CO2 is beneficial to agriculture you need to include as many effects on the biosphere as possible. Simply looking at plant growth is missing a huge part of the puzzle.
Also completely ignoring the effects on food supply caused by ocean acidification is just irresponsible, when arguing that CO2 is a good thing.
Yes that is immediately clear by reading the IPCC.
No one is claiming that the planet is entering uncharted waters, only that we (aka the human species) are entering uncharted waters.
Us? I see only you in your forums. Not a single comment!
Must be lonely over there!
Oh wow, I just spent some quality time on your CoSi site. What a load of trash! I particularly like this gem:
I am speechless. You just arbitrarily decided to throw out albedo, and with it all common sense!. Here is a hint, try placing your hand on a black object on a sunny day, and then a similar white object. Which is hotter?
There is you falsification or you!
Here is another:
Even more falsification! This is grade-school level stuff.
And am in more or less agreement with 10s of thousands of others . So where are you from ? I’ve commented before that I’ve been unable to find your bona fides . It’s clear you have little understanding of math or science .
It ain’t a conspiracy any more than traditional marxism was . It’s a belief system of which you are a member . It’s a movement whose guru is a failed christian leftist presidential candidate who was at best a B student in any technical course . The utility of fear mongering of “pollution” of our atmospheric commons for motivating global governmental force has created a torrent of cash for any academics willing to climb aboard . I’ll point to parallel quotes by Lenin and Stephen Schneider on my Liberty page for an example of the movement’s ethics .
WRT to Eastern Europeans who still have memories of the abject poverty created by the traditional marxist sacrifice of the living for some politically enforced “scientifically proven” better future , I quote Czech President and immediate past president of the EU , Vaclav Klaus :
At this point to claim that there is not an ever growing body of peer reviewed literature questioning the orthodoxy is either selective blindness or blunt dishonesty . As I’ve said , I think the whole notion of PR is quaint in this age of the weBlog . On my vita you will see I spent about a decade in grad school . I had perhaps half a dozen peer reviewed articles . I saw what an old boy buddy system it tends to be . People go “journal shopping” to find “peers” who are open to their work .
But all this macht nichts .
It’s not so much that it ignores atmosphere ; it’s only at the most gross level of detail at this point . It sets only the most general , but immutable , constraints . Of major importance is that it handles gray bodies correctly . It needs to have a line or so modified or extended to cover actual spectra so it will provide actual quantitative values for the effect of , eg , the tiny change in our spectrum from our already highly saturated CO2 lines . But I feel it’s more pressing to engage the battle for the understanding of the simple flat spectrum gray case . Your comments below make it clear this is the case .
WRT making little model earths :
I guess you’ve never heard of testing model planes in wind tunnels . Actually , the important experiments would be with rather abstracted earths , just various and variously colored balls – like my PingPong ball experiment but in a vacuum , etc . That would sort out the theory .
NO I CAN’T . It’s a test of reality , not some programmer’s conceits . Why do you think they still test aeronautical computer models with real models in wind tunnels ?
That’s the F’n 120 year old Stefan-Boltzmann equation ! That’s the fundamental law of radiant heat transfer . The implication of the fact that Venus is much hotter than it could be from input from the sun is that it must have an internal source of heat . DUH !!!
In fact Jim Hansen’s early work was on the atmosphere of Venus . Why don’t you ask him . His answer should be very interesting . Furthermore , this is all about basic temperature physics . It should be understood by anybody claiming to be a climate scientist . There is a core of math and physics that anybody claiming expertise in a hard science must have . These fundamentals are within that core .
I’m not going to quibble about the details of CO2’s benefit to life . My “thing” is the physics . I don’t think anything more needs to be noted than that the bit of carbon we are restoring to the atmosphere was sequestered by creation during incredibly lush epochs .
WRT my forum , I just massively upgraded it to a new system ( SMF ) last week in preparation for promulgating my implementation of the SB/K equation more vigorously . This conversation will be archived there .
I didn’t . That was Kirchhoff’s great insight 150 years ago this year . If at equilibrium absorptivity did not equal emissivity , you could make a freezer just by painting a box white . The common WRONG equation which I pointed out has been screwed up on the Wikipedia “black body” page which has the earth absorbing as a .7 absorptivity gray body but radiating as a black body . This results in the prediction that the temperature of a gray body will be less than the black body temperature by the 4th root of the absorptivity . This gives a supposed 9% deficit , about 30c , for the earth which then the “greenhouse” effect is , with no quantitative explanation I have ever been able to find , purported to fill . ( Note it still gives no explanation for how something could “runaway” to be hotter than it’s black body temperature . )
This “4th root” claim leads to the absurdity that a snow white object with an absorptivity of about 0.1 would come to equilibrium at more than 100c below 0 . That’s the absurdity Kirchhoff recognized 150 years ago .
WRT the Mythbusters theory free experiment , that’s why a meaningful experiment must be done in a vacuum . My PingPong balls showed a much smaller difference . The equation I implemented will handle any combination of radiant sources and shadings of a ball . If it’s not correct ( despite it venerability ) What is the correct equation ? How come it is impossible to find the equations or experimental verification anywhere on the web ?
There is a tremendous confusion between the rate of radiant heating and cooling depending on the albedo of an object and its equilibrium . CO2 transferring heat back and forth to the rest of the atmosphere greatly moderates the variance of our temperature , however it has hardly any effect on the equilibrium mean . ( How come one never hears of its effect on variance ? It’s almost as if “climate scientists” aren’t familiar with the concept . )
Yea , this does get down to grade school stuff . I first learned of Kirchhoff’s insight ( tho not his name ) in a boy’s science book back in the 1950s which asked the gedankenexperiment like the Mythbusters but with black and white stones in the desert . It was pointed out that if they came to different temperatures , then you could build a perpetual motion engine – and you can’t .
Well , I think this has helped draw the battle lines . I hope it helps motivate some experiments to show which of us is stupid . Frankly , I’ll bet on the guy who got an 800 on his physics SAT and whose logo is a 6 dimensional cube drawn with a single continuous line .
@ Bob
You want to know where I am from? Well here is a hint: look at the top of your browser.
As for my ‘bona fides‘, given that I have already stated that I am not an expert on climate (thus why I rely on experts on the subject), they are irrelevant.
If logic fails, just compare global warming to Marxism! Classic denialism!
No, science is NOT belief. I don’t believe in global warming, I accept it. There is a world of difference between the two.
Are you dense? take a look at the scientific organizations I already listed on this thread. Do you think they care about Al Gore? As I already said, Al Gore is just a politician. He isn’t part of the scientific debate.
But what is even more amusing is the fact that right after this statement you go on to quote an other politician… only this one agrees with you. Frankly I don’t care what either of them say. they are politicians and not scientists, and I don’t get my science form politicians.
Remember my shtick about relevant experts? Gore isn’t one of them. Never was.
Right, because a dissenting scientist (like Lindzen) can’t possibly find funding elsewhere. if only there were organizations (perhaps corporate organizations?) with huge piles of money that had a vested interest in proving climate change false, that could ensure that dissenting scientists (or even people who have never taken a science course in their lives) could get cash to fund their research. Too bad nothing like that exists. Oh wait!
Then show me the studies!!! The fact that you refuse to do so isn’t exactly winning you any points. In fact it’s making you seem like a bald-faced liar!
Good for you, but I notice a distinct lack of climate expertise. So your ‘bona fides’ are as irrelevant as my own.
As for Hansen, ans his Venus expertise, he may know a lot more than most people, but he stoped being a relevant expert when he began to focus on the earth. Somehow I doubt he keeps up with all the latest Venus related science, he certainly doesn’t publish any. He is busy enough with one planet.
You really have a difficult time with this whole relevant experts thing, don’t you?
If you want to continue this line of debate you are going to have to back your claims. Show me the studies, either put up or shut up.
@ Bob
As for your science, yous still have two basic error’s.
1) you ignore albedo, as you explain on your site:
Sorry, as any kid who has walked barefoot on a freshly paved road (where the asphalt is still black) or anyone who has sat inside a black car on a hot sunny day, will tell you that is simply not true.
Your explanation attempting to disprove this commonly held notion is equally boneheaded:
Um, no it wouldn’t. Though bravo for making your model planet match of your no atmosphere model, unfortunately the earth does have an atmosphere.
The difference between a ball in a vacuum and a planet is that the ball would be surrounded from a significant source of electromagnetic radiation from all sides, where a planet only has electromagnetic radiation hitting it from the side facing the sun. BIG difference there.
And 2) you ignore the atmosphere entirely, despite your claims to the contrary. As you make abundantly clear on your site, when you state that:
Exactly which of these variables if affected by the composition of the atmosphere? I certainly can’t see any that are affected, therefore by definition your equation completely ignores the atmosphere!
Perhaps the most obvious falsification of your model is Venus. As you point out it is far hotter than it should be based on your equation. Why is this? Could it have something to do with Venus’ atmosphere and the greenhouse effect?
Nope, it is OBVIOUS that Venus has an internal heat source to explain this high temperature… it’s just that no one has found it. Sure that makes sense.
Any attempt at overtunring the ‘consensus’ on climate science that ignores these two factors, is absurd, and obviously not a proper representation of reality.
The bottom line is that your equation is oversimplified to the point of being useless (in the context of climate).
But if you are so sure of yourself go ‘journal shopping to find “peers” who are open to your work‘ and get published. I suggest the journal Energy and Environment, though I doubt even then would publish this garbage.
Like I said earlier it is time for you to put up or shut up. Which should be easy enough given that you claim to be ‘more or less agreement with 10s of thousands of others‘
> As to any ambiguity about the CO2 being the life
> sustaining “green” gas , YOU are 93% CO2 + H2O .
> CO2 is not just a “fertilizer” , it is the bulk
> of the actual physical structure of the plant –
> and thus the entire food chain , including us .
Someone needs to finish high school science. Look particularly at “element” and “molecule” then compare “hydrocarbon” and “carbohydrate”
You could also claim to be made mostly of C2H5OH and CH4 — after all, they’re the same elements, just rearranged. You can even find it in a dictionary:
c2h5oh -… – One of the most important molecules in male life. the other two are [H2O] and [O2]. It’s a molecular formula …
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=c2h5oh
@ Hank Roberts ,
I’ll answer your post first because it’s so silly .
Photosynthesis combines CO2 + H2O creating hydrocarbons and O2 . The rest of the food chain is built on this . That’s grade school .
If Hank’s post is not intended as a joke , it’s just stupid .
Hello again scruffy Dan
I’ll look to address the points you made in your last post. First off, your link claiming there is challenge to the consensus is bizarre on the face of it. Why does this continue to be a talking point? For me it illustrates a strong lack of confidence from the AGW proponents. Any science field I’ve worked with relishes a debate if they believe their opponents views are flawed. If there are good or bad criticisms of their work there is a clear understanding of an obligation to respond to critques. Instead, AGW proponents state all the “experts” are in agreement and there is absolutely no debate. They conduct an elaborate contortion to dismiss the argument on any and all grounds with the frequent exception of one – countering it on scientific grounds.
I think this approach works to your detriment. Its like your increased C02 is simply bad line of reasoning voiced earlier in this thread. AGW proponents have this deleterious desire to march out the most tenuous data such as the five leaved alpine sage bush grows more slowly in a 25% CO2 environment when its beyond obvious that 99.99% of plants perform better with higher CO2 levels. I mean there probably is some reason commercial greenhouses pump the stuff in. Its one thing to argue on a cost benefit analysis standpoint that improved vegetation doesn’t counter climate consequences but to deny the obvious is exceedingly weak – like denying there is any scientific debate relating to global warming.
So you are interested in papers illustrating debate? Where to begin? [First off, as you request so do I prefer. You have choosen to link to a chapter of the latest IPCC report – to me this is like someone being challenged on their pro-capital punishment views and simply responding by passing the other party a bible to flip through. I had looked through the posting when you linked anon and found it to be more of a policy document rather than a scientific document (this is not to state that there isn’t science behind the conclusions drawn – its to state that it is too broad an overview with the science by and large diluted out.)] This is a very complex field that is by and large in its infancy – which is why I find it so bizarre to claim there is no scientific debate. Should we start with papers on the medieval warm period that many in the AGW camp have simply willed away? The influence of clouds and if they are captured in albedo? What level of forcing is generated by CO2 in the atmosphere? The list is legion.
I actually like this one so since you left things open ended I will lead off with it – carbon dioxide sequestration. I fully contend that the jury is still out on how long CO2 remains in the atmosphere – but I am confident from what I’ve read on the subject that the IPCC version of this subject has very large holes in it. So here are links to peer reviewed papers on the subject :
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
(This next one is recent but unfortunately only available if you have an ACS membership – however if you’re institutional its easy to get, my apologies if you can’t. The paper is “The Potential Dependence of Global Warming in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide” by Robert H. Essenhigh.
http://pubs.acs.org/articlesonrequest/AOR-fAEJXMX3JgkNFmgAkdpu
And here is a bonus link, an assortment of scientists – dare I use the word – debating the subject in back and forth e-mails.
http://www.john-daly.com/dietze/cmodcalD.htm
Of course you can deny that these are peer reviewed scientific papers because the author of the first paper, Segalstad has too many S’s in his name and ACS isn’t a “real” scientific organization because chemistry just isn’t hard science anymore. So it is your perogative to continue to deny there is any debate on the topic of global warming within the scientific community but I will continue to contend this is a losing argument to anyone who rationally looks at the subject.
@ Andrew
Finally we are getting somewhere. Thanks for citing some sources. But before I comment on them, I want to comment on some of the things you said.
Not sure which link you are referring to, so I can’t explain why I posted it. Let me know which link you are referring to and I will explain why it is here.
It depends on what you mean by debate. Scientists are far to busy to debate every single dissenting theory that pops up on the Internet. The ones that have obvious errors are usually simply ignored. Scientists also tend to ignore people who aren’t interested in honest debate.
A good example of both of these points is found in the evolution/creationism sphere. Scientists are dead set against the ‘teach the controversy’ program, and with good reason. They also don’t answer creationists calls for debate, or bother debunking their absurdities.
The same holds true for climate science.
In short, scientists welcome scientific debate, and serious challenges to their work (which typically means passing the minimum standard of peer-review). They don’t usually delve into crackpot territory.
Have you read my responses to Bob? Or even my response to you regarding ocean heat content? I’d say that was more than a mere dismissal of your argument.
But it actually doesn’t matter. Neither of us are experts in the field of climate science, and what ever the outcome of this discussion it wont speak to the accrual science.
If you want a scientific discussion go read the peer-reviewed literature, the fact that non-experts aren’t debunking your points doesn’t mean they haven’t been addressed by the experts.
Source please? From now on I am simply going to delete any claims such as these that aren’t backed up by research.
And just in case you wanted more evidence that the situation between CO2 and plant productivity is anything but clear check this out:
Yes there is, but I see you haven’t yet read Liebig’s law of the minimum. It explains rather clearly why extra CO2 helps in a greenhouse situation, but outside wont help many plants grow.
Next time you repeat yourself without addressing my points on the matter, I am going to delete that portion of your comment. I grow tired of you ignoring the counter points I raise.
And yet every single scientific organization (I linked to several above) either explicitly or implicitly agrees with its conclusions… but it is much more fun to compare this scientific document to to the bible.
Really? A policy document? You are going to have to point out which parts were policy focused, because to me the chapter I linked to, has no policy aspect to it. Just science.
As for the parts that didn’t have enough detail for you, go read the literature cited, that one reason they cite their sources. The other reason is so you can check up on them, and to make sure they didn’t take the original research out of context.
Oooooo, will this include a rant on the hickey stick! I hope so! And I wonder what those papers say about what the MWP means to present day warming. Does it somehow change the radiative properties of CO2?
hmm, this sounds like the iris hypothesis. Great!
Only if I can cite some recent papers that try to estimate earth system sensitivity (vs the more limited Charney sensitivity)!
Great, so where is it? All I see are three links. The first and last of which are not peer-reviewed.
The first comes from European Science and Environment Forum. While that sounds like a respected scientific organization, it is nothing of the sort. Amongst the groups accomplishments is trying to deny the CFC ozone link, not to mention their interesting relationship with tobacco.
SourceWatch sums it up nicely: “Like other “sound science” front groups, its real mission is to disparage the science upon which environmental safety regulations are based, and it was initially a creation of the tobacco industry, which promoted the idea of “junk science” and overregulation.”
Not exactly a reputable source.
The last link is just a email discussion. Sure such discussions are very helpful, but they aren’t peer-reviewed. Since I don’t have the time (and likely the expertise required) to evaluate all the claims made (which differ wildly from the established understanding) in these documents, and since I explicitly asked for articles that meet the minimum standard of peer-review, I am going to dismiss them.
As for the second link, again it differs wildly from the established understanding, which of course this doesn’t mean it is wrong, but there are a a couple of red flags that immediately pop up. First that author’s expertise is mechanical engineering focusing is in the area of combustion. Not exactly the expertise one would expect. The other red flag is where it is published. Yes Energy Fuels is a respected peer-reviewed journal (as far as I can tell anyways), but it isn’t the place one would expect where discussions of the properties of atmospheric gases would take place.
Still, none of these red flags means the paper is invalid. But it was recently published and as John Mashey reminds us: “The publication cycle of the most credible peer-reviewed journals is long enough that a non-expert should be prepared to be wary of any paper only 1-2 years old, especially if it has novel implications counter to mainstream established science.” It is far to early to determine what, if any, effect on our understanding this paper will have. Given the red flags I would bet it wont have much of an impact, but we don’t know that yet.
What this paper definitely isn’t, is substantial debate. It may sow the seeds of debate, it may even lead to a paradigm shift, but as it stands now this is just one paper standing against a mountain of evidence to the contrary. The balance of evidence isn’t in its favour.
As for demonstrating dissent in the scientific community, you are going to have to do better, one paper just doesn’t cut it. This is what will cut it..
Extraordinary claims (in this case rejecting mainstream science) require extraordinary evidence.
Also I should point out that I will not accept any or Mark Morano’s lists. He posted several of them on this blog a while back, and I painstakingly went through them. They consisted of mostly non-peer-reviewed garbage, and the few peer-reviewed articles were well hidden (I usually had to follow 5 or more links just to find out the author’s or the paper’s name), didn’t challenge AGW at all, some of them explicitly said it was real, and even that we were already feeling its effects.
I am not in the mood to go through another one of his bogus lists.
@ Bob
But that wasn’t what your original claim was. You originally claimed:
See the difference? Sure CO2 forms a large part of the foundation of the food web, but it doesn’t comprise the bulk of the physical structure of plants as you claim.
Hank was right.
Um, so photosynthesis yields hydrocarbons, eh Bob Armstrong? Plants are made of hydrocarbons, are they?… gee, thanks. I missed that in grade school, thank god.
Chuckle. It’s those missing links that confound the logic:
> Photosynthesis combines CO2 + H2O
producing carbohydrates
at the basis of the food chain
that are consumed and become other material
and eventually may get buried in marine layers
deeper and deeper over time
where they may be altered by heat and pressure
over long periods of time
> creating hydrocarbons
Hello Scruffy Dan
Right – I suppose I will start with your comment stating you will delete posts you do not feel are adequately cited. What ever your perogative is, its your site. I thought my comment really didn’t call for extensive documentation and the post was already exceedingly long but if it is what you want here:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119257499/abstract
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.arplant.48.1.609
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j70560164r9105k7/
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1939505
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0z8LaFDsq0sC&oi=fnd&pg=PA20&dq=the+response+of+natural+ecosystems+to+the+rising+global+co2+levels&ots=HdrNI3m7eb&sig=YktOCfbHRSVbSglX88WX-sazWYU
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t814g42067002357/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m35386k257823764/
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1353746
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1514718
These in turn cite hundreds of peer reviewed papers that illustrate how increased CO2 levels almost universally increase plant growth. Sure, there is a small percentage of plants that will do poorly in a CO2 richer environment – most of these indirectly due to other plants being able to out perform them and hence muscle them out, but almost all plants grow better.
As for your video link – it was so flawed as to elicit a bit of a laugh. I would respectfully suggest you follow your own advice about quoting scientific sources in the future. Ignoring the “deniers don’t believe carbon dioxide increases temperature” strawman and the fact that glaciers have been retreating for the last 18,000 years – I’ll focus on the topic at hand. First off there was the quick flash of what was presumably a journal paper stating how increased CO2 levels diminish root growth and that this impacts nitrogen and water uptake. What it doesn’t bother to mention is the reason this happens is because increased CO2 levels typically result in lower requirements for water and nitrogen and hence there is less of a requirement for an extended root complex in the plant. Plants are efficient, its like what happens if you water your lawn frequently – the lawn won’t develop as deep a root system.
The next point about the Japanese beetle is in my mind an illustration of bad science. If you are not aware, insects tend to be attracted to carbon dioxide: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1603/0022-0493%282001%29094%5B0860%3AACDSTA%5D2.0.CO%3B2?journalCode=ecen
Its clear from this study that the Japanese beetle is obviously attracted to CO2, so here we have big pipes venting the stuff out, drawing in Japanese beetles from miles away, and the conclusion is assumed to be its the CO2 rich plants? Brilliant! And what happens when all plants have the same increased levels of CO2 in the environment? Because I haven’t read the paper I will withold judgement because I do not know if the broadcaster distorted their study but I’m leaning towards thinking this paper might need a lot of work. The final point on the pine beetle convinently ignores the consequences of forest fire suppression in the spread of the beetle. Sure, cold will kill them but when has it ever been -40 for an extended period of time in southern B.C.? (Which is where I presume you are from… – if you are indeed from B.C. I’m on the otherside of the continental divide. We unfortunately did see -40 last winter.)
And yes I am aware of Liebig’s Law of the Minimum – for many plants in typical growing conditions that happens to be CO2. As you mentioned the fact that you embrace evolution would you dispute that most plants evolved in a period where CO2 was 1500 to 2000 ppm? Most plants are optimally grown at these levels (see above paper list.)
So I will stress my original point – its not wise to dogmatically reject every point that is brought up simply because you want to show no weakness. It tends to have the opposite impact. I’m accepting of a cost benefit analysis where we can debate if increased levels will do more harm but to attempt to argue that any CO2 increase will be universally bad is just weird.
…. and I’ve already written a novel so I’ll look to address the carbon sequestration part of the last thread you wrote – if there is anything else you would like me to elaborate on that you feel I haven’t I will be happy to address it – I’m feeling that so many topics are popping up that its more logical to address your more discussed points.
First off, I’m not interested in a data dump. I posted the two papers because I hoped that you would read them. The first I found very compelling and it had an impact on my decision when I was researching this topic to determine which argument I found more plausible. It was disappointing that you took the tact that the paper could be dismissed because of some seven degrees of seperation association with the tobacco industry. Weak. Would you also argue that Hansen’s work should be ignored because he took $250,000 from the Heinz foundation (John Kerry link) or that any research funded by an environmental organization should be disqualified? I certainly wouldn’t. Let the science stand on its merit. Read the article and read the rebutals – then decide which viewpoint is more credible and where it has weak points.
As for your claim that this is new science and since it is going agains the consensus it needs to be powerful I must disagree. It is old science, and very well known. Indeed, it is in the IPCC report how CO2 residence time is as low as five years. Normally I would site the page but since I’ve learn’t you are a firm believer in posting entire chapters I’m sure you are fine with that. (Looking to make a point :) – if you are interested I will send you the link. What it states is 5 years to 100 + years with the caveat that it varies greatly in environmental conditions. I’ve tried to find papers which state the high residence time that were based on empirical studies but I haven’t been able to locate any – just ones based on modelling. If you are aware of any I would be greatful to receive either links or what journals they are in.)
So in conclusion this is definitely not an extrodinary claim – CO2 atmospheric residence time is an area of much study and active debate. Why do you have such an irrational fear of being able to accept that broad swathes of the climate change science is under intense debate?
@ Andrew
New we are really getting somewhere! Thanks for citing evidence to back up your claims. You are already far ahead of most people who comment here. Usually I get comment more along the lines of Bob Armstrong, who claim to have found something super simple, yet completely overlooked by thousands of scientists, that proves global warming simply cannot be real.
The papers you cite clearly demonstrate that CO2 can increase plant productivity, the papers I cited show that CO2 can have a negative effect on plants. None of this is new to me, which is why I say that the situation is ultimately anything but certain. Certainly some regions will benefit, (not only from increased CO2 but from a longer growing season), but no one has yet made a good effort to predict the total ecosystem response in response to elevated CO2. This would be tremendously difficult to do especially given the sheer number of different ecosystems.
So as I said the situation in this regard is anything but certain, which is par for the course in ecology.
The video was there simply because, it appeared to me that my other sources were not being looked at. I figured a video was more likely to be viewed than my previous links. It was not my first choice.
But the video is still a pretty apt description of the problems I mentioned above. The study regarding reduced root growth, specifically states that this will offset the expected increase in productivity, which is direct contradiction to your claim.
Next, your link doesn’t demonstrate that Japanese beetles were attracted to the CO2. It demonstrates that a different species (different genus also) was attracted to CO2. Could this mean that Japanese beetles also exhibit the same behaviour? Perhaps, or perhaps not. Though having said that the researchers did find a mechanism for the increased numbers of bugs on the CO2 enriched plants. It turns out that those plants made less of a defence chemical than plants grown at regular CO2 levels. The researchers even state that they predict that greater populations of the beetles in the future as CO2 rises.
So your explanation doesn’t seem likely (though it is still possible).
I’ll agree there is much more to the pine beetle story than climate change. One cannot ignore a century of poor forest management when talking about the beetles, BUT there is a climate change component to this story.
On the coast? Never. But the coast isn’t where the problem is. The problem is located in the BC interior and northern BC. While -40 doesn’t happen every year it is exceedingly rare for so much time to have passed since such a cold spell.
Funny, I was always told that it was either nitrogen or water that was the limiting factor, and my education was very heavy on plant biology.
Have I really dogmatically rejected your points? I never even denied the evidence for CO2 enrichment increasing productivity. I just said there was conflicting evidence and thus the situation was not certain. That doesn’t sound like dogmatically rejecting your points.
On to your comments about carbon residence times:
As compelling as it may be, I am fully aware that I could be lead astray by convincing sounding bullshit. That is the prime reason why demand the minimum standard of peer-review. The fact that it was published by a group that spent a great deal of time arguing for tobacco science is a huge red flag. Enough for me to dismiss it.
No, just as I wouldn’t begrudge any peer-reviewed research funded by Exxon or other corporate interests. Or by governments hostile to the notion of AGW (such as the previous US government). The key is that it must pass the minimum standard of peer-review. For more on my views on this topic see this.
In an idea wold that is indeed how things would function, but in reality this is simply unattainable (and thus the reason for peer-review). The fact is that non-experts can (and frequently are) made to accept things which are total bullshit. It happens all the time. Acknowledging this limitation is a key reason why I depend so heavily on peer-reviewed research.
I never called it new science, I said it was a recently published paper and that it had some red flags (the expertise of the author and the the journal where it was published).
Yes the IPCC does mentiona a residence time low as 5 years, but also as high as 100+ years. Ignoring the higher values doesn’t make much sense.
Yes, finding empirical data to support that would be extremely difficult, because such data would be notoriously hard to acquire. But that doesn’t mean we can just discount the expert opinion on the matter. They didn’t arrive at this value without justification.
But more importantly I think our greatest disagreement (on this particular issue) comes from the fact that while you focus on residence time as the most essential aspect of CO2 in the atmosphere I am focusing more on the half-life of carbon. The two are related but are not the same.
But even this is besides the point. The fact is that CO2 is increasing, and we are almost 100% certain that it is due to our emissions (which are estimated at double the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase). It is also fact that CO2 is a GHG gas (thanks to its radiative properties) and as it increases will trap more long-wave radiation, and re-radiate it back to earth.
All of that is pretty basic, and hopefully you do not object. The short residence time of CO2 you claim, doesn’t in any way negate the above. A good example of this is Methane, which is uncontroversially seen as being short lived in the atmosphere (around 10 years if I recall correctly). Yet despite this, methane (especially the stuff locked away in the permafrost) is a real concern in regards to global warming.
So if methane is a concern despite its short residence time then there is no reason to assume that CO2 is not a concern. In fact all a short residence time really affects is the impact of any CO2 reduction policies. If the residence is low then we should expect any reduction in emissions to reduce atmospheric concentrations rather quickly (compared with previous estimates). This would be a great thing, and I truly hope it is true. Unfortunately the data I have seen so far is less than convincing.