Geological Society statement about climate change

Dr. Capell Aris writes:

Dear Mr. Watts,

The UK Geological Society has made a statement about climate change.

This seems to have received very little attention. It’s not a particluarly strong statement, given that it contains the statement:

“During warmings from glacial to interglacial, temperature and CO2 rose together for several thousand years, although the best estimate from the end of the last glacial is that the temperature probably started to rise a few centuries before the CO2 showed any reaction. Palaeoclimatologists think that initial warming driven by changes in the Earth’s orbit and axial tilt eventually caused CO2 to be released from the warming ocean and thus, via positive feedback, to reinforce the temperature rise already in train”

Full statement here:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/views/policy_statements/page7426.html

About these ads
This entry was posted in Global warming and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

263 Responses to Geological Society statement about climate change

  1. R. Gates says:

    This is nothing new. It has long been thought the Milankovitch forcings begin the warming that end glacials and that warming oceans then release more CO2 through outgassing which then cause more warming and so on. This is why CO2 lags the initial warming in the ice core data. Milankovitch forcings in and of themselves are not enough to explain the large temperature difference between the bottom of a glacial period and the top of an interglacial. When CO2 data was finally recovered from ice cores the pieces fell into place as we could see the changes in GH gases that provided the addition forcings necessary to explain the temperature swings.

  2. wayne says:

    Except there is no “positive feedback” on temperatures by any GHGs excluding water vapor… that has been shown conclusively by the radiosonde data over the last 61 years.

    Nice try twisting the science Dr. by leaving that fact out. (most call it a lie by omission)

  3. pax says:

    Why is that quote interesting? It’s just reiteration of standard AGW scripture for explaining the T/CO2 lag. Maybe I’m missing something…

  4. Doug in Seattle says:

    The intro claims they are basing their opinions on the data collected from the earth rather than models, but the body and conclusions keep going to the models to provide the basis of their conclusions. Too bad.

  5. Guillermo Gefaell says:

    Feedback, feedback…..toujours le feedback issue!

  6. Julian in Wales says:

    That is an ace statement. Does it conflict directly with the conclusions of the IPCC and AR4?

  7. Feet2theFire says:

    They had to include the obligatory nod to “CO2 contributes warming” meme.

    A causes B, but then B ends up feeding back and causing A to go runaway.

    If there was a greater than 100 year lag in the past, they don’t give any explanation for WHY. Nor do they apply the same to the present centuries; i.e., shouldn’t the present be a result of what happened at the end of the LIA circa 1800?

    No. That is too consistent. Much more important to support their brother climatologists against the denier plague.

  8. Titan 28 says:

    I may be missing something, but if you read through the entire page, or the whole of the statement (made in 2010), the UKGS supports AGW, with maybe a tilt toward CAGW, when it says toward the bottom of the page that nothing natural accounts for the marked increase in CO2 since 1970. Was there supposed to be something new on this page? Have I goofed in reading?

  9. Pamela Gray says:

    Once again, no mechanics and no maths to show that the change in CO2 can and will continue to warm the oceans (from whence our weather systems come from) to the degree such that our global temperature will increase by 4 to 6 degrees.

    We are dealing with wriggle matching in every sense.

  10. Dave says:

    Dr. Capell Aris states:
    During warmings from glacial to interglacial, temperature and CO2 rose together for several thousand years, although the best estimate from the end of the last glacial is that the temperature probably started to rise a few centuries before the CO2 showed any reaction. Palaeoclimatologists think that initial warming driven by changes in the Earth’s orbit and axial tilt eventually caused CO2 to be released from the warming ocean and thus, via positive feedback, to reinforce the temperature rise already in train28. Additional positive feedback reinforcing the temperature rise would have come from increased water vapour evaporated from the warmer ocean, water being another greenhouse gas, along with a decrease in sea ice, and eventually in the size of the northern hemisphere ice sheets, resulting in less reflection of solar energy back into space.

    Thank you Dr. Capell Aris for restating the historical facts about the timed delayed relationship with the planet warming first, and then causing the CO2 to increase due to the temperature raise.

    This has been the bone of contention between the warmist and the skeptical scientist.

    First – The warming planet
    Second – Warmth causing the CO2 to be released.

    Al Gore and the IPPC pushers have systematically tried to destroy these facts stating the CO2 causes the planet to warm, this was done by stating the warming was caused by the rise in CO2, in order to demonize CO2 as the major cause of planetary heating, therefore allowing them to create a tax system that would permit them to control every aspect of life!

  11. JN says:

    “to reinforce the temperature rise already in train” Is that like shoveling extra coal into a locomotive engine at top speed, it doesn’t increase the top speed? Reinforce? One way to look at that is that word is a clever dodge from Lorious, Hansen et al.’s famous “amplifying” effect of CO2. Hard core anthrowarmists always have this argument in their bag of tricks, often pointing to this crappy analysis at Real Climate:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

    This non-peer reviewed gobbledy-gook solely exists to confuse the “lag” issue and Al Gore’s blatant molestation of a chart in AIT. It also exists because more hand waving is required since the underlying Hansen article on “amplification” does not really support it. The chart shows no visible speeding up, by CO2. And, when temps go down, and CO2 trails that to, does CO2 also have a de-amplifying effect??? That little statement about “Amplifying” totally exists only because Hansen et al. knew they had a problem in their science. I completely read this Geological Society brief as needing to fudge the obviousness that CO2 lags temp in the records, but they did not have the utter shamelessness to use the word “amplify”, as is a standard in warmist agit-prop. (Often related to debating Gore’s movie) . So the peeps who signed off on this statement dreamed up “reinforce.” It is a vague, confusing term here.

  12. A C Osborn says:

    The UK Geological Society has put all it’s eggs in the CAGW basket, even though their own evidence says CO2 follows the Temperature.
    How embarrassing.

  13. Jimbo says:

    UK Geological Society
    In the coming centuries, continued emissions of carbon from burning oil, gas and coal at close to or higher than today’s levels, and………….

    I doubt very much that we will be burning oil, gas and coal at close to or higher than today’s levels at the end of this century. The reason is innovation and invention. To ilustrate my point here is manure.

    In 1894, the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in the city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure. One New York prognosticator of the 1890s concluded that by 1930 the horse droppings would rise to Manhattan’s third-story windows.
    Superfreakonomics

    As they say, the rest is history. Vrooooom!

  14. This rather lame excuse was dreamt up by the IPCC-ers years ago and (since apparently abandoned) when denying the ice core record was no longer feasible.
    It is remarkable that the UK’s Geological Society apparently still sees the need to be politically correct, while ignoring the opinions of most geologists, worldwide.

  15. Pat Frank says:

    Extending the logic of the UKGS to its full symmetry, we can further surmise that the high-point of atmospheric CO2, reached several hundred years after air temperature had already begun to fall, ‘reinforced the temperature decline already in train.’

    The mechanism, of course, would be negative CO2 feedback, evidenced in climate model outputs that are discarded because they contradict what is accepted to be true.

    (According to Google the linked paper has been cited 529 times. Apparently, publicly discarding adverse results does not diminish one’s reputation as a climate scientist.)

  16. evanmjones says:

    R. Gates: When CO2 data was finally recovered from ice cores the pieces fell into place as we could see the changes in GH gases that provided the addition forcings necessary to explain the temperature swings.

    Not even close. CO2 changes a mere 100 ppm from bottom to top of the Milankovitch Cycles. There is positive feedback going into an ice age, but that comes mostly from a slower summer ice pack melt and the resulting increase in albedo. (And reverse when entering an optimum.) The 100 ppm CO2 delta is spit in the ocean.

  17. Jimbo says:

    I counted 3 references to the IPCC. All hope is lost. :>(

  18. Jim Cole says:

    As I’ve said before, if CO2 has this magical feedback-enhancement attribute (the “simple physics” that the alarmists like to throw out to all you unsophisticated skeptical slobs), then

    WHY DOES IT EVER, EVER, EVER COOL DOWN?

    They can try to finesse with this sleight-of-hand to explain the lag on warming trends, but what could possibly counteract the overpowering influence of a few ppm of CO2 when the climate (inevitably) cools?

    Hmmmmmmm?

  19. rbateman says:

    Here’s an interesting quote from the linked pdf:
    “During the Ice Age of the past two and a half million years or so, periodic warming of the Earth through changes in its position in relation to the sun also heated the oceans, releasing both CO2 and water vapour, which amplified the ongoing warming into warm interglacial periods.”

    So, the orbital element phase of the Earth causes the brief Interglacials in the Geologic Era of Ice Ages that the Earth is now in. We are geologically in an Ice Age. When the orbital elements conspire the Earth back into it’s current Geologic norm, the excess CO2 will succumb to removal by the biosphere and subsequent burial. The Ice Sheets will take care of the rest of the messy details.
    90-120 thousand years from now, when Earth once again emerges into an Interglacial, all traces of present civilization will have been long erased. Perhaps a previous one or two eras of civilization once existed on Earth. Perhaps not. Perhaps never again…
    If we continue down the path of Trace Gas Hysteria instead of Geologic Ice Age norm Preparation, there will be little chance of civilization, as we know it, of enduring the next 90-120 thousand years.

  20. WAM says:

    @RGates
    It is so simple….
    So the first some hundred years it was just warm… No increase of H2O in the atmosphere? Nothing about clouds?
    And how the increase of air temperature can melt 3km of ice? Greenland still looks OK, even being in latitudes where no large glaciers on the sea level exist (but this 3km of ice means something for the circulation ABOVE the ice).
    Nothing else can explain…. Maybe, to get some ideas, could you have a look into work of late prof. Marcel Leroux. He explains quite nice the mechanism of accumulating of ice and de-glaciations. I can summarise: the circulation of moist air from tropics, driven by masses of polar air.

  21. pat says:

    The positive feedback assertion seems a bit incongruous. After all these periods are invariably followed by a cooling period. What precipitates the CO2 drop off if the feedback was so positive? As to his assertion that axial tilt and orbital variation is a factor, these seem to be acceptable factors. But note that these last 3M years do not resemble much the previous 30M so it is likely plate tectonics also plays a part. And all astrophysicists suspect solar activity and even extra-solar activity play a very important part in climate change.

  22. Heber Rizzo says:

    Many times I have seen this claim, which even sounds reasonable at first.

    But, then, suddenly, temperatures start going down, although CO2 levels continue going up. Where is the positive feedback, then? Why it dissapears?

    800 years later, CO2 levels start going down, and they keep going down even when temperatures start going up. And, miracle! after 800 years CO2 levels go up too, at last, and by miracle again, they regain the power of positive feedback.

    I´ve never seen the answer to the complete cycle. Does someone knows where I could find it?

  23. Tilo Reber says:

    What bothers me about this explanation is that Milankovich is considered to be a weak forcing agent and CO2 is considered to be a strong forcing agent. So let’s say that the weak forcing agent, Milankovich, starts off the process and gets more CO2 into the air. The strong forcing agent, CO2, then takes the drivers seat and drives climate much higher. But there never seems to be any discussion about what happens when the trend changes direction. We can see in the records that temperature will change direction and start back down while CO2 is still rising strongly. Now, obviously, a change in Milankovich should not be able to achieve this kind of result – nor should any other weak forcing agent. A strong CO2 forcing should remain in the drivers seat and continue to propell temperatures upward. The fact that this does not happen and the fact that temperature so easily ignores the increase in CO2 when it changes direction and starts back down leads me to believe that climate sensitivity is not nearly as high as is claimed.

  24. PeterF says:

    This explanation sounds nice but fails completely when applied to the end of the interglacial. At this point, temperature falls but CO2 keeps rising and only starts to fall some 800 years later. If you accept their (and realclimate) explanation then the interglacial would not end but get increasingly warmer. So what forces the cooling?

  25. R. Gates says:

    evanmjones says:
    June 26, 2011 at 11:22 am
    R. Gates: When CO2 data was finally recovered from ice cores the pieces fell into place as we could see the changes in GH gases that provided the addition forcings necessary to explain the temperature swings.

    Not even close. CO2 changes a mere 100 ppm from bottom to top of the Milankovitch Cycles. There is positive feedback going into an ice age, but that comes mostly from a slower summer ice pack melt and the resulting increase in albedo. (And reverse when entering an optimum.) The 100 ppm CO2 delta is spit in the ocean.
    ———-
    One has to look at the whole system of feedbacks. It is not just the outgassing of CO2, but the resultant additional water vapor that comes along with that. And it is here that the intriguing connection between warming and the rock weathering carbon cycle comes into play. For what would prevent a run-away greenhouse here on earth if all these Milankovitch initiated positive feedbacks went unchecked? If there were no negative feedbacks that ultimately could balance out the positive, even when the Milankovitch cycle favored cooling, the earth would continue to warm. But it is precisely in the increased water vapor levels and eventual increased rock weathering that comes from the acceleration of the hydrological cycle that removes CO2 from the atmosphere and breaks the positive feedback loop that otherwise would have created the run-away greenhouse condition.

  26. Gil Grissom says:

    Well, just last week I was reading a report from the alarmists about the danger to the oceans that will be caused by the oceans absorbing CO2, thereby making them more acidic. Now these guys come along and say that due to global warming, the oceans will be releasing CO2. Sheeesh! Which is it guys? Will the oceans absorb, or out gas CO2 when they warm up, due to Manbearpig? Can’t do both at the same time! Amazing that few have noticed this contradiction.

  27. Alicia Frost says:

    Well a last the Australians are growing up hahaha
    http://australianetworknews.com/stories/201106/3253943.htm?desktop

  28. Hugh Pepper says:

    Contrary to the view being expressed by your correspondent, the UK Geological statement gives a strong warning. “In the light of evidence presented here (in their statement), it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise…” They explain that the rate of of CO2 in the past 200 years is unprecedented and that it has no geological cause. It is, they point out a result of growing populations and vastly increased use of resources. The warming, their paper asserts, “based on physical theory and geological analogue,” results from increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and decreased Arctic sea ice.
    The statement strongly asserts that “the geological record is consistent with the physics which shows that adding large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to higher sea levels and flooding of low lying coasts, greatly changed patterns of rainfall, increased levels of ocean acidity and decreased oxygen levels in seawater.”

    The paper advises that while changes in the past were relatively harmless to human populations, because there weren’t that many of us, present changes in climate will result in massive dislocations of people and animals, with a host of attendant problems

  29. R. Gates says:

    Tilo Reber & Peter F., see my response to Evan M. Jones at 11:49 am. One must consider the rock-carbon cycle and its ability to create the negative feedback necessary to remove CO2. This is a very elegant way to ensure that CO2 stays within the range we’ve seen over at least the past 800,000 years– until of course the past few hundred.

  30. Pamela Gray says:

    No one has proved that whatever forced the temps up in the beginning that was non-CO2 related does not magically stop in the presense of increasing CO2, such that CO2 warming takes over. The null hypothesis stands. The natural forcing continued to heat up the planet till the natural forcing was expended. Case closed.

  31. Ian W says:

    Much of this is likely to be back pedalled once we have the report from Svensmark’s CLOUD experiment at CERN.

    As said by others the CO2 hypothesis fails to explain cooling with CO2 rising.

    CLOUD may show that anything that increases the Solar wind and protects the Earth from GCR will lead to a drop in cloud cover and an increase in ocean heat content. Unlike the CO2 release on warming hypothesis the CLOUD hypothesis also shows how the reverse cooling works – less Solar wind leads to less protection against GCR which seed more clouds and thus albedo leads to a loss of heat content.

  32. DesertYote says:

    We all know that radiative forcing of CO2 is logarithmic, but understanding why it is logarithmic seem to indicate that it should be logarithmic to the total concentration of ALL greenhouse gasses combined. That is the relationship would be of the form: delta-forcing = a*ln( delta-CO2 + sum-of-GHG).

  33. Marc says:

    Can anyone explain to us how co2 traps energy from going out but doesn’t prevent at least the same amount of energy from coming in?

    It seems like we are being told that it should be hotter in the shade because the canopy keeps the energy from going out.

    Is there any explanation of this?

  34. G. Karst says:

    I have a very high respect for geologists, however, they too, are susceptible to circle think.

    ie field tour with geologist:

    geologist: “Now, you see this sedimentary layer here… it was laid down 123 million years ago.”

    student: “How do you know?”

    geologist: ” See this little fossil here. Well paleontologist, have dated this sucker, as having walked the earth 123 million years ago.”

    Student returns to campus (with fossil sample) and runs into palaeontologist and asks for a dating of the sample.

    palaeontologist: “Yes, I know this fossil well. It lived and thrived 123 million years ago.”

    student: “How do you know?”

    palaeontologist: ” Easy, it is only found in sedimentary layers, dated by geologists, as laid down 123 million years ago.” GK

  35. Douglas DC says:

    Having had more scientific training than Algore (BA in General Biology-never used)
    NOAA certified weather Observer, Professional Pilot (28 years) and general student of things
    atmospheric:
    Prediction: as the cooling in the Oceans takes hold more CO2 get absorbed.
    in other words we will see a leveling off to a decline in CO2’s minor prescience in the
    Atmosphere…
    No I do not pretend to be an expert…

  36. Rhoda Ramirez says:

    Doesn’t their emphasis on the positive feedback mean that there should never have been any ice age at all? At one time the CO2 was somewhere in the neighborhood of 5000 PPM, yes? There must have been a hellacious positive forcing making the world’s temperatures totally un survivable by any protien based life form, but it didn’t happen. The world cooled, the climate changed, and then changed again. I can’t see any scenario where postive feed back allows the temperatures to anything but up and we know that the temps have varied. Or am I an idiot.

  37. A Argyle says:

    From the UKGS text;-

    “In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.”

    “….LIKELY to be unwise” ……..”uncomfortable though that FACT may be.”

    In one clause it’s uncertain, in the next, the “science is settled.”

    In the same sentence, how scientific is that?

  38. Wil says:

    I am not a fan of ice core extrapolation of high Arctic CO2 measurements and applying that measurement of that point on the globe to an entire earth to me is akin to measuring the approximate temperature in that location then applying it to the planet at that time. That’s madness. We know today CO2 varies depending on the point on the globe where the measurement is taken.

    The fact is no scientists on this planet has any idea of what exactly triggers an ice age nor its subsequent warming period. Therefore science itself is far to immature to make absolute statements about the historical earth when it has no understanding itself why. This statement above then is equivalent to guessing on your next set of lotto numbers.

  39. Laurie says:

    R. Gates, you were going to answer a question for me and haven’t yet. Did you find the answer?

    I asked: Your global map shows global temps that fall in the lower range and higher range as compared to a 29 year base period (1961-1990). I don’t understand why a very short base period ending 21 years ago is used.

    Your link: http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/maproom/.Global/.Atm_Temp/Persistence.html

    Your reply: Don’t know the full answer to that and it may require more research, but if true, it may be based on data that is reliable with known margins of error. I will have to look into this a bit more.

  40. SØREN BUNDGAARD says:

    WE LIVE IN THE COLDEST PERIOD OF THE LAST 10,000 YEARS…

    -SEE THIS SURPRISING VIDEO FROM GREENLAND, WITH LEADING GLASIOLOGIST
    AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, JØRGEN PEDER STEFFENSEN,
    FROM NIELS BOHR INSTITUTE COPENHAGEN,
    CENTER FOR ICE AND CLIMATE…

    THE VIDEO IS CALLED: WE LIVE IN COLD TIMES
    http://vimeo.com/14366077

  41. Alleagra says:

    A C Osborn says: ‘The UK Geological Society has put all it’s eggs in the CAGW basket’. Slight correction. it’s has put all its eggs in the CAGW basket.

  42. R. Gates says:

    Here are some excellent sources to understand CO2 removal from the atmosphere by rock weathering:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/clbk4a8bl8ypdn6p/

    http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/12/1059

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.47.issue1.23.x/abstract

    Rock weathering and uptake of CO2 either through glacial grinding and/or increased precipitation events associated with higher temps provides that critical link of negative feedback to bring CO2 levels down. And this effect would lag temperatures on the downside just as a rise in CO2 from ocean outgassing lags temperatures on the upside during Milankovitch cycles. So while Milankovitch cycles are the overall control nob for long term climate cycles, it is the positive and negative feedbacks related to CO2, ocean outgassing, and the rock-carbon cycle that do the bulk of the actual climate forcing during the cycle.

  43. Mark Hladik says:

    R. Gates regurgitates the “positive feedback” of carbon dioxide, right from the RealClimate website so perfectly, one wonders if (s)he did not write it him/her/self!

    While other have successfully addressed R. Gates misanthropogenic hypothesis, let us also recall that anywhere past 200 ppm concentration, carbon dioxide’s absorption spectrum reaches a point of saturation, such that adding any more CO2 to the system does very little, if anything.

    Please tell us, R. Gates, what exactly is it that shuts off this “positive feedback”? Last time I checked, any system which exists in a “positive feedback”, will continue to do so, unless it is interrupted by some outside factor. EPICA, Vostok, and GISP II are all consistent, in that CO2 levels remained high, during times of decreasing temperatures. As several others have addressed, if CO2’s ‘greenhouse effect’ is so strong and overpowering, there has to be some ‘yet-even-more-powerful-“anti”-greenhouse-effect’ factor which “overpowers” all that CO2 in the atmosphere, during the entrance into a glacial event.

    Let us also recall that the ice core data supports field research, which indicates that transitions into and out-of glacial events and interglacials, took place in the blink of an eye, on the order of several decades, and most certainly less than a century.

    Your mechanism, R. Gates, would need to be virtually instantaneous!

    Mark H.

  44. Joe Born says:

    I’m not sure the UK Geological Society’s statement uses “positive feedback” as narrowly as it is usually used on this site and in many other global-warming forums. For all that is apparent from its statement, the Geological Society’s use of that phrase is broad enough to cover levels of response to CO2-concentration increase that Lindzen and Spencer, for example, have suggested (but refer to instead as “negative feedback”).

    As I understand them, neither Spencer nor Lindzen denies that a CO2-concentration increase resulting from a (for example, increased-insolation-caused) temperature increase raises the temperature required for outgoing radiation to balance incoming radiation. As I understand Lindzen and Spencer, that is, they do not dispute that CO2 liberation in response to temperature increase would indeed act to reinforce the temperature increase; it’s just that they believe the reinforcement is less than an analysis based on the CO2 effect alone would suggest. And it isn’t clear that the Geological Society statement’s use of the phrase “positive feedback” necessarily excludes this lesser amount of reinforcement, even though most at this site would refer to as “negative feedback.”

    In other words, I think its statement intentionally or unintentionally appears to say more than it actually does.

  45. crosspatch says:

    The thing about the orbital change hypothesis is that the orbital change is gradual. The tipping points into and out of glacial periods is not. It is quite sudden. I am talking about dramatic changes on the century scale, short enough to become the stuff of legend from one generation to another and certainly to become tales passed from generation to generation (was Atlantis really a vast area that was flooded by rising sea levels, maybe meltwater pulse 1A?, say the Adriatic or what is now the Arabian Gulf?).

    While changes in orientation might be an enabling factor in the transitions from glacial to interglacial and back, I don’t believe it is the cause. The cause is something that happens quite suddenly and has dramatic impact and changes things for a very, very long time (100,000 years in the case of a glaciation).

    The interglacial period is the abnormal time. It accounts for about 10% of the time. The “normal” condition over the past few million years has been glacial conditions.

  46. Their letter is just a Trojan horse. It brings into the open the CO2 following temperature trend but expects us to read the attachment of how the CO2 later provides positive feedback. The psychology is that we will think they are honest chaps to tell us about the statement we didn’t make a big deal out of, so maybe they are being honest about the CO2 positive feedback. Lumumba graduates are helping them get their AGW message across.

  47. Capo says:

    @ Titan28

    “I may be missing something, but if you read through the entire page, or the whole of the statement (made in 2010), the UKGS supports AGW,”
    What else did you expect? It’s a scientific society, not a Blog.
    BTW: The explanation given here is a liittle simplifying. I’ve just read about the topic in David Archers book “The long thaw”. Outgassing oceans cannot explain all the CO2 in atmosphere. Complex carbon cycle feedbacks (not yet fully understood) have to be considered, too. Details in the recommended book.

    But what can we learn today about this event in regard to modern times?
    The carbon cycle feedback is slow, about some millenia. Supposed our modern CO2 pulse is much shorter, we have a good chance not to see this form of amplification.
    OTOH we can learn, that small forcings can have a big effect in connection with feedbacks.
    And we can learn, that it’s not God’s Law, that the oceans will further uptake half of CO2 emissions. Maybe they will do for decades, maybe longer, but not for all times.

  48. beng says:

    ****
    R. Gates says:
    June 26, 2011 at 10:42 am

    This is nothing new. It has long been thought the Milankovitch forcings begin the warming that end glacials and that warming oceans then release more CO2 through outgassing which then cause more warming and so on. This is why CO2 lags the initial warming in the ice core data. Milankovitch forcings in and of themselves are not enough to explain the large temperature difference between the bottom of a glacial period and the top of an interglacial. When CO2 data was finally recovered from ice cores the pieces fell into place as we could see the changes in GH gases that provided the addition forcings necessary to explain the temperature swings.
    *****

    There’s no evidence for your “additional forcing”. If that were the case, the rate of temp increase would increase as the CO2 additions became significant. It did not, the rate stayed constant & then eventually topped & decreased while CO2 was still increasing. In addition, when the CO2 began decreases, the rate of temp fall should have increased. It did not, it was steady until it bottomed out and the CO2 continued to drop for a thousand yrs w/no effect on temps.

    Sorry, but the data shows there’s no evidence for any “additional forcing” by CO2 either coming in or going out of the interglacials.

  49. R. Gates says:

    Laurie says:
    June 26, 2011 at 12:22 pm
    R. Gates, you were going to answer a question for me and haven’t yet. Did you find the answer?

    I asked: Your global map shows global temps that fall in the lower range and higher range as compared to a 29 year base period (1961-1990). I don’t understand why a very short base period ending 21 years ago is used.

    Your link: http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/maproom/.Global/.Atm_Temp/Persistence.html

    Your reply: Don’t know the full answer to that and it may require more research, but if true, it may be based on data that is reliable with known margins of error. I will have to look into this a bit more.
    ——–
    I have looked into this and it seems to be a function of the data set that is consistent with the parameter being compared. For example, in this data set they use 1971-2000 as the the baseline:

    http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/maproom/.Global/.Atm_Temp/Anomaly.html

    So for the first link, the parameter is persistence of an anomaly and the second one is simply the monthly anomaly itself, which has a base period more current.

  50. Pamela Gray says:

    R. Gates, because these articles are abstracts and are likely behind paywalls, would you be so kind to tell us whether or not the authors say that this weathering is responsible for the net removal of CO2 seen in the temp-CO2 lag, and can thus be used to explain the cooling? And am I to assume that you feel this weathering was responsible for the cooling? If this is so, you have still not addressed what started the cooling in the first place. You have only addressed the lag in CO2 decrease. By every post, you believe that increasing CO2 causes warming, and as long as it is increasing, the warming will continue. Am I paraphrasing you correctly?

  51. Cassie King says:

    R. Gates says:
    June 26, 2011 at 10:42 am

    This is nothing new. It has long been thought the Milankovitch forcings begin the warming that end glacials and that warming oceans then release more CO2 through outgassing which then cause more warming and so on. This is why CO2 lags the initial warming in the ice core data.
    Milankovitch forcings in and of themselves are not enough to explain the large temperature difference between the bottom of a glacial period and the top of an interglacial. When CO2 data was finally recovered from ice cores the pieces fell into place as we could see the changes in GH gases that provided the addition forcings necessary to explain the temperature swings.

    Just a thought about your new theoretical position which seems to have changed over time. Previous warming cycles as seen in the Vostok ice cores are natural, there was no anthropogenic input, you seem to suggest that natural planetary cycles and spacial alignments were the prime movers of cyclic warming and cooling events and it was CO2 that played a contributing role after warming began hence the lag time between temp and CO2 rise. But what caused the warming cycles to end? CAGW theory dictates that increasing CO2 leads to more warming leading to more CO2 leading to a runaway warming tipping point. CAGW doctrine states that an anthropogenic effect is the primary cause of the most recent warming cycle and if it were not for the extra CO2 produced by human activity from the 1700s on there would have been almost no warming of the planet.

    Yet we know from the Vostok ice cores that previous warming cycles were higher and lasted longer with no anthropogenic input, how could this be? We can also clearly see that temperatures fell first and CO2 levels followed, there was no runaway tipping point. Yes there looks to be a relationship between warming and CO2 but it cannot be causal but simply and effect of natural cyclic warming, if it were causal there would have been a tipping point with runaway warming but each time the warming cycles ends first and then CO2 declines. Look back to previous warming cycles highs where as you claim CO2 was a contributing factor and that as CO2 increased so did warming, what then caused temperatures to decline and indeed collapse in spectacular fashion? Because an examination of the actual evidence clearly shows temperatures falling even as CO2 levels remained high. Only when temperatures fell did CO2 decline.

    In effect CO2 did not cause warming and it did not cause the decline and collapse in temperatures after the end of the warming cycle. From the evidence it shows CO2 is a passenger NOT a driver, at no point in history has CO2 driven warming cycles. It is clear that the planet has been in a natural warming cycle and there is mounting evidence that this warming cycle is ending, it is also clear that there has been nothing special about this most recent modest warming cycle. The recent decline in global temperatures cannot be denied and it cannot be denied that whilst temperatures declined CO2 levels increased. If we take the ice cores as our guide to what will happen in the future we will see a decline in temperatures and then a lagging decline in CO2 levels.

    Now note that CO2 levels began to rise after the most recent warming cycle began and notice that measured atmospheric CO2 rose even as global temperatures peaked and then declined post 1998, yes we have had local warming and cooling but the general trend is in decline. Now note that temperatures are declining and CO2 is still rising as measured, it is still too early to categorically assert with 100% confidence that CO2 will continue to rise and GATs will continue to decline but what it does clearly show is that the debate is not over and the consensus is by no means perfect. I can understand a theoretical evolution but your post just seems to fly in the face of everything you have claimed up to now. It aint a done deal is it? The CAGW theology is by no means the only game in town and there is a plausible plan B.

  52. John B says:

    I am left wondering why this was posted. It is a mainstream scientific organisation issuing a statement in line with the mainstream scientific position. A good read if you want to come up to speed with AGW, but nothing new.

  53. R. Gates says:

    Marc says:
    June 26, 2011 at 12:05 pm
    Can anyone explain to us how co2 traps energy from going out but doesn’t prevent at least the same amount of energy from coming in?

    It seems like we are being told that it should be hotter in the shade because the canopy keeps the energy from going out.

    Is there any explanation of this?
    ——-
    Incoming radiation and outgoing emitted radiation are different frequencies– higher coming in and lower being emitted from the surface. CO2 is transparent to the higher, but absorbs and re-emits the lower. This absorption and re-emission of longer wave radiation is the essence of the the GH effect.

  54. Mark Hladik says:
    June 26, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    While other have successfully addressed R. Gates misanthropogenic hypothesis, let us also recall that anywhere past 200 ppm concentration, carbon dioxide’s absorption spectrum reaches a point of saturation, such that adding any more CO2 to the system does very little, if anything.

    I don’t think that’s correct. The effect diminishes as CO2 increases, but not that early.

    David M Hoffer posted what I believe is a very lucid explanation here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/25/bring-it-mr-wirth-a-challenge/#comment-689083 and there is a very detailed explanation by David Archibald here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

    Hence my understanding is that the effect only really starts to really tail off significantly once we get to quite high numbers; but irrespective of what level we might be at, each doubling of CO2 (which admittedly gets harder and harder as concentrations increase) contributes around 1.2C warming. That’s without additinal feedbacks.

    So, 200ppm to 400ppm should cause around 1.2C; 400 to 800 another 1.2C, 800 to 1600 another 1.2C, and so on.

    Disclaimer: IANAS, just an interested layman, so take all this with a pinch of salt. On the other hand, I’d be very glad to have any errors pointed out.

  55. JamesS says:

    @G. Karst (is that a geological pun?)

    The bit about the fossil->geologist->fossil->paleontologist is humorous, but they were actually just engaging in a bit of shorthand. In the early days of geology when the strata and geologic periods and such were being named, the ages were all relative. The principle of superposition was considered first when dating fossils or rocks, so if a fossil was found to appear in a particular strata, that fossil was used to “date” other strata it was found in. It wasn’t until the long-lived radioactives could be used to date strata that absolute ages could be applied to them. If anything, I’m surprised neither of them mentioned the U-Pb or K-Ar dating methods rather than the fossils.

    Re: the UK Geological Society statement. Considering how the physicists went overboard, to the surprise of much of their membership, the geologist’s statement seems almost ambiguous. In the end, though, does it really matter how the CO2 gets into the atmosphere, whether by previous warming or by human output? Consider the scenario:

    Geologically speaking, the earth warmed first, causing CO2 to be released from the oceans and soils and what have you. This accelerated (maybe) the warming a bit, until other negative feedbacks reined in the warming, overcoming CO2’s weak influence and ending the warming spell.

    Now that we’re getting increased CO2 WITHOUT the previous warming — does this perhaps mean that the negative feedbacks will kick in later, until the warming reaches the appropriate levels?

    At any rate, the geologically observed levels of up to 5000ppm of CO2 is pretty good evidence that by itself, CO2 can’t cause runaway warming, regardless of the source.

  56. David L. Williams says:

    G Karst I do hope you were joking.

    There is no circular argument. The fallacy is all in the terminology, here is how it should read:

    ie field tour with Sedimentologist:

    Sedimentologist: “Now, you see this sedimentary layer here… it was laid down 123 million years ago.”

    student: “How do you know?”

    Sedimentologist: ” See this little fossil here. Well paleontologists, have dated this sucker, as having walked the earth 123 million years ago.”

    Student returns to campus (with fossil sample) and runs into a paleontologist and asks for a dating of the sample.

    paleontologist: “Yes, I know this fossil well. It lived and thrived 123 million years ago.”

    student: “How do you know?”

    paleontologist: ” Easy, it is only found in sedimentary layers, dated by Stratigraphers and Geophysicists, as laid down 123 million years ago.”

    All of the specialists can be described as Geologists. The sedimentologist has used a secondary dating method (e.g. fossil correlation) rather than a primary (e.g. radiometric dating etc) and has not explained the implications of this.

  57. David, UK says:

    At first I read into the paragraph, which includes a “positive feedback” reference, a nod towards the current CAGW hypothesis. But then I realised (I hope correctly) that they’re talking about just CO2 in itself being a (small, limited) positive feedback of the tilt change, rather than the runaway H2O feedback hypothesised by alarmists. Then if you read the full piece, it mentions other points which really don’t give strength to the CAGW theory – although they try to imply that they do.

    Unfortunately it all ends with the usual crap about the so-called necessity to decrease CO2 output, or we’ll fry. As per usual, there’s no mention of by how much we should reduce our CO2 output, and what cooling effect said reduction would have. No mention either of how exactly we reduce it, although to be fair that would not be in their mandate.

    So here are some ways of how we can reduce CO2: Governments ban companies from producing too much stuff (producing stuff needs energy, energy produces CO2). As a consequence a proportion of the workforce unfortunately automatically becomes redundant and living on welfare, supported by those taxpayers lucky enough to still be in work, but hey ho, “when needs must.” Or the Government passes a law to limit the number of hours in a working week, so everyone gets a job (working a few hours a week) – and is necessarily supported by welfare. But such is life. Or the end products are taxed so highly that no one except the privileged few can afford to buy them, and the manufacturers go out of business (or move to India or China). National debt rises even more than it is already. Prices rise as goods become more rare, inflation goes through the roof, the welfare economy collapses, and the Greens have their goal of the destruction of western economies. People die and the crime rate soars as food and medicine become rare commodities. But Gaia is saved. Now those are – as far as I can see – the only ways of actually reducing CO2 output measurably. But in return we’d have a cooler climate (by about 0.00000001 degree C or so, in about a hundred years). THIS concept is what is being sold to us by anyone who tells us we need to measurably reduce CO2.

  58. John B says:

    ;JamesS said “At any rate, the geologically observed levels of up to 5000ppm of CO2 is pretty good evidence that by itself, CO2 can’t cause runaway warming, regardless of the source.”

    Nobody is saying “runaway” warming. If climate sensitivity were, for argument’s sake, 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2, then if atmospheric CO2 is doubled we would see a raise of 3 degrees C over a few decades, at which point a new equilibrium would be reached.

    The serious scientific debates are about what that sensitivity figure is, and what feedbacks not curently accounted for (positive or negative) will kick in to increase or decrease it.

  59. R. Gates says:

    Cassie King,

    Don’t know why you’d call this a new theoretical position, as it hardly is. The role of outgassed CO2 to amplify Milankovitch forcings has been a basic position for quite some time, and the role of rock weathering to remove CO2 has also been researched and the basic chemistry known for a long time. The lag time of CO2 to temperatures going into and out of glaciations has to do with the negative and positive feedback lag times in both adding and subtracting CO2 from the atmosphere via their respective feedback mechanisms.

    Also, you can’t look at just a few years data on this to see the longer-term forcing that CO2 represents. You use the year 1998 as some kind of benchmark for the height of modern warming, yet the decade after that year, 2000-2009 was the warmest on record.

  60. DCC says:

    SØREN BUNDGAARD said: “WE LIVE IN THE COLDEST PERIOD OF THE LAST 10,000 YEARS… -SEE THIS SURPRISING VIDEO FROM GREENLAND.” http://vimeo.com/14366077

    There is a good summary of the GRIP (Greenland) project results and some comparisons to the Law Dome (Antarctic) project at http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/?p=4862.

    I was particularly interested in the justification for statements made in the video about direct measurements of temperature in the bore hole being indicative of paleo-temperatures.

  61. John B says:

    David, UK says:
    June 26, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    “energy produces CO2″

    Not necessarily. Nuclear doesn’t produce CO2, neither does hydroelectric. I don’t even need to mention other “green” sources.

    And don’t be so pessimistic about the future if AGW is finally accepted by governments and we start to do something about it. It could go like this:

    Most of the big economies (USA, Europe, Australia, Canada for starters, say) impose a tax on CO2 emissions. Energy companies look for ways of reducing emissions so as to pay less tax and therby out compete other energy companies. Companies and individuals find ways of reducing energy usage to reduce their taxes. The tax revenues are redistributed in whatever ways our democracies decide. The big economies that impose carbon taxes charge equivalent import duties on those that don’t to avoid “exporting emissions” and to ensure those economies don’t see an unfair competitive advantage. Eonomists call this a “Pigouvian” tax.

    Can someone explain why this would be such a bad thing? (Asssuming, for the moment, that AGW is real, mitigation is needed, and CO2 emission reductions will work)

  62. The most important thing here is that academics are ‘turning around’ while also trying not to lose face. It is necessarily a slow process. Compare the Geological Soc UK with the American Geophysical Union for instance:
    http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml and
    http://www.post-carbon-living.com/TTHW/Documents/Climate_Change_Consensus.pdf Joint Sciences academies statement.
    “Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained
    a dissenting opinion. A few North American organisations hold non-committal positions.”
    That is a hell of a lot of scientists, lured into consensus. Does one really need to be an outsider to see the fraud?

  63. Rob R says:

    Much of the discussion above is centered around the premise that Milankovitch forcing is relatively weak. The reality is that this is not true. There are several components to the forcing, being eccentricity, obliquity and precession. The first (eccentricity) is generally viewed as being significantly weaker than the other two. But the combination of precession and obbliquity has substantial climate forcing impacts, particularly on icesheet formation and destruction in the Northern Hemisphere.

    One of the biggest climate feedbacks is albedo. The combination of change in reflectivity due to ice sheet and sea-ice expansion/contraction, cloud cover and vegetation change provides most of the positive feedback that forces global temperature change. About 70 to 80 ppm of the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration is a side-effect of the warming of the oceans. There is no particular need to invoke change in the optical thickness of the atmosphere as a cause of glacial-interglacial temperature change. I have seen no proof that, on the glacial-interglacial timescale, there is any substantial change in atmosheric optical thickness that is suficient to force glacial-interglacial temperature changes.

  64. charles nelson says:

    What was that party game that used to be around?
    It had a mat, and on the mat were numbered spots. A person would then have to put their hands and feet on different spots depending on the role of the dice…it was hilarious…everyone got into a right old tangle and then fell over….what was it called?
    Only because it very much reminds me of the poor faithful Warmists who, as each new bit of evidence emerges to nullify CAGW, have to twist their story, to try and get it to fit the original official line. Global Warming causes drought/floods, hurricanes/no hurricanes, ice melt/record snowfalls, warm winters/cold winters…etc etc ad nauseam…
    This latest burp from the geologists has left them tied up in knots…
    see R Gates above clutching at straws.
    I expect everyone to fall over in gales of laughter soon.
    What was it called….TWISTER?

  65. Billy Liar says:

    Something fishy here. Why draw attention to a small part of the document.

    The rest of it appears to have been drafted by Greenpeace for them:

    Evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater…
    etc, etc

  66. David S says:

    That statement is somewhat similar to the abstract that accompaines the Vostok Ice Core data
    which says:
    “Air trapped in bubbles in polar ice cores constitutes an archive for the reconstruction of the global carbon cycle and the relation between greenhouse gases and climate in the past. High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 +/- 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations; the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere.”

    Source http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html

  67. Tilo Reber says:

    R. Gates: “Tilo Reber & Peter F., see my response to Evan M. Jones at 11:49 am. ”

    R. Gates: “But it is precisely in the increased water vapor levels and eventual increased rock weathering that comes from the acceleration of the hydrological cycle that removes CO2 from the atmosphere and breaks the positive feedback loop that otherwise would have created the run-away greenhouse condition.”

    I don’t follow your argument. Can you explain this better please.

    Also note that whatever your considerations about removing CO2 from the atmosphere, the record shows that CO2 was still on the rise and continued to rise when temperature turned around and went down.

  68. u.k.(us) says:

    R. Gates says:
    June 26, 2011 at 10:42 am
    “When CO2 data was finally recovered from ice cores the pieces fell into place as we could see the changes in GH gases that provided the addition forcings necessary to explain the temperature swings.”
    =============
    When did GH become an accepted abbreviation for greenhouse?
    I’ve been lost for 2 days reading your posts !!

  69. Marc says:

    R. Gates?

    Are you trying to say none of the incoming energy has the same wavelength as tthe outgoing. Certainly, if it can block outgoing, it must block some substantial outgoing.

    Isn’t it the case that our magnetic field is what give us a steady atmosphere and the fact that we have so much water? It is hard to conceive that a few 100 parts per million can have any significant effect on temperature compared to the myriad other factors dictating temperature.

    Would not the world be much hotter during the day and much cooler at night without the atmosphere.? So clearly, the fact that daytime temperatures are so low means that a whole bunch of the energy is not getting in?

    Albedo and clouds and cosmic rays and all that stuff have to be a much bigger effect.

    Seems the focus on CO2 is dogmatic, not even remotely proveable, or even likely, given the complexity of the system and our inchoate understanding.

  70. Marc says:

    Meant… Certainly, if it can block outgoing, it must block some substantial incoming.

  71. rbateman says:

    A lot of talk about CO2 as an atmospheric amplifier.
    It doesn’t amplify anything, and there are no physics to prove this.
    It’s a molecule, period. It obeys quantum physics no differently than any other molecule, save for the wavelength of light it will receive. It cannot pass on magical quantities of trapped energy without receiving more.
    As for the physics to disprove CO2 as an atmospheric amplifier: energy is neither created nor destroyed.
    CO2 amplification is a myth created to get around the above, and CO2 cannot create energy out of nothing, nor can it amplify the energy received from LIR outgoing.
    Bunch of hogwash, because if it were true, then scientists and power plant operators would be drooling over a miracle power-generation breakthru. Eureka…Cold Fusion at last and unlimited power.

  72. G. Karst says:

    JamesS:
    David L. Williams:
    Re: Geologist parable

    Yes it was satire illustrating the danger of relying on authority, without checking source data, creating an eternal self-confirming loop. As I said, I have the highest respect for geology and agree with both of your comments. I apologize, for not stating the moral of the story. GK

  73. Greg, Spokane WA says:

    Rhoda Ramirez says:
    June 26, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    Doesn’t their emphasis on the positive feedback mean that there should never have been any ice age at all? At one time the CO2 was somewhere in the neighborhood of 5000 PPM, yes?
    =================
    During that time the surface of the Earth was completely uninhabitable. Nothing lived. All life has appeared since the CO2 dropped below 500ppm. With the IPCC climate sensitivity of 6C, the temps would have been… 36-40C higher than they are now. Clearly nothing could survive.

    Also, since the current increase in CO2 is far larger than that of the interglacials’ and the current warming is far less, the only reasonable conclusion is that the IPCC models and hockey stick are grossly underestimating how warm it’s really gotten. Small CO2 changes back then apparently resulted in LARGE temp shifts (10C plus) therefore our much larger CO2 increase must have resulted in a temp increase that’s much larger than 10C. Which explains all the snow we’ve been having…

    Everyone mentions rock weathering, no one mentioned CO2 consuming, or emitting, life forms. Clearly the reason the CO2 plumeted after the previous interglacials was due to an excess of plants and insufficient numbers of critters exhaling CO2. The plants ate all the CO2 and the climate crashed back into an ice age.

    Do I have to? Ok…
    /sarc_off

  74. Tilo Reber says:

    R. Gates: “The lag time of CO2 to temperatures going into and out of glaciations has to do with the negative and positive feedback lag times in both adding and subtracting CO2 from the atmosphere via their respective feedback mechanisms.”

    Your explanation of CO2 lag would seem to be irrelevant to the fact that temperature falls before CO2 falls. The question is not why there is a lag. It is not about how a negative feedback comes into play once the temperature begins to fall; the question you have to ask is, how does temperature fall and fall sharply while CO2 is still rising sharply. Forget today. This is the case in the record of the past.

    R. Gates: “You use the year 1998 as some kind of benchmark for the height of modern warming, yet the decade after that year, 2000-2009 was the warmest on record.”

    The current situation has not played itself out. So let’s not use it in this discussion. I know Cassie brought it up, but it still should be left out. And it’s not true, as Cassie says, that the temperature has fallen since 1998. It is simply flat since 1998. You probably also want to reconsider the “warmest decade on record” thing. When you go up a flight of stairs and reach the top floor every subsequent step that you will take will be higher than any of the steps that you took while coming up the stairs. But it does not mean that you are still climbing.

  75. Jeremy Poynton says:

    SØREN BUNDGAARD

    Thank you very much. Have you sent the link to Michael Mann?

  76. John Whitman says:

    Geology provides a several orders of magnitude longer perspective on the history of changes in the amount of energy in the total earth system than paleontology does. Climatology based on instrumental data is short from a statistical perspective.

    The geological record has an epistemological ranking higher than the other two.

    AGW must show its consistency with geology. It does not do so.

    AGW then, second in epistemological order, must show its consistency with paleontology. Inspite of the stagirian efforts of Mann & the team, it does not.

    AGW then, third in epistemological order, must conform with the instrumental climate records. So we then come back to the lingering issues of openness by the organizations managing the thermometer records. At least we have satellite records now that can contribute independently of the thermometer records for the critical analysis of AGW.

    One wonders how there ever was imagined to be a so-called IPCC centric climate science of AGW.

    John

  77. Tilo Reber says:

    John B: “Can someone explain why this would be such a bad thing?”

    I don’t want to use less energy. A high quality modern life is depended on energy consumption. And the energy companies will not pay those taxes; they will pass them on directly to us. But if you want to propose a steady and consistent program of building nuclear reactors, I’m all with you.

  78. JPeden says:

    Pat Frank says:
    June 26, 2011 at 11:22 am

    Extending the logic of the UKGS to its full symmetry, we can further surmise that the high-point of atmospheric CO2, reached several hundred years after air temperature had already begun to fall, ‘reinforced the temperature decline already in train.’

    Yes indeed! But what else would we expect from “the physics” of such Anthropomorphizing Anthropogenics, who will ‘perforce’ no doubt only next “prove”, via the usual greenback-greased physic used in producing the rest of their sheep dip, that “It’s stronger than we thought!” and more “elegant”?

    And who ever said that the fact that we haven’t been able to find the Missing Link meant that we couldn’t replicate it? Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the “Anthrowbacks”!

  79. Tilo Reber says:

    Marc: “Meant… Certainly, if it can block outgoing, it must block some substantial incoming.”

    Marc, the incoming is absorbed when it stikes the surface. It comes in at a range of frequencies that are mostly not absorbed by the atmosphere. When these frequencies stike the surface the energy is absorbed and then eventually reemitted. But when the energy is reemitted, it is reemitted at a different frequency than when it was absorbed. And the atmosphere is not as transparent to the new frequency as it was to the incoming. None of this is actually debated by people on either side. Everyone generally agrees that one doubling of CO2 raises the temp by 1C. The issue of debate is in the feedback. For example, the warmers claim that rising temperature puts more water into the atmosphere, thereby giving a positive feedback such that the 1C basic change from CO2 yields around 3C of total effect when feedback is counted. But there is no consensus on feedback. Some very good scientists think that the feedback may even be negative due to cloud formation. And clouds do in fact reflect light back into space as you suggest. That’s called albedo. So we have a range of climate sensitivity guesses that go all the way from .5C per CO2 doubling up to 6C per CO2 doubling. Now, since the effect of CO2 decreases logarithmically as CO2 increases, if the climate sensitivity is on that lower end of that scale, there will be no climate emergency. On the other hand if it is somewhere between 3C and 6C we are going to need mitigation. I don’t want to go on with this for too long, but more and more it appears that the climate sensitivity number is on the smaller side. My own opinion is that it is between .5C and 1.2C per CO2 doubling.

  80. John B says:

    @Marc and rbateman, here’s how it works:

    The hotter a body is, the higher the peak frequency at which it emits radiation. The Sun is very hot, so it emits a large portion of its radiation in the high frequency visible and ultra-violet range, although there is some in the low frequency infra-red range. The earth is much cooler, so much more of the radiation it emits is infra-red.

    CO2 and other greenhouse gases, e.g. water vapour, ozone, methane, are transparent to visible and ultra-violet but can absorb and re-radiate infra-red. No energy is being created, just absorbed and re-radiated. (what all GHGs have in common is having more than two atoms per molecule, which allows them to absorb IR by “bending” – thus oxygen, O2, and nitrogen, N2, are not greenhouse gases but ozone, O3, is)

    So, greenhouses gases are largely transparent to incoming, high frequency radiation, but can asborb and re-radiate low frequency infra-red being radiated from the surface of the Earth. The re-radiated IR goes in all directions. Some of it goes back to the surface of the Earth, warming it.

    That’s the basics of it, but for a better explanation, you can easily find links to “greenhouse effect”.

    [When people talk about "amplification", they are not referring to amplifying energy, which would, as rbateman says, be absurd. They are talking about the greenhouse effect amplifying the warming or cooling cause by other effects. This is primarily due to more CO2 being released or taken up by the oceans as they get warmer or cooler, thus creating more or less warming through greater or smaller greenhouse effect]

    Hope this helps,
    John

  81. G. Karst says:

    John B says:
    June 26, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    Energy companies look for ways of reducing emissions so as to pay less tax and therby out compete other energy companies. Companies and individuals find ways of reducing energy usage to reduce their taxes. The tax revenues are redistributed in whatever ways our democracies decide. The big economies that impose carbon taxes charge equivalent import duties on those that don’t to avoid “exporting emissions” and to ensure those economies don’t see an unfair competitive advantage. Eonomists call this a “Pigouvian” tax.

    Can someone explain why this would be such a bad thing?

    Put some reality on your scenario. A tax on everything increases retail prices on everything. The working man sees his real income drop and screams for help from his Union. The Union calls for strike action until working man’s wages now compensates for artificially increasing prices. Inflation is not the solution to climatic variation. GK

  82. rbateman says:

    Marc says:
    June 26, 2011 at 4:11 pm
    Meant… Certainly, if it can block outgoing, it must block some substantial incoming.

    Exactly. There are narrow windows of incoming (Just into the UV to end of visible) and 3 narrow windows of outgoing longer that the incoming. The outgoing are dominated by H20 vapor.

  83. A G Foster says:

    Two different lags are evident, one of which–the more important one–is ignored by the Society’s statement: the 6 to 8 millenium lag between June 65 North insolation and T and the roughly 1 millenium lag between T and CO2. The statement speaks rather ridiculously of ice sheet amplification when it is clear that ice sheet extension and T are directly related. Insolation forces melting/T followed by CO2. Remember the old ice in water on a stove experiment: the water won’t warm till the ice melts. Similarly, increased insolation has no immediate effect on T/CO2–the ice sheets must recede, and it takes between 6 and 8 (depending on whose glacial mass reconstruction) thousand years to do it. These geologists seem to be ignorant of this very basic fact, or they ignore the compelling statistical evidence linking insolation to T: T = insolation + 7000 years; CO2 = insolation + 8000.

    Another ridiculously fatal flaw: population density rises hundreds of times faster due to population growth than sea level rise. We’re not even sure the sea is rising. –AGF

  84. charles allison says:

    more of the boring usual.

    the assumption of hyper sensitivity makes a co2 doubling sound like it’s going to have some serious effect. It’s a log type of function! What’s more, so is the h2o vapor and this supposed feedback can’t generate anything significant either. (significant means beyond some value greater than a fraction of a degree). The co2 with feedbacks can’t even make it to the level of a full deg C rise for a doubling.

    As already stated, the real factor in Earth’s temperature is albedo, and that, no one has even bothered or been able to measure over the longer term. For the modern Earth, it’s all about cloud cover and the negative feedback self regulating system. One doesn’t even have a significant contribution from land surface to really matter much. In a major ice age, it’s all about the short circuiting of this by snow cover (glaciation) replacing the cloud cover.

  85. Jack Greer says:

    For those trying to make issue of the GHG effect of CO2 … Seriously, what’s your point other than arguing for the sake of arguing? The GHG effect of CO2 is completely non-controversial. It’s well known – it’s been tested in research labs all over the world. The vast majority of skeptical scientists don’t dispute this piece of science re: incoming/outgoing radiative wavelengths and other characteristics. Geez.

  86. Mark Hladik says:

    To Derek Sorenson:

    The effect is negligible beyond 200 ppm. Archibald summarized the empirical data, and the best presentation is at JoNova’s site, in the latest incarnation of “The Skeptics Handbook”.

    CO2 conc. % effect (saturation)

    20 ppm 54
    40 ppm 68
    60 ppm 75
    80 ppm 79
    100 ppm 83
    120 ppm 87
    140 ppm 89
    160 ppm 91
    180 ppm 93
    200 ppm 95

    (rounded and approximate, of course)

    I would also encourage a visit to the website called , and put the graph of ancient CO2 concentrations up against the graph for paleotemperatures, and look at the negative correlation coefficient.

    You might want to do it before they realize that the vast majority of their data contradict their cherished beliefs, and the owners expunge the data!

    Thanks for writing, hope you have a great day.

    Mark H.

  87. Mark Hladik says:

    Moderator:

    The data did not post as intended; the second set of numbers should fall underneath the column which says “% effect (saturation)” . Any chance of getting fixed before posting?

    MH

    [Sorry, WordPress deletes more than one consecutive space. But it was clear enough for me to understand. ~dbs, mod.]

  88. Leland Palmer says:

    Hmmm, this was also part of the statement:

    Has sudden climate change occurred before?

    Yes. About 55 million years ago, at the end of the Paleocene, there was a sudden warming event in which temperatures rose by about 6ºC globally and by 10-20ºC at the poles. Carbon isotopic data show that this warming event (called by some the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM) was accompanied by a major release of 1500-2000 billion tonnes or more of carbon into the ocean and atmosphere. This injection of carbon may have come mainly from the breakdown of methane hydrates beneath the deep sea floor, perhaps triggered by volcanic activity superimposed on an underlying gradual global warming trend that peaked some 50 million years ago in the early Eocene. CO2 levels were already high at the time, but the additional CO2 injected into the atmosphere and ocean made the ocean even warmer, less well oxygenated and more acidic, and was accompanied by the extinction of many species on the deep sea floor. Similar sudden warming events are known from the more distant past, for example at around 120 and 183 million years ago. In all of these events it took the Earth’s climate around 100,000 years or more to recover, showing that a CO2 release of such magnitude may affect the Earth’s climate for that length of time.

    Funny that you all left that part out, I guess. The part about the mass extinctions, I mean.

  89. Pat Frank says:

    R. Gates, “But it is precisely in the increased water vapor levels and eventual increased rock weathering that comes from the acceleration of the hydrological cycle that removes CO2 from the atmosphere and breaks the positive feedback loop…

    Except that air temperature turns down centuries before the CO2 level does. Throughout the ice ages the atmospheric CO2 level behaves as an effect, not as a cause.

  90. Marc says:

    So the difference in wavelength of uv vs. ir is fine, but what about all the incoming ir being blocked? Isn’t it the case that more co2 blocks more incoming ir as well as outgoing?

    The earth would be over 100C during the day (or there abouts) without the filtering of incoming energy.

    However, isn’t the larger point that we don’t know near enough to conclude that our co2 emissions will have any noticeable effect on the future of the climate, and even if it does, whether it will be better, neutral or worse for humankind?

  91. Smokey says:

    Leland Palmer,

    “May have,” “perhaps,” etc. Perhaps I won the lottery; I may have.

    There was greater warming much more recently: click

    It may have caused mass extinctions. Perhaps.

  92. Marc says:

    So the difference in wavelength of uv vs. .ir is fine, but what about all the incoming ir being blocked? Isn’t it the case that more co2 blocks more incoming ir as well as outgoing?

    The earth would be over 100C during the day (or there abouts) without the filtering of incoming energy.

    However, isn’t the larger point that we don’t know near enough to conclude that our co2 emissions will have any noticeable effect on the future of the climate, and even if it does, whether it will be better, neutral or worse for humankind?

  93. Pat Frank says:

    G. Karst, your supposed circular thinking doesn’t reflect the reality of geological dating. It’s done by radiometric dating, which gives absolute ages (given constant radiological half-lives). The circularity argument you presented is a classic mistake most often made in certain circles. So perhaps this is a more appropriate forum for the explanation.

  94. Nick Stokes says:

    Marc, you’ve had good explanations from John B and Tilo Reber. You should read them.

    Here is a plot of the spectra which shows the point. Incoming solar, in red, has a tiny fraction of its energy in the far IR. In the frequency range where its energy is, most gets through.

    Thermal radiation from the Earth (blue) is in a very different range, mich subject to GHG blocking.

  95. Pat Frank says:

    Greg, “All life has appeared since the CO2 dropped below 500ppm.

    Atmospheric CO2 was several thousand ppm during the Cambrian, when highly complex life emerged 500 million years ago. Life itself, however, began some 3 billion years before the Cambrian, when the atmosphere most likely included about 50 bars of CO2 (now all locked up in carbonate rocks) and approximately zero dioxygen.

  96. Chad Jessup says:

    The last paragraph of the statement indicates the position of the GS on the current warming debate, “In light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 … is … unwise…”

    They are in bed with Mann, et al.

  97. Leland Palmer says:

    Even this is a very weak statement, far weaker than those from the national academies of science of most countries. It kind of makes me wonder about the effect of the petroleum geologists- employed by ExxonMobil, for example- on the Geological Society.

    One funny thing is that this statement leaves out the End Permian mass extinction, also accompanied by carbon isotope signatures which show the injection of several trillion tons of carbon 12 enriched carbon at this time, consistent with a massive destabilization of the methane hydrates at that time.

    The End Permian made extinct on the order of 90 percent of species then living.

    What sort of global warming related catastrophe could extinguish 90 percent of species living on the earth now? What could have killed so many species?

    Perhaps it was clouds of toxic hydrogen sulfide gas coming from anoxic oceans that killed so many species. Anything that could make so many species extinct must surely have killed 99 percent or greater of individual organisms.

    Of course, the sun is a couple of percent brighter now than during the End Permian mass extinction. According to Hansen, this two percent in increase in brightness of the sun is equivalent to around another 1000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. So, right now, we’re at the equivalent of about 1400 ppm CO2 back at the time of the End Permian.

  98. Greg, Spokane WA says:

    Pat Frank says:
    June 26, 2011 at 7:09 pm

    Greg, “All life has appeared since the CO2 dropped below 500ppm.”

    Atmospheric CO2 was several thousand ppm during the Cambrian, when highly complex life emerged 500 million years ago.
    ===============
    Impossible, with temps being vastly hotter than they are now organic life would have burned up so, therefore, never formed. It came later.

    Yes, I’m pulling your leg. Here, you can have it back. Clearly my snark failed.

  99. Interstellar Bill says:

    Just keep publicizing how the deserts are shrinking and global vegetation cover is rapidly increasing,
    a story the AGW crowd assiduously ignores, because it wasn’t in their models
    and utterly contradicts their shrill doomsaying.
    The higher CO2 goes the happier GAIA will be, because Her plants feel more at Home.

  100. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Smokey-

    Well, it is the future we are talking about here, and also the past of tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. So, my crystal ball is a little cloudy about things that haven’t happened yet and that depend on what we do now in the future, or that happened millions of years ago. Still, anybody with half a brain would be cautious about initiating a mass…extinction…event.

    Duh.

    What we do have are carbon isotope signatures showing the input of trillions of tons of C12 enriched carbon into the active carbon cycle, and oxygen isotope signatures showing large amounts of global heating at that time. There is also, of course, evidence of anoxic conditions on the floors of the oceans, including vast deposits of petroleum, left over from dead creatures preserved by low oxygen conditions, during these oceanic anoxic events associated with destabilization of methane hydrates.

  101. steptoe fan says:

    John B – you must be joking, right ? ! ?

  102. Smokey says:

    Leland Palmer,

    Climate alarmists are wacky enough already without veering off into fantasies involving 90% extermination rates. We’re talking about a minor change in a minor trace gas, from 0.000280 of the atmosphere to 0.000390 of the atmosphere. It’s still a minuscule trace gas, and implying that it may cause mass extinctions is lunatic alarmism, doubled and squared.

  103. Robert Austin says:

    My previous post should have been directed at:
    Marc says:
    June 26, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    The solar spectrum only has a very small component in the infra red that would interact with the major greenhouse gas water and the minor greenhouse gas CO2. Marc, you really must study up on radiative physics before posing your questions. There have been numerous post on various climate blogs over the years explaining the radiative physics of the earth’s atmosphere. That is not to say that the functioning of the entire system is well quantified and understood but some of the basic physical principles are well understood. Try scienceofdoom.com if you want to overdose on radiative physics.

  104. A G Foster says:

    The mass extinctions began 10,000 years ago and continue today and have nothing to do with CO2, but everything to do with over hunting, over fishing, exotic species introduction, etc. CO2 is the iron pyrite of environmentalism–preventer of all cures. –AGF

  105. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Smokey-
    Well, nature isn’t wacky, but it is sometimes very strange.

    We really could plausibly set off such an extinction event- or worse totally destabilize the system and end up with an atmosphere resembling that of Venus, with temperatures of hundreds of degrees C.

    This is the most horrifying scientific paper I have ever read:

    atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2011Q2/558/IsaksenGB2011.pdf

    Strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to climate warming from Arctic methane emissions
    Ivar S. A. Isaksen,Michael Gauss,Gunnar Myhre,Katey M. Walter Anthony,and Carolyn Ruppel

    [1] The magnitude and feedbacks of future methane release from the Arctic region are
    unknown. Despite limited documentation of potential future releases associated with
    thawing permafrost and degassing methane hydrates, the large potential for future methane
    releases calls for improved understanding of the interaction of a changing climate with
    processes in the Arctic and chemical feedbacks in the atmosphere. Here we apply a “state
    of the art” atmospheric chemistry transport model to show that large emissions of CH4
    would likely have an unexpectedly large impact on the chemical composition of the
    atmosphere and on radiative forcing (RF). The indirect contribution to RF of additional
    methane emission is particularly important. It is shown that if global methane emissions
    were to increase by factors of 2.5 and 5.2 above current emissions, the indirect
    contributions to RF would be about 250% and 400%, respectively, of the RF that can be
    attributed to directly emitted methane alone. Assuming several hypothetical scenarios of
    CH4 release associated with permafrost thaw, shallow marine hydrate degassing, and
    submarine landslides, we find a strong positive feedback on RF through atmospheric
    chemistry. In particular, the impact of CH4 is enhanced through increase of its lifetime,
    and of atmospheric abundances of ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and CO2
    as aresult of atmospheric chemical processes.

    Methane actually depletes concentrations of hydroxyl radical, the chemical species which oxidizes it into CO2, increasing its own lifetime in the atmosphere. Because this is an atmospheric chemistry effect, it can grow much, much faster than logarithmically. The indirect atmospheric chemistry effects that Isaksen talks about make everything much, much worse. And radiative forcing from any greenhouse gas, not just CO2, is multiplied several times by increased water vapor in the atmosphere.

    I really, really do hope that you guys know what you are doing, since you seem to be betting all of our futures on your sense of what is or is not ridiculous.

  106. JimF says:

    Tilo Reber says:
    June 26, 2011 at 11:33 am “…What bothers me about this explanation is that Milankovich is considered to be a weak forcing agent and CO2 is considered to be a strong forcing agent….”

    Considered by whom? Milankovich is FIRST order forcing; CO2 is a Fourth order forcing, i.e. nothing much.

  107. Smokey says:

    Leland Palmer says:

    “We really could plausibly set off such an extinction event- or worse totally destabilize the system and end up with an atmosphere resembling that of Venus, with temperatures of hundreds of degrees C.”

    And pigs could plausibly fly. You’re scaring yourself with that crazy talk. Stop it. There is nothing unusual happening; everything is well within past parameters. So try to relax, take some deep breaths, and repeat after me: “Serenity now…” Or familiarize yourself with the evil vodak, it works just as well. ☺

  108. JimF says:

    crosspatch says:
    June 26, 2011 at 1:19 pm “…The cause is something that happens quite suddenly and has dramatic impact and changes things for a very, very long time (100,000 years in the case of a glaciation)….”

    Actually, this is a blink of the eye, geologically. There are periods of many tens of millions of years where things climatic apparently were relatively stable (our measuring stick for those times is good, but relatively coarse). Only in the last 40 million years or so do we have a more finely graduated record that we can measure more closely. These do seem to show some sharp, abrupt changes. That cannot relate to greenhouse gases, because – theoretically – they have at least a linear effect on global temperatures (i.e. 1ppm CO2 = .001 degC up or down or whatever). Ergo, something else is at work: albedo changes (clouds +/- something else); solar changes; oceanic changes; or some other major but as yet unrecognized effect.

  109. Khwarizmi says:

    In all the comments defending the “blocking” action of CO2 (absorption and reemission of radiation), the word “convection” doesn’t appear. Let me fix that:

    Does CO2 stifle convection?

    “Energy is transferred between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere via conduction, convection, and radiation.”
    http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_1_1.htm

    How does convection affect global temperatures?
    Is convection a negative feedback?

  110. A G Foster says:
    June 26, 2011 at 8:26 pm
    The mass extinctions began 10,000 years ago and continue today and have nothing to do with CO2, but everything to do with over hunting, over fishing, exotic species introduction, etc. CO2 is the iron pyrite of environmentalism–preventer of all cures. –AGF

    ====================

    I cannot believe that I am agreeing with Tamino, but….well said.

    Until we get to the point where we honestly address the fact that homo sapiens (for all our accomplishments) have opportunistically forced ourselves on the biosphere not unlike fire ants, bermudagrass, and english ivy, we will get nowhere.

    But unlike fire ants, bermudagrass, and english ivy, et al, we have evolved consciences and the ability to correct problems…so we are without excuse.

    Never before has a species had so much knowledge (and ability) at its fingertips…as ours…to solve problems.

    And never before have there been so many distractions….the wild goose chase foolishness of the beneficial trace gas CO2 notwithstanding.

    Meanwhile…the dead zones increase in the Gulf….and species disappear.

    We need to choose our battles.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  111. u.k.(us) says:

    Leland Palmer says:
    June 26, 2011 at 7:55 pm

    …”So, my crystal ball is a little cloudy about things that haven’t happened yet and that depend on what we do now in the future,”….
    =========
    Good God, it is not all about you, get over yourself !!

  112. rbateman says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    June 26, 2011 at 7:00 pm

    And the incoming is where the shorter (and more energetic) portion of the spectrum is.
    The outgoing is where the longer (and less energetic) portion of the spectrum lies.
    The exact formula is E= hc/wavelength
    some math yields: incoming peak is .5 x 10^-6 meters.
    so E incoming is 1.99×10^-25 joule-meters/.5 x 10^-6 meters
    E outgoing peak is 9 x 10^-6 meters
    so E outgoing is 1.99×10^-25 joule-meters/9 x 10^-6 meters
    Looks to me like incoming is 18 times that of outgoing in terms of energy, all by itself.
    Toss in 12 hours of darkness and incoming is 9 times that of outgoing energy.
    Earth is not very sensitive to CO2, being that it is at the very lowest part of the outgoing curve, climactic wise.
    It would take externally forced changes to really make a difference.

  113. JimF says:

    Leland Palmer says:
    June 26, 2011 at 7:28 pm “…One funny thing is that this statement leaves out the End Permian mass extinction, also accompanied by carbon isotope signatures which show the injection of several trillion tons of carbon 12 enriched carbon at this time, consistent with a massive destabilization of the methane hydrates at that time….”

    Hey, have you got a link or two to that data? Actually, it seems that End Permian was one of the lowest CO2 times in the Paleozoic (along with temperature). Actually, it seems it was about the same as today’s dangerously low CO2 content. Maybe the little varmints froze their as*es off?

    Let’s see some good geologic paper links to back up your claim.

  114. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Smokey-
    Well, I’m sure we can comfortably bet the future of the biosphere on your sense of the ridiculous.

    Certainly, if that wacky Isaksen wants to talk about strong atmospheric chemistry feedback to Arctic methane emissions, we should just ignore it.

    And we should really, really ignore the strong water vapor feedback to all greenhouse forcing, whether from methane, CO2, increased methane lifetime due to decline in hydroxyl radical, stratospheric water vapor, or tropospheric ozone.

  115. Marc says:

    contrary to the global warming theory, infrared ‘back-radiation’ from greenhouse gases has declined over the past 14 years in the US Southern Great Plains in winter, summer, and autumn. If the anthropogenic global warming theory was correct, the infrared ‘back-radiation’ should have instead increased year-round over the past 14 years along with the steady rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide”……”A trend analysis was applied to a 14-year time series of downwelling spectral infrared radiance observations from the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI)…The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-year time period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site.”

  116. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi JimF-
    Well, Google it. Your fingers aren’t broken.
    Here’s a link to get you started:
    webh01.ua.ac.be/funmorph/raoul/macroevolutie/Benton2003.pdf

    How to kill (almost) all life- the End Permian mass extinction event:

    The extinction model involves global warming by 6 degrees C and huge input
    of light carbon into the ocean-atmosphere system from the eruptions, but especially from gas hydrates, leading to an ever-worsening positive-feedback loop, the ‘runaway greenhouse’.

  117. JimF says:

    Leland Palmer says:
    June 26, 2011 at 7:55 pm “…Leland Palmer says: “…What we do have are carbon isotope signatures showing the input of trillions of tons of C12 enriched carbon into the active carbon cycle, and oxygen isotope signatures showing large amounts of global heating at that time. There is also, of course, evidence of anoxic conditions on the floors of the oceans, including vast deposits of petroleum, left over from dead creatures preserved by low oxygen conditions, during these oceanic anoxic events associated with destabilization of methane hydrates….”

    It is true that the Permo-Cretaceous, especially the Cretaceous, generated massive accumulations of kerogenic organic matter, especially in rift basins and restricted seas. This accounts for your “anoxic conditions”. In fact it was one of the most prolific times for life in earth’s history, which suggests, rather than some sort of disaster as you pose it, the conditions were ripe for living things (remember, the dinosaurs ruled the earth during most of this time, about 150 million years).

    Further, it was 6 -10 deg.C hotter than today, and the atmospheric CO2 content about 6 times today’s value. However this latter value was a lot less than most of the preceding 450 million years, which saw life burgeon and expand almost magically, although punctuated by glacial eras and unexplained mass extinctions. In conclusion, as speaker for organic life, I declare warmer is better, CO2 helps, and there’s one hell of a lot of things that go into a planet’s climatic condition than one little gas.

  118. JimF says:

    Leland Palmer says:
    June 26, 2011 at 9:36 pm

    Leland: Go “google” yourself (I think you know what I mean). You’re just a slimy little green troll. I, for one, will never respond to your comments again. Goodbye.

  119. rbateman says:

    Marc says:
    June 26, 2011 at 9:27 pm

    The decline of the UV portion of the spectrum. during solar minima and into the prolonged portion SC23/SC24 from low to very low solar activity. has led to a subsequent decrease in the most energetic portions of the downwelling radiation. It should follow that outgoing LIR would likewise decrease.
    Poor old CO2 ain’t what it used to be. Weak, leaky, and not located in the interception scheme of things to cut the mustard, a victim of Planks Constant.

  120. R. Gates says:

    savethesharks says:
    June 26, 2011 at 9:02 pm
    A G Foster says:
    June 26, 2011 at 8:26 pm
    The mass extinctions began 10,000 years ago and continue today and have nothing to do with CO2, but everything to do with over hunting, over fishing, exotic species introduction, etc. CO2 is the iron pyrite of environmentalism–preventer of all cures. –AGF

    ====================

    I cannot believe that I am agreeing with Tamino, but….well said.

    Until we get to the point where we honestly address the fact that homo sapiens (for all our accomplishments) have opportunistically forced ourselves on the biosphere not unlike fire ants, bermudagrass, and english ivy, we will get nowhere.

    But unlike fire ants, bermudagrass, and english ivy, et al, we have evolved consciences and the ability to correct problems…so we are without excuse.

    Never before has a species had so much knowledge (and ability) at its fingertips…as ours…to solve problems.

    And never before have there been so many distractions….the wild goose chase foolishness of the beneficial trace gas CO2 notwithstanding.

    Meanwhile…the dead zones increase in the Gulf….and species disappear.
    We need to choose our battles.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA
    —–
    Well Chris, seems you may have a sensible bone in your body after all…

  121. jorgekafkazar says:

    What to make of the UKGS statement? A perfectly true fact, one that contradicts Big Al’s An Inconvenient Toot chart, immediately followed by the obligatory kow-tow to global warming. Nothing less than pathetic.

  122. R. Gates says:

    Well Chris, seems you may have a sensible bone in your body after all…

    ================

    You goofball. I have been talking about these from the very VERY beginning.

    So….”sensible” from the very beginning. What’s your excuse??

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  123. Tilo Reber says:

    Jim F. “Considered by whom? Milankovich is FIRST order forcing; CO2 is a Fourth order forcing, i.e. nothing much.”

    Don’t jump me Jim, I’m on your side. LOL. The idea that Milankovitch is weak and CO2 is strong comes from many warmer sources. Here for example:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=116

    My opinion is that the CO2 forcing is also weak. Which is why I asked, how can temperature turn around and go back down while CO2 is still climbing sharply, as is shown in the record.

    Apparently R. Gates has simply walked away without trying to answer that question.

  124. Laurie says:

    R. Gates,
    Thank you for an answer, although, simply stated, it’s an answer to a question that wasn’t asked. You say they have used 29 year periods for the base period and they don’t use the same base period for the Persistence of an Anomaly chart as they used for the Anomaly chart and that’s just how they chose to do it. .

    My question was, why the short and older base period and I guess you’ve given that your best shot. Now my question is, why two different short base periods? What makes the choice of one base period over the other more meaningful?

    Thanks in advance.

  125. Tilo Reber says:

    R. Gates: “Well Chris, seems you may have a sensible bone in your body after all…”

    R., you have been asked several times now how temperature could turn around and go down while CO2 is still climbing. Did I miss your answer? Because the only answer that I saw had to do with what would happen after temperature began a decline. I never saw an answer for how temperature could begin a decline while CO2 was still moving up.

  126. JPeden says:

    Leland Palmer says:
    June 26, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    This is the most horrifying scientific paper I have ever read: [on a possible, Model outputted Arctic Methane release catastrophe]….I really, really do hope that you guys know what you are doing, since you seem to be betting all of our futures on your sense of what is or is not ridiculous.

    No, it’s nowhere near as subjective as “your sense” would imply. For example, in spite of active resistance form ipcc “Climate Science” by commission and omission in order to induce your “sense” of impending catastrophe as a critical part of its “method”, I’ve learned over the past 10 years that the current warm period is very likely not as warm as ~4 previous warm periods occurring since the ending of the last glaciation around 10-12,000 years ago: the Medieval WP, Roman WP, and Holocene Optimum[s]/ “Minoan” WP.

    I’ve also read – in what seems to be a very reality based book by Steven Arnot, which I had purchased in the 1980’s and was published in 1984 before the advent of ipcc “Climate Science”, on the truly temperature dependent Alpine and Arctic Treelines, various intra-continental climates, and treeline ecology and more local climate factors – that Arctic treelines in some areas have already been 300+ miles farther North than they are now and, therefore, were unaccompanied by the occurrence of any alleged CH4 induced catastrophe – which, strangely, it looks like this paper is saying might happen anyway?

    We’ve already heard about it many times right here at WUWT, so it’s no surprise and no reason for being panicked into then producing real disasters.

    In other words, actually insuring the occurrence of a net disease disaster via an enforced economic/energy regression by limiting and reducing fossil fuel CO2 production is obviously what not to do as judged by its known real effects. In fact, this state of regression is pretty much what underdeveloped countries such as India and China are currently trying to escape from by producing nearly as much fossil fuel CO2 as possible in order to create the energy they need to get out of the diseased states they are in due to underdevelopment.

    So, where the rubber meets the road, India and China are betting exactly opposite to the CO2 = CAGW “science” too.

  127. don penman says:

    It would be interesting for the UK geological society and the geologists in the rest of the world to have a debate on the role of c02 on past climates.The UK geological assume that more co2 always causes global warming while others say that co2 has been higher or risen when global temperatures have fallen.We are not seeing the calculated response of 3 deg c to a co2 doubling in the present rise of co2, it is much less than this.Could it be that that the UK geological society view of the role of co2 in past climate change is wrong?

  128. Tilo Reber says:

    R. Gates: “Rock weathering and uptake of CO2 either through glacial grinding and/or increased precipitation events associated with higher temps provides that critical link of negative feedback to bring CO2 levels down. And this effect would lag temperatures on the downside just as a rise in CO2 from ocean outgassing lags temperatures on the upside during Milankovitch cycles.”

    How could it lag temperature on the downside? If it is not there to move temperature to the downside in the first place, how do you get temperatures going from up to down. The only way that this would be possible is if Milankovitch forcing was strong enough to overcome CO2 forcing. And since Milankovitch forcing is known to be weak, that means that the CO2 forcing must be even weaker to make this possible. Your explanation is simply inadequate to explain what is observed, namely that temperature reverses itself and goes down while CO2 is still climbing. Whatever effects you believe are there to reverse CO2 are irrelevant, because the record shows that these have not come substantially into play when temperature reverses. Now if you believe that CO2 forcing is weak, then the whole picture can make sense. So if you believe that just say so and we can go on to a different topic.

  129. JimF says:

    Since we’re on the subject of the Permian Mass Extinction, let’s examine a few geological papers.

    This one:
    webh01.ua.ac.be/funmorph/raoul/macroevolutie/Benton2003.pdf
    is interesting, with some good general geologic descriptions that a layman would enjoy, and very promotive – without much backing data – of a “runaway greenhouse effect” caused by methane clathrates derived from the sea floor due to oceanic heating. The publication is not a hard science site, and the style is almost breezy, but again, it’s interesting and will appeal to some.

    This one:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/107/19/8543.full
    looks at another isotopic variation along with that of carbon (i.e. calcium) and considers how it might be affected in any of three contending models of the conditions presumably causing the Permian extinction. It concludes that the Siberian traps, erupted through a column of coals and other carbon-rich rocks, most likely provided the acid and the C12 enriched gases that are reflected in the isotopic signatures.

    This one:
    http://open.academia.edu/GarethIzon/Papers/160176/The_mid-Capitanian_Middle_Permian_mass_extinction_and_carbon_isotope_record_of_South_China

    similarly rejects the clathrate hypothesis. It’s not the scholarly work of the previous reference, but the author is an active researcher into the causes of the Cretaceous Oceanic Anoxic Events (OAEs) 1a and 2, as well as over the Miocene cooling event.

    So the upshot of this is that there was a big deal in the Permian, some 251-252 MYBP. Something caused the death of lots of animals, and affected the composition of rocks then being deposited. The earth was undergoing the biggest concentrated volcanic event in geologic history as revealed in the rocks. Read the papers (this listing is the tip of the iceberg) and come to your own conclusions, but facile conclusions about clathrate releases and runaway global warming should be taken with a block of salt.

  130. Tilo Reber says:

    @ R. Gates

    Look at this chart.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/2000px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png

    Look at about 330 thousand years ago. First notice the period when temperature is rising while CO2 is falling. Then look where temperature completes it’s up surge while CO2 is only half way to it’s peak around 320 thousand years ago. How did temperature get turned around like that? Obviously it was not caused by your explanation because CO2 was still climbing like gangbusters. It looks very much like the temperature didn’t give a squat about what CO2 was doing. It went where it wanted to go and it let CO2 follow or not follow.

  131. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Nick Stokes says “Here is a plot of the spectra which shows the point. ”

    Nick, you would have to regard the colouring and captioning of that plot as misleading to a non-expert., who might be left with the impression that the distinction betwen visible and IR is where blue meets red at about 3.3 microns. The actual visual cutoff is well down into the red coloured region, at about 0.72 microns.

    If one adopts a visual interpretation of wavelength, then something closer to 50% of the incoming light is visible and 50% is IR. So, what happens to the upward-travelling portion of the spectrum between 0.72 and 3.3 microns? I think you owe it to Marc to complete your answer to his/her question.

  132. tango says:

    if you live in sydney DONT LET LABOUR / GREENS TAKE US BACK TO THE DARK AGES . friday 1st of july at 12.00 at martin place a rally will be held to stop carbon tax lies and to try and dump the gillard govt

  133. John B says:

    steptoe fan says:
    June 26, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    “John B – you must be joking, right ? ! ?

    About radiative physics or carbon tax?

    I presume you meant the carbon tax. No, not joking. I was just asking, if we had to reduce CO2 emissions, what would be so bad about taxing emissions and imposing import duties on countries that don’t. Call me naive (there you go, quoteminers), but the “everyone will go on strike” scenario does not seem that plausible to me. And, of course, the money raised as taxes isn’t simply burned, it will go somewhere and, as democracies, we get to choose where.

    @Tilo Reber: Yes, I support a full nuclear program. And, yes of course the carbon tax gets passed on to consumers, but that will still make energy companies innovate to be cheaper than the competition. IMHO.

  134. C.O.Tutu says:

    The oceans must have become very ‘un-acidic’

  135. John B says:

    Geoff Sherrington says:
    June 27, 2011 at 12:41 am

    So, what happens to the upward-travelling portion of the spectrum between 0.72 and 3.3 microns? I think you owe it to Marc to complete your answer to his/her question.

    The Earth isn’t hot enough to radiate in that region. There is some radiation from the Sun in that region, which is scattered as shown on the diagram, but the major portion of the Sun’s radiation is visible and ultraviolet.

    The confusion comes from a loose use of the term “infrared”. To be more precise, the Sun radiates ultraviolet, visible and “near infrared”, whereas the Earth radiates “mid infrared”. But if you ignore the names, the chart is showing that the Sun’s and Earth’s radiation do not overlap. GHGs absorb and re-radiate little (25-30%) of the Sun’s radiation but most (70-85%) of the Earth’s.

    I think I, Tilo and Nick have done as much as is reasonable to explain this. If you, Marc or anyone else still have questions, there are plenty of resources on the Web to explain it further.

  136. John Marshall says:

    Unfortunately for the USGS temperatures fell followed by atmospheric CO2 levels. IF the CO2 reinforced the earlier warming then this would not happen. We would be into the scenario oft presented by the warmists of tipping points, irreversible climate change and all the other rubbish. Fortunately the atmosphere follows the laws of physics not some model.

  137. ImranCan says:

    “….and thus, via positive feedback, to reinforce the temperature rise already in train.”

    Wow …. . some real rocket science ……. except they galactically fail to mention the key uncertainty … which is …..BY HOW MUCH !

  138. Nick Stokes says:

    Geoff,
    I don’t think it matters at all here whether the light is visible or not. All that matters is the transparency. The plot shows very well how the red incoming and blue outgoing are almost totally separate in wavelength, and how the red corresponds to a region with little absorption (most loss being Rayleigh scattering) while the blue is a region where there is a lot of GHG absorption. Which is all, as Tilo Reber tried to explain, not controversial.

  139. jim says:

    At the end of the last ice age,
    we had Noah’s flood.
    That is the historic record /memory of man.
    The flood story is existent in many ancient stories not just the bible.
    The tale is that the first rainbow is seen and that we collectively recognize
    that there has been a fundamental change in global climatic conditions.
    The significance of the rainbow is that there was cloud cover on the entire earth. Thick water vapor and no direct sunshine. That is how Methuselah could live so long. No sun burn or harsh UV rays. Then the rains came and dense could cover collapsed. This a fairly rapid, probably not as short as forty days, change in our world was the most amazing ecological/natural disaster ever witnessed by man. The flood also leads to massive sea level rise washing away the records modern man would need to scientifically prove it.
    There is so much we do not have any idea about on this little ball of mud.
    And what is going on with the weather/climate is a huge part of that.
    One thing that is clear however is that the climate debate keeps the real agenda hidden. Climate change is a smoke screen. The actual attack is on cars those 3000 pound steel boxes that only go 19 miles an hour average city speed while using tons of space (36% of the our cities land mass) there are 6 parking spaces for every car in Los Angeles. Our cars sits unused 95% of the time.
    So the environmentalist want to take away your car and force you to use public transportation and or bicycles. But such a direct assault would be had to mount and untenable given the current economic climate. So they are trying to scare us into living simpler and less energetic lives while using the all the recourses it takes to build the 1.6 cars for every licensed diver in the United States for other decentralized produces. Beware all you city dwellers the days of the private car and anonymous lives is under attack. And if you are among the increasingly few who live in the rural, areas when the cars are no longer coveted by the masses in the cities they will be too expensive for use in places where there is enough room to use them.
    Yes it is the climate thats changing but not the one related to weather.

  140. View from the Solent says:

    A G Foster says:
    June 26, 2011 at 8:26 pm
    The mass extinctions began 10,000 years ago
    —————————————————————————————————-
    Hunh? 10,000 years is a blink of an eye. +95% of all the species that ever existed were extinct by then. Either gradually or by events such as at the K/T boundary https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_event

  141. izen says:

    @- Tilo Reber says:
    June 26, 2011 at 11:49 pm
    “Look at this chart.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/2000px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png
    Look at about 330 thousand years ago. First notice the period when temperature is rising while CO2 is falling. Then look where temperature completes it’s up surge while CO2 is only half way to it’s peak around 320 thousand years ago. ”

    But on the same graph the rise in temperature and CO2 are simultaneous in the interglacial warming ~130 thousand years ago, and the CO2 rise PRERCEDES the warming in the interglacial just under 600 thousand years ago.
    You might quibble about the accuracy of the cores and the timelags – but that calls ALL the timing claims into question.

    Several posters have also asked the, presumably rhetorical, questions – why/how does it cool down when CO2 has risen and why does the CO2 rise not cause a ‘runaway’ warming.
    Obviously these are questions that have long been answered within the scientific community over the last 150 years of study on the climate and is ‘common knowledge’ among those interested in the subject.

    The answer is the extremely powerful negative feedback embodied in the Stephan-Boltzmann emissivity charateristic that results in energy emitted increasing with rising temperature – but to the FOURTH power of the temperature. Small temperature changes cause massive energy flux variations.

  142. cba says:

    How do co2 and h2o variations affect transparency in the troposphere?

    Here’s a model output for you.

    co2 concentration rel. to 1976
    W/m^2 at 11km change in absorption
    4x 3.92
    2x doubling 3.69

    1/2 3.58
    1/4 3.56
    1/8 3.53
    1/16 3.36
    1/32 3.07
    1/64 2.70

    And now for the h2o concentration

    4x 8.70
    2x 8.44

    1/2x 8.10
    1/4x 7.68
    1/8x 7.21
    1/16x 6.73
    1/32x 6.23
    1/64x 5.66
    again, W/m^2 change for each doubling or halving with the sign being + for doublings and – for halvings.

    The biggest problem with ‘feedback’ is a change of 5 degrees C in an entire atmospheric column will result in a change of only about 30% in h2o concentration and that is nowhere close to an actual doubling. This is using the usual assumption of constant RH.

    You’ll note that a change of only 30% in h2o concentration results in less change than in a doubling of co2 despite the fact that a doubling of h2o would result in 8.44 W/m^2 versus 3.69W/m^2 for a doubling in co2. In short, if co2 actually could raise Temps by 1.2 deg C, even a 5 deg C rise could not provide the h2o necessary to raise the temperature by another 1.2 deg C for a grand total of 2.4 deg C. The assumption that co2 doubling will contribute 1.2 is a miscalculation as the overall contribution would be closer to 0.8 and a 2 deg C rise would contribute to only a 13% increase in h2o using the constant relative humidity, RH, assumption. And that turns out to be peanuts. In other words, you’d still be short of a cause for half of that 2 deg C warming.

  143. Bill Illis says:

    The most misused word in climate science today is “weathering”.

    As if CO2 can only be removed from the atmosphere by being buried in sedimentary/marine rock.

    Plants absorb 15% of the Carbon in the atmosphere each year. Oceans and plants are permanently removing 1% of the excess Carbon in the atmosphere each year.

    1% per year only takes 150 years, not hundreds of thousands of years as climate science and the UK Geologic Society would have one believe.

    ——–

    CO2 lags behind temperature in the entire 800,000 year ice core record, interglacial or not.

    In the -5.0C ice ages; the components responsible for the temperature change are:

    —> Increased ice, snow, grassland, desert (partially offset by less cloud) Albedo -4.0C
    —> CO2 only 1.0C

  144. D. Patterson says:

    How many examples are there of a British scientific society publicly disputing the stated scientific public policy position of the Crown Prince and/or Royal Family? Are there examples of British scientists who have publicly disputed the Crown Prince’s position on science and subsequently went on to receive a knighthood or other noteworthy awards from the Crown, and are there examples of scientists who did not receive such awards?

  145. Bill Illis says:

    I also want to destroy this myth that the CO2 released in the PETM event took 200,000 years for the CO2 to be removed. (which is contained in the UK Geologic Society statement).
    ———

    First, temperatures did not rise 6.0C globally or 20.0C at the poles in this event as they stated. There is NO DATA that says this.

    The data available says 1.0C to 2.0C globally from the event alone. Temperatures were already about 5.0C higher at the time and they only went up to about 7.0C for a short period – keeping in mind that polar amplification could have resulted in twice the temperature change at the poles. (The myth keeps getting pushed but I think they are confusing the temperature rise with what temperatures were at the time).

    There is evidence of a Carbon release on the order of 2,000 to 4,000 billion tons (or about 4 times the amount of Carbon that is in our atmosphere right now so it was a big release – probably lasting 100,000 years all together – north Atlantic volcanism most likely – it was just opening up at the time to form what is now Iceland and the north Atlantic.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Early_Eocene_Arctic_basin.PNG

    How long does it take to remove 3,000 billion tons of Carbon? The UK Geologic Society says it took 200,000 years or about 15 mega tons per year.

    But Plants and Oceans are today absorbing 4,000 mega tons per year so the estimate of 200,000 years is just an exaggeration. Plants and Oceans are currently absorbing Carbon out of the atmosphere at a rate which is 300 times higher than that proposed for the PETM.

    So, climate science needs to go back to basic math class. I continue to be amazed at how poor Phd climate scientists are at just simple calculations. They want to believe so badly that they put their calculators/spreadsheets away.

  146. Dave Springer says:

    Tilo Reber says:
    June 26, 2011 at 11:33 am

    “What bothers me about this explanation is that Milankovich is considered to be a weak forcing agent and CO2 is considered to be a strong forcing agent. ”

    Milankovich cycles don’t cause more or less forcing, per se. They increase or decrease the temperature difference between winter and summer. When winters get warmer and summers get cooler the glaciers advance. That’s because a glacier can build up in the winter at any temperature below freezing and colder won’t help them build faster. On the flip side any summer temperature above freezing will bring on a melt and the farther above freezing the faster the melt.

  147. SteveE says:

    G. Karst says:
    June 26, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    You really don’t the first clue about geology do you?

    That hypothetical situation has never happened other than in your head. Radiometric dating is how virtually all rocks have an absolute age.

  148. Brian H says:

    But the positive reinforcement failed when the temps subsequently plunged, and CO2 followed with its usual lag time?

    Major logic FAIL in thar somewhars.

  149. Moderate Republican says:

    Tilo Reber says @ June 26, 2011 at 10:53 pm “Did I miss your answer? Because the only answer that I saw had to do with what would happen after temperature began a decline. I never saw an answer for how temperature could begin a decline while CO2 was still moving up.”

    Tilo – seriously now, who ever said CO2 is the only climate forcer?

  150. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi JPeden:

    I’ve learned over the past 10 years that the current warm period is very likely not as warm as ~4 previous warm periods occurring since the ending of the last glaciation around 10-12,000 years ago: the Medieval WP, Roman WP, and Holocene Optimum[s]/ “Minoan” WP.

    Oh, I’m not sure we can draw much comfort from the fact that the earth has been warmer in the past.

    The runaway greenhouse scenario involving methane suggests we can send the system out of control by simply changing from one warming state to another too quickly. So, it’s a rate of change dependent destabilization scenario. And our current warming due to combustion of fossil fuels is much, much faster than traditional orbital driven warming.

    If methane is released too quickly from the hydrates, it does not have time to be oxidized into CO2, and the CO2 safely sequestered as carbonate by the rock weathering cycle. As methane is released from the hydrate deposits, it starts degrading the concentrations of hydroxyl radical in the atmosphere. Methane lifetime increases, methane concentrations rise, and its greenhouse warming is therefore increased. At the same time, according to Isaksen, atmospheric chemistry effects from tropospheric ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and CO2 from methane oxidation multiply the effect of methane several times.

    Each bit of radiative forcing from any source including methane is amplified still more by water vapor from the oceans. Isaksen does not even consider this effect, but it is a very well known effect:

    nasa.gov/images/content/488311main_feedback-forcings.jpg

    The end result is very rapid warming, resulting in faster and faster release of methane from the hydrates, leading to a scenario similar to those which have caused mass extinction events in the past. Those sudden temperature spikes include the PETM, a couple of events in the Triassic, and the End Permian. Carbon isotope signatures show massive inputs of carbon from an organic source (C12 enriched) consistent with the methane hydrate runaway greenhouse scenario.

    Isaksen’s paper outlines a plausible sequence of events which could plausibly lead to a true runaway greenhouse scenario, leading eventually to conditions resembling those of Venus. It may be that the earth could recover from this, due to inertia of the tectonically driven rock weathering cycle. Or maybe not. Maybe we would end up hotter than Venus, because Venus has lost all it’s water due to loss of hydrogen to space.

    I know that you guys will find some objection to this information. Somehow, either the style or the substance of this information will lead you to reject this scenario, in order to protect your core system of beliefs about AGW.

    Like I have said above, I really hope you guys know what you are doing. The methane hydrates are cocked and loaded, it appears.

    In reality, of course, you don’t really know what you are doing. You are a cult like collection of amateurs, engaging in groupthink driven by fossil fuel corporation astroturf propaganda.

  151. John B,

    In response to a very realistic economic collapse scenario due to imposed CO2 taxes on industrial economies by David, UK, you propose this solution:

    “And don’t be so pessimistic about the future if AGW is finally accepted by governments and we start to do something about it….It could go like this: Most of the big economies (USA, Europe, Australia, Canada for starters, say) impose a tax on CO2 emissions. Energy companies look for ways of reducing emissions so as to pay less tax and therby out compete other energy companies. Companies and individuals find ways of reducing energy usage to reduce their taxes. The tax revenues are redistributed in whatever ways our democracies decide. The big economies that impose carbon taxes charge equivalent import duties on those that don’t to avoid “exporting emissions” and to ensure those economies don’t see an unfair competitive advantage. Eonomists call this a “Pigouvian” tax. (John B responding to David, UK, June 26, 2011 at 2:49 p)

    You then conclude by asking, “Can someone explain why this would be such a bad thing? (Asssuming, for the moment, that AGW is real, mitigation is needed, and CO2 emission reductions will work).”

    You asked, John B, so let me give it a shot with my G-D (Global-Delusion) hypothesis:

    First, with the evidence for AGW deflating and collapsing rather than solidifying, your uncertainty about the assumption is justified. The AGW was born in pre-Internet days. It relied not on science, as it’s proponents like to believe, but on centralized communication…Marshal McLuhan’s old “the medium is the message” saw, and the ability of governments and international organizations to maintain authority and control. The Internet changed all that within a decade since its appearance on the scene, and the imposed austerity measures with their high taxation and over-regulation as well as the credibility of ruling establishments and the United Nations are now subject to an unprecedented populist push-back. With all the occultist predictions, think tanks, sci-fi speculation and computer modeling, no one important saw that one coming, did they?

    Sorry, John B, but your quaint model of this being an issue between governments and corporation is, to borrow Hilary Clinton’s trite term, “so yesterday.” This is why the planned and already tried “Pigouvian” measures are failing: Democracies, the very sources of your proposed AGW mitigation grand plan, still have a fail-safe system and unpopular or insane measures can be dumped in due time. Economic forces appear to be far more powerful than ideas, and pushing against them is akin to trying to hold back a tidal surge with a mop, a bucket and a book of regulations. This is why some Warmists, who have recognized the problem unfettered communication, the New Media and democracy pose to their scheme, are openly proposing dictatorial measures on an international scale. So, if you can shut down free communication, restore the authority of agreeable governments and mainstream media, and allow trans-national or international bodies to wield draconian powers, you’d be on the way.

    Well, almost. There is, another “minor” problem. The plan you propose assumes that a few artificially-set taxes and regulations (assuming they’ll be unchallenged) will give “corporations” the nudge they need to develop the “renewables” which are supposed to be just around the corner. Well, that gamble didn’t work out either. Wind and sun are flops even with massive funding and regulatory assistance, and other promising technologies are too far in the future. Fossil fuels are already far ahead of anything that came before, such as wood burning and for a time, whale oil, and when everyone calms down a bit, we’ll be seeing a lot more of them.

    When all that became clearer, there remained the hope that massive, government sponsored and media-propelled eco propaganda would get a critical mass of people to voluntarily submit to poverty by paying a lot more for a lot less. But the first secular “mass worship” rituals involving recycling, reduction of energy use and “organic” food predictably brought expensive and insufficient waste disposal, high energy bills and over-priced food. Religion only goes so far, and it too runs up against the hard economic forces wall; well-off people may feel better putting some cans and paper into blue boxes, they may get a kick from expensive “urban gardens” and “organic” produce, and they may be convinced for a while that chemicals are evil, but that’s as far as the fad goes. Don’t expect for all of that silliness to disappear overnight, but disappear it will, albeit in a gradual, almost imperceptible way which will allow the principals and the public to retain their dignity.

    So, basically, John B, what you are proposing was already started decades ago, failed catastrophically, as you should be able to see as well, and now we are, thankfully, seeing the beginning of its end. Democracies, such as my country, Canada, which you mention, are quietly but decisively abandoning the AGW hypothesis-rationalized “Pigouvian” policies after seeing how damaging and ultimately unworkable they are. The idea that growing government waste can be hidden or mitigated by made-up taxes on mad- up problems works in the short run (and without the Internet’s explosive effects, it might have dragged on for longer), but in the end, poor economic strategies always result in poor economic performance and economic forces, likes tides, always win in the end. Those who still feel the need for a secular religion better throw themselves on their knees and pray to Free Enterprise…instead of Gaia…to pull our chestnuts out of this fire. Others can get a few chuckles by watching entire governments, activist organizations, crony capitalists, scientific institutions and international bodies writhe through the predictable dance of collapsing illusions; doubling-down and denial, anger and threats, “genius” solutions, desperate PR maneuvers, special pleading and eventually, rationalization and attempts to save as much as can be saved while trying to look dignified and totally in control throughout the whole sorry farce.

  152. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    It happens in particle physics as well!

    This error may seem fundamental, and people may find it hard to believe that a major physicist such as Yukakwa could have gone wrong. It turns out, however, that not only great physicists can and do make mistakes, but that this specific error is taught as a valid theory up to this very day and it features in the textbooks.

    http://nohiggs.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/why-the-higgs-cannot-exist/

  153. Mark Wilson says:

    The problem with assuming that CO2 is a positive feedback that aids the Milankovic cycle is that there is no evidence that the rate of temperature rise increasing once CO2 starts increasing.

    Thus for this theory to be held true, it would be necessary to show that whatever started the warming trend fades out at exactly the same time that CO2 induced warming starts. Not only that, but the record shows that the delary between start of warming and start of CO2 is not constant from one cycle to the next, so somehow the timing of the fade out has to vary as well.

  154. P Wilson says:

    R. Gates says:
    June 26, 2011 at 10:42 am

    “When CO2 data was finally recovered from ice cores the pieces fell into place as we could see the changes in GH gases that provided the addition forcings necessary to explain the temperature swings.”

    Wrong. On greenland reconstruction of ice core proxies, there is no instances of a co2 increase preceding a temperature increase. As increasing temperatures see later elevations of c02 – which is a feedback of temperature particularly in relation to oceans, which regulates how much c02 resides in the lower troposphere, decreasing temperatures also occur at these elevated c02 levels, as c02 is powerless as a gas to maintain global temperatures. Subsequently, c02 levels fall as oceans absorb part of it again. The analogy is like a tin of coke. If it is warm, it will outgas c02. If it is cool it will not. When you drink cool carbonated drinks the belching occurs a few minutes after consumption, as the c02 outgasses due to increasing temperature.

    That c02 does not add to the temperature of a confined atmosphere. What will change the temperature of the atmosphere is air pressure in a given volume, or else exposure/absebce of a given external source of radiation, and proximity to the radiation.

    C02 is just the residue, which doesn’t have the efficacity to retain heat in the face of superior variables. Increasing or decreasing levels of c02 has no effect on the influence of such variables, any more than the addition of 1 car to a racing track with another car going at 150mph will not take the speed of both cars to 300mph

  155. Mark Wilson says:

    G. Karst says:
    June 26, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    You need to study a little more. The way initial dating works is by use of volcanic ash. Using radioactive elements in the ash, it can be accurately dated. In areas with multiple volcanic layers, any fossils found between those layers can be determined to be younger than the lower layer and older then the upper layer.
    Then when an identical fossil is found elsewhere, it can be used to date the layer it is found in.

    This is no different than using pottery to date archeological sites. Once a style is dated, then finding a pot of similar style in another site can be used to date that site.

  156. Billy Liar says:

    JimF says:
    June 26, 2011 at 11:41 pm

    You demolished Leland Palmer’s thesis more comprehensively than I could manage.

    He appears to assume that AGW is capable of causing significant methane hydrate release from the arctic. The paper he referred to (Benton 2003) attributes the release of hydrates to the following:

    At the end of the Permian, giant volcanic eruptions occurred in Siberia, spewing out some 2 million km3 of basalt lava, and covering 1.6 million km2 of eastern Russia to a depth of 400–3000 metres, equivalent to the area of the European Community. It is now accepted widely that these massive eruptions, confined to a time span of 1 My were a significant factor in the end-Permian crisis.

    So the paper doesn’t really support his view because it attributes the mass extinction to a long lasting and massive volcanic event.

  157. Steve Keohane says:

    R. Gates says: June 26, 2011 at 10:42 am

    This is nothing new. It has long been thought the Milankovitch forcings begin the warming that end glacials and that warming oceans then release more CO2 through outgassing which then cause more warming and so on. This is why CO2 lags the initial warming in the ice core data. Milankovitch forcings in and of themselves are not enough to explain the large temperature difference between the bottom of a glacial period and the top of an interglacial. When CO2 data was finally recovered from ice cores the pieces fell into place as we could see the changes in GH gases that provided the addition forcings necessary to explain the temperature swings.
    What a bunch of crap, Gates! So the extreme forcing of CO2 goes away when it reaches its maximum in the ice cores and we get another ice age. Why not argue that CO2 causes cooling, as every time it gets high per the ice cores we get really cold. What nonsense.

  158. Mark Wilson says:

    John B says:
    June 26, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    It’s a bad thing because all forms of alternative energy are either much more expensive, impractical, or both.

    While taxes will cause people to naturally shift to other forms of energy, the tax savings of doing so will never come close to the cost of doing so, resulting in much higher energy prices. That is most definitely a bad thing, if you care about people.

  159. Tilo Reber says:

    izen: “But on the same graph the rise in temperature and CO2 are simultaneous in the interglacial warming ~130 thousand years ago,”

    No, temp still preceeds CO2 there.

    izen: “and the CO2 rise PRERCEDES the warming in the interglacial just under 600 thousand years ago.”

    Yeap, and around 530 thousand years ago the temperature and the CO2 ran a completely inverted pattern from each other.

    izen: “You might quibble about the accuracy of the cores and the timelags – but that calls ALL the timing claims into question.”

    I’m not quibbling about the timelags, I’m saying that CO2, in general, follows temperature but that it is a very weak driver of temperature. That is the only way that you can make any sense of the chart if you also maintain that Milankovich is weak.

    The 330 thousand years ago spike is an important example because you had temperature climbing. This means that polar sea ice should have been shrinking and the ice sheets should have been shrinking. Both those factors should have contributed to the continuing rise of temperature. CO2 was still increasing sharply and would continue to do so, adding more drive to move temperature up. If CO2 feedback theory is correct, then more moisture should also have been added to the air, again, providing even more positive feedback. And yet, the temperature simply ignored all of these positive forcings and turned around and went down. That is simply not possible if CO2 is a strong forcing agent and Milankovich is a weak one. But CO2 in itself is what it is; 1C per doubling. This means that the feedback must be either very weak or even negative.

    izen: “Several posters have also asked the, presumably rhetorical, questions – why/how does it cool down when CO2 has risen”

    No, not “has risen”, but was still rising strongly.

    Izen: “Obviously these are questions that have long been answered within the scientific community over the last 150 years of study on the climate and is ‘common knowledge’ among those interested in the subject.”

    Blah, blah, blah.

    Izen: “The answer is the extremely powerful negative feedback embodied in the Stephan-Boltzmann emissivity charateristic that results in energy emitted increasing with rising temperature – – but to the FOURTH power of the temperature. Small temperature changes cause massive energy flux variations.”

    So the small temperature changes that we have going on now should be causing “massive energy flux variations” all working to offset the effects of CO2 – especially since we are closer to the top end of the pattern that we see in the chart. And according to you, then, these changes, being “to the FOURTH power of temperature”, will not give much room for CO2 to push things up further since you seem to think that their effect increases faster than the effect of the increase in CO2.

  160. beng says:

    *****
    A G Foster says:
    June 26, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    Two different lags are evident, one of which–the more important one–is ignored by the Society’s statement: the 6 to 8 millenium lag between June 65 North insolation and T and the roughly 1 millenium lag between T and CO2. The statement speaks rather ridiculously of ice sheet amplification when it is clear that ice sheet extension and T are directly related. Insolation forces melting/T followed by CO2. Remember the old ice in water on a stove experiment: the water won’t warm till the ice melts. Similarly, increased insolation has no immediate effect on T/CO2–the ice sheets must recede, and it takes between 6 and 8 (depending on whose glacial mass reconstruction) thousand years to do it. These geologists seem to be ignorant of this very basic fact, or they ignore the compelling statistical evidence linking insolation to T: T = insolation + 7000 years; CO2 = insolation + 8000.
    *****

    Not sure I understand that. The peak 65N summer insolation was ~11k yrs ago. The peak temp in the Holocene Optimum was ~10k to 8k yrs ago (even before all the glacial remnants were gone) — only about 1k yr lag. Temps since the HO have slowly dropped in tune w/the decreasing summer insolation (w/the typical ~1k yrs “cycles” — MWP & LIA).

    Not sure where you get a 7k yr lag in temps vs insolation.

  161. Mark Wilson says:

    You are a cult like collection of amateurs, engaging in groupthink driven by fossil fuel corporation astroturf propaganda.

    I don’t care who you are, that there is funny.

  162. JimF says:

    Peter Kovachev says:
    June 27, 2011 at 7:04 am

    Good post. I do hope you are correct. There are so many miseducated people, and so many dependent on government handouts, that if we don’t don’t defeat these sob’s now, we’ll never do it.

    Bill Illis says:
    June 27, 2011 at 5:22 am “…As if CO2 can only be removed from the atmosphere by being buried in sedimentary/marine rock….”

    Bill, there’s a lot of coal and kerogenic shales and methane clathrates, but I believe limestones, dolomites and calcareous shales far exceed them in the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere. All “weathering” does is release Ca and Mg ions to the sea, particularly, where they can create some more carbonate rocks.

    All these processes have been massively successful: the CO2 content of the atmosphere – over the last few thousand years – is the lowest in geologic history, excepting the Carboniferous-Permian interval, well known for coal deposits and mass extinctions.

  163. ferd berple says:

    If CO2 reinforced the warming, and the warming reinforced the CO2, then how do we ever have Ice Ages given the small change in TSI due to Milankovitch? This self-reinforcement should make Ice Ages impossible if CO2 has a positive feedback on temperature. The only logical conclusion must be that CO2 has a negative feedback on temperature, and the total effect due to CO2 must be quite small as compared to changes in TSI. Otherwise, Ice Ages could not occur in regular cycles as they do.

  164. John Kehr says:

    I have picked out some specific issues with the statement by the Geological Society. They are very, very mis-leading on Antarctica. The PETM is interesting, but that there are so many mis-leading statements on other subjects really does negate the parts that could be truly insightful.

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/06/recent-rash-of-agw-news-focus-on-geology/

  165. Ben of Houston says:

    I’ve read many things over the past few weeks that have disturbed me. There appears to be a growing amount of pseudoscience [snip] on this board, presenting unverifiable claims and supporting obvious untruths such as the fact that the greenhouse gas effect exists or claiming this or that completely throws the global warming hypothesis out the window when it is a relatively minor claim that is undermined (the only thing that truely does that is the lack of a hot spot, which points to a non-GHG warming source). I have also seen increased vitrol towards counter-points, even when these points are correct.

    For example: CO2 amplification of warming has been neither proved nor disproved on a historical scale. Why? Because GHG warming is a very quick effect (occurring on a sub-year if not a daily span of time) and is indistinguishable on a geologic time scale from the initial warming cause. It will not prevent temperatures from falling just as your power steering does not prevent you from going straight. Amplifiers amplify in BOTH directions. They are not magical, and certainly can exist. The issue with the CO2 amplify9ing estimates is that the IPCC calculates the amplification as being 2 or greater, when a more natural range is 0.5-1.2.

    We cannot win this debate with falacies, and we we cannot afford to waste our time spouting nonsense.

  166. Ben of Houston says:

    Correction to my previous post: “obvious untruths such as the fact that the greenhouse gas effect exists” should be “obvious untruths such as the fact that the greenhouse gas effect doesn’t exist”

  167. Marc says:

    Very simple question — and quit saying go read the internet, if you can’t answer a question simply ignore it.

    People on this blog are asserting that none of the incoming radiation from the sun occurs in the wavelength that interacts with CO2 — none at all.

    Is that true or not? I don’t care if most is in other wavelengths or whatever.

    My question:
    Is it true that 0.00% of the incoming radiation from the sun is in wavelengths that interact with CO2?

    I have a different valid point to make after receiving the answer from the “experts” on this.

  168. “…I do hope you are correct. There are so many miseducated people, and so many dependent on government handouts, that if we don’t don’t defeat these sob’s now, we’ll never do it. (JimF, June 27, 2011 at 9:01 am)

    Thanks. Speed, though, may not be possible or desirable, JimF. Think about it this way; those who benefit from this “green engine”–the classes, interests, populations, institutions, industries, whatever–are all well-entrenched, with power on their side and a well-known mean streak to boot. They will undouptedly hang onto this bubble like rats off a meat truck. A decisive and rapid defeat would entail revolutions and civil disorders, which are invariably ugly affairs we, thankfully, don’t have the stomach or need for. The best path to enbark on, methinks humbly, is to gradually and firmly push, to keep on pushing and winning “territory,” and to reduce resistence by humanly providing soft landing spots and face-saving measures for the losers.

  169. John B says:

    Marc says:
    June 27, 2011 at 10:55 am

    My question:
    Is it true that 0.00% of the incoming radiation from the sun is in wavelengths that interact with CO2?

    No, it is not true. See here at about 2 micrometres (just left of centre). A small CO2 absorption band coincides with the lower end of the solar radiation spectrum.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

    So, what’s your point?

  170. tommy says:

    What is even more funny is that ice ages started even when co2 was in THOUSANDS of ppm range. How can they explain this?? Where was the so called positive feedback during the onset of those ice ages?

  171. Tilo Reber says:

    Ben of Houston: “Amplifiers amplify in BOTH directions.”

    CO2 amplifies the warming effect of the sun. When temperature reverses direction and starts to go down, how can CO2 amplify that effect when the CO2 is still going up? CO2 can only amplify cooling once it has reversed and followed the cooling. So you are left with the question of what started the cooling. You could blame it on Milankovic, but the effect of Milankovic is weak. The rising contribution of CO2 warming should still be higher than the effect of Milankovic if CO2 is a strong forcing agent. Let’s say that you are sitting in front off a heater and you are wearing a blanket. Then you turn the heater down 2% and you put on another blanket. You can still get warmer even though you turned the heater down.

  172. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Note it is not the BRITISH or FRENCH or whoever geololical society, this is THE geological society, a very august body.

  173. John B says:

    Robert of Ottawa says:
    June 27, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    Note it is not the BRITISH or FRENCH or whoever geololical society, this is THE geological society, a very august body.

    Yep, we do that. Our armed forces are called:

    The Royal Air Force
    The Royal Navy
    The Royal Marines
    and, best of all…
    The Army

    :-)

  174. mkelly says:

    Marc says:
    June 27, 2011 at 10:55 am

    Marc, CO2 absorbs in 3 bands (roughly speaking) 2.6, 4.7, and 15 micro. All are radiated by the sun but the 2.6 and 4.7 are not considered in the IR/CO2 discussion because the earth does not emit the 2.6 and 4.7 bands to any appreciable extent. These three bands account for about 6-8 per cent of the IR leaving the earth with 15 being almost all of it.

  175. G. Karst says:

    SteveE:
    Mark Wilson:

    Ok, ok… I won’t poke fun at geologists anymore. What would be the point, as they don’t seem to have much sense of humor. I assume everyone else, on the planet, is still fair game?? I see no point in apologizing AGAIN, or have you not read the thread? I laughed when you referred me to a creationist site… Why can you not laugh at my poor little joke? GK

  176. P Wilson says:

    Tilo Reber says:
    June 27, 2011 at 12:11 pm
    “Let’s say that you are sitting in front off a heater and you are wearing a blanket. Then you turn the heater down 2% and you put on another blanket. You can still get warmer even though you turned the heater down.”

    The effect of c02 is nothing like ablanket. If you substitute the blankets with thin paper with lots of holes in it then you’re half way there to a good analogy

  177. Moderate Republican says:

    tommy says @ June 27, 2011 at 12:05 pm “What is even more funny is that ice ages started even when co2 was in THOUSANDS of ppm range. How can they explain this??”

    You are making the mistake of assuming that modern climate science is saying that everything depends solely on CO2. CO2 plays a role but is not the only forcer.

  178. Moderate Republican says:

    Peter Kovachev says @ June 27, 2011 at 11:16 am ” Think about it this way; those who benefit from this “green engine”–the classes, interests, populations, institutions, industries, whatever–are all well-entrenched, with power on their side and a well-known mean streak to boot. ”

    As opposed to say, Big Oil who are collectively powerless and kind? Snort.

  179. Mark Hladik says:
    June 26, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    To Derek Sorenson:

    The effect is negligible beyond 200 ppm. Archibald summarized the empirical data, and the best presentation is at JoNova’s site, in the latest incarnation of “The Skeptics Handbook”.

    CO2 conc. % effect (saturation)

    20 ppm 54
    40 ppm 68
    60 ppm 75
    80 ppm 79
    100 ppm 83
    120 ppm 87
    140 ppm 89
    160 ppm 91
    180 ppm 93
    200 ppm 95

    I would also encourage a visit to the website called , and put the graph of ancient CO2 concentrations up against the graph for paleotemperatures, and look at the negative correlation coefficient.

    Thanks for this, although I can’t make sense of the %ages. What does it actually mean to say the effect is 95% at 200ppm? 95% of what?

    I was under the impresion that hardly anyone on either side of the fence questions that for each doubling in CO2 we get an approx 1.2C warming directly attributable to CO2 (ignoring feedbacks – of either sign). Admittedly, each doubling gets harder and harder to achieve, i.e. doubling CO2 from 200ppm is easy compared to doubling CO2 from 64,000ppm. This is the basis upon which I questioned the “negligibility” of any increase of CO2 beyond 200ppm.

    Also, I think something must have gone wrong with your link to the website for the graphs of co2 v temp. Can you repost the link?

  180. P Wilson says:

    mkelly says:
    June 27, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    “Marc, CO2 absorbs in 3 bands (roughly speaking) 2.6, 4.7, and 15 micro. All are radiated by the sun but the 2.6 and 4.7 are not considered in the IR/CO2 discussion because the earth does not emit the 2.6 and 4.7 bands to any appreciable extent. These three bands account for about 6-8 per cent of the IR leaving the earth with 15 being almost all of it.”

    the 2.6 and 4.7 bands aren’t longwave as emitted by the earth, however, these bandwidths absorb shortwave solar radiation, and so prevent those bands from reaching the earth..

    That 6-8% is a fixed percentage, which was established before the conjecture of Anthropogenic Global Warming by c02. It is fixed at 6-8% of energy regardless of quantity, so doubling theh quantity won’t intercept any more heat than a prior concentration of c02. Its rather like sunblock. Putting twice the amount of factor 10 won’t increase it to factor 15, or factor 20

  181. Peter Kovachev says:
    June 27, 2011 at 11:16 am

    The best path to enbark on, methinks humbly, is to gradually and firmly push, to keep on pushing and winning “territory,” and to reduce resistence by humanly providing soft landing spots and face-saving measures for the losers.

    Agreed.

    Although it is understandable that those who have perpetrated this fraud (if that is what it turns out to be) be somehow punished, that’s not really what is important. It seems to me that the important thing is to stop the gravy train, and the resultant damage to western economies, for no benefit and significant harm (note: there is no benefit irrespective of the truth or falsity of the CAGW hypothesis). If allowing the perpetrators a way out helps that happen more quickly, then we should be seeking ways to offer them that way out.

  182. Moderate Republican,

    “As opposed to” ? Not at all, dear Mister or Mis Misnomer. Very much a part of that same jolly Green crew, as you must surely know. With its oily paws deep in the greenish pie, admirably serving as the valiant and dumb straw man, Big Oil does a marvellous job of obscuring the shenanigans of the supposed enviro organizations and “renewables” speculators, all who are quite powerful and well connected and are in many ways much more vicious mega-corporations, owing to their warm and cuddly façades. Capitalism with a Panda Face, as it were.

  183. Agreed as well, Mr Sorensen. We shouldn’t hold our breath for justice and come-upance, given that the wiggle-out card will most likely be the first installment in the “buy-out” plan.

  184. So, sooo, soooooooo many positive and negative forcings, few known, most UNKNOWN mixed up in a tremendous goulash of Milankovitch Ice Ages, albedo-influenced movements of multiple gases, unexplained quick coolings and fast heatings, unexplained lag times all moving inexplicably in various directions at various times… And so this goulash has already exploded from the gigantic pot called “the Ice Age we are currently living in…” and the grotesque mess is dripping from the walls and already starting to stink while the cook proudly proclaims that the science is “settled”…

    Now THAT’S comedy, folks.

  185. Tilo Reber says:

    P Wilson: “The effect of c02 is nothing like ablanket.”

    I know that. The point was to explain how things could get warmer even if the heat source is turned down. For that purpose the analogy remains simple and effective.

  186. John B says:

    @P Wilson

    Where do you get the “6-8%” idea from? Are you really trying to say that the effect of CO2 is independent of its concentration? References, please…

  187. izen says:

    @- Derek Sorensen says:
    June 27, 2011 at 1:03 pm
    “Although it is understandable that those who have perpetrated this fraud (if that is what it turns out to be) be somehow punished, that’s not really what is important. It seems to me that the important thing is to stop the gravy train, and the resultant damage to western economies, for no benefit and significant harm (note: there is no benefit irrespective of the truth or falsity of the CAGW hypothesis). If allowing the perpetrators a way out helps that happen more quickly, then we should be seeking ways to offer them that way out.”
    ——————-

    You seem to favour some sort of amnesty or reconciliation if the green-political forces abandon their present attempts to pursue an agenda with AGW as the justifying danger.
    At least, as long as they are prompt in their recantation.

    But this pre-supposes that Nature cooperates and provides conclusive refutation of the AGW theory. Criteria that all but the most rabid eco-extremist would accept.

    Perhaps a rapid return to the temperatures of the last century. Large gains in glacier mass balance and big increases in sea ice extent and ice-cap mass in and around the poles.
    If that continued for more than a decade or so then you might get a significant renunciation.

    But those abrogating the ‘faith’ would have good excuses. Over a hundred years of international research. Multiple lines of evidence. Supported by every scientific institution of any credibility, and the consensus view of over 99% of published research. In any other field of science that would be more than sufficient justification for sharing such a viewpoint.

    But there is a glaring asymmetry in the positions of the ‘two sides’.
    Just suppose hypothetically that Nature is … unkind, and provides another couple of decades of warming with further ice lost from land and socially damaging changes to the local climate that underpins agriculture such as droughts and monsoons. the magnitude of the changes with a continued concordance with AGW predictions would perhaps prompt some of those rejecting the AGW theory along with any associated political agenda to renounce their scepticism.

    But their excuses for past errors would be a lot less persuasive.

    Nature gets the first, last and only vote on this matter and as merely the art of the possible the politics will be shaped by that.

  188. Dr A Burns says:

    “… via positive feedback, to reinforce the temperature rise already in train”
    So who turned off the amplifier to stop it rising ?

  189. Marc says:

    Thanks mkelley

    mkelly says:
    June 27, 2011 at 12:32 pm
    CO2 absorbs in 3 bands (roughly speaking) 2.6, 4.7, and 15 micro. All are radiated by the sun but the 2.6 and 4.7 are not considered in the IR/CO2 discussion because the earth does not emit the 2.6 and 4.7 bands to any appreciable extent. These three bands account for about 6-8 per cent of the IR leaving the earth with 15 being almost all of it.”

    the 2.6 and 4.7 bands aren’t longwave as emitted by the earth, however, these bandwidths absorb shortwave solar radiation, and so prevent those bands from reaching the earth.

    So further question:
    What is the Watts/m2 combined in the 2.6, 4.7 and 15 wavelength that irradiate the top of the atmosphere and what is the Watts/m2 emitted by the earth in just the 15 wavelength?

  190. John B says:

    Dr A Burns says:
    June 27, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    “… via positive feedback, to reinforce the temperature rise already in train”
    So who turned off the amplifier to stop it rising ?

    It’s kind of like this: You turn up the heating in your house. Your house gets warmer. But it doesn’t go on getting warmer till the windows melt, does it? Even if you leave the heating turned up. Same thing with climate (to a first approximation).

    Everyone, by all means think that politicians are all @$%&s or whatever, but stop thinking you have found the killer flaw in basic science. Believe me, you are not Gallileo!

  191. ferd berple says:

    “You are making the mistake of assuming that modern climate science is saying that everything depends solely on CO2. CO2 plays a role but is not the only forcer.”

    The IPCC says that CO2 is the main driver of climate.

    The problem for the IPCC and the CO2 GHG theory, is that it was developed before we discovered that CO2 lags Temperature. When it was first discovered that CO2 varies with temperature the lag was not known, so everyone assumed that it was CO2 driving temperature and this was taken to be proof of GHG theory.

    When it was finally established that CO2 lags temperature this should have caused everyone to seriously reevaluate the GHG theory – but it didn’t happen because by then there were a lot of people with money and reputations that were dependent on the GHG.

    The problem of CO2 reinforced warming is that if the effect is as strong as the IPCC says it is, then there is no way for the earth to enter an ice age with elevated CO2 levels. The Milankovitch effect is too small.

    This suggests that something is wrong with the GHG theory and in normal scientific practice using the scientific method, this would be enough to call the theory into question. However, the IPCC practices post-normal science, which replaces the scientific method with consensus science – the more scientists that believe in something, the more likely it is to be true.

    As a result, evidence that few scientists have heard about is is rejected as being false, simply because few scientists know about it, which prevents most scientists from learning about it. This is contrary to the scientific method, which says you must test all evidence equally, regardless of what people believe.

  192. John B says:

    @Marc

    Where are you going with this?

  193. ferd berple says:

    John B says:
    June 27, 2011 at 3:41 pm
    It’s kind of like this: You turn up the heating in your house. Your house gets warmer. But it doesn’t go on getting warmer till the windows melt, does it? Even if you leave the heating turned up. Same thing with climate (to a first approximation).

    But the ice cores show that every time it gets warmer, more CO2 will be released, which will have the effect of turning up the thermostat every time it gets warmer.

    So, when your house warms up, if you then turn up the thermostat each time it warms up (more CO2 released by the warming), pretty soon you are going to run out of thermostat. If your thermostat goes high enough, you will eventually melt the windows.

    This is the run away greenhouse gas effect that mainstream climate science says will happen. The problem for climate science is that CO2 levels have been much higher many times in the past and there has never been any run away greenhouse gas effect.

    Outside of Ice Ages, global temperatures consistently leveled out at 22C in the past as CO2, which is the exact same temperature (72F) that people find most comfortable for their household thermostats. Hundreds of millions of years of evolution at work, telling us what the most comfortable temperature is.

  194. Marc says:

    John B — As I said in my comment, if you don’t want to answer the question, please ignore.

    Not remotely evident to me why I should have to answer to you regarding the nature or direction of my questions. Nice people have been helpful, you’ve been more condescending. That makes me quite uninterested in your opinions.

  195. R. Gates says:

    Tilo Reber says:
    June 27, 2011 at 12:11 pm
    Ben of Houston: “Amplifiers amplify in BOTH directions.”

    CO2 amplifies the warming effect of the sun. When temperature reverses direction and starts to go down, how can CO2 amplify that effect when the CO2 is still going up? CO2 can only amplify cooling once it has reversed and followed the cooling. So you are left with the question of what started the cooling. You could blame it on Milankovic, but the effect of Milankovic is weak. The rising contribution of CO2 warming should still be higher than the effect of Milankovic if CO2 is a strong forcing agent. Let’s say that you are sitting in front off a heater and you are wearing a blanket. Then you turn the heater down 2% and you put on another blanket. You can still get warmer even though you turned the heater down.

    ______

    If, as has been suggested, CO2 is the “master thermostat” of the planet, meaning it can control temperature up, and down, it would have to do many things at once:

    1) Operate with the same dynamic over a range of temperatures, such that, temperatures and pressure would not cause it to condense from the atmosphere. CO2 does this, as it is a non-condensing green house gas, whereas water vapor is not.

    2) Be “turned on” by weaker external trigger event of some kind, a “starter switch” if you would. Milankovitch cycles provide this external trigger as they initiate the heating of the oceans which begin outgassing more CO2.

    3) Create a positive feedback loop, such that once triggered, trigger more of the same. Once a CO2 begins to increase, especially in the lower end of the range of concentrations, a little bit more added can mean a lot more warming through positive feedback. This is exactly how the warming effect of CO2 operates.

    4) Interact with other systems in such as manner such that even though there is positive feedback, there is also a mechanism for NEGATIVE feedback, such that, at some point, the negative feedback outweighs the positive, keeping the system from creating the “run-away” green house effect. There are several potential mechanisms for this, some based on chemistry and geology, and some based on the current configuration of continents on the planet and their Interaction on the great ocean conveyor of current that connects all the oceans of the planet.
    Negative feedback #1 for keeping CO2 in check and preventing a run-away green house effect is the rock-weathering carbon cycle. As temperatures rise and more CO2 builds, water vapor also builds and the hydrological cycle begins to accelerate. This acceleration of the hydrological cycle means more rock weathering, and this weathering serves to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, bind it to minerals that are then washed to the oceans where they eventually end up as limestone. This process is well known.
    Negative feedback #2 for keeping CO2 in check and preventing a run-away green house effect involves an external trigger event that is precipitated by the warming planet but essentially shuts down or slows down the ocean conveyor belt, and stops this planetary heat pump. This mechanism is separate from the rock-carbon cycle, but has provided a sort of fail-safe mechanism to make sure the planet does not over-heat. How it works is like this: as the planet warms, more and more water comes off the ice-sheets that formed during the glacial period. At some point, that melting water alters the thermal and salinity gradients of the ocean conveyor enough that the heat pump shuts down, the poles begin to cool and ice begins to form. This shutting down can happen rather suddenly, (as any fail-safe mechanism does), whereas the rock-weathering carbon cycle is a longer-term negative process that slowly builds in momentum as temperatures rise.

    This entire process, the Milankovitich cycle, the release of CO2 through outgassing, the triggering of additional warming through positive feedback, the slow building up of negative feedback through the hydrological cycle that removes CO2, and the ultimate fail-safe mechanism, the shut-down of the great ocean conveyor is pretty much how the planet has operated for millions of years– at least during the current ice age and the current configuration of the continents. None of this of course precludes other triggering events that can create their own cycles of interactions such as solar events, gamma ray bursts, cometary impacts, etc. When these events happen, they can create their own interactions with the cycle just described and new patterns emerge in the climate system for various lengths of time.

  196. John B says:

    ferd berple says:
    June 27, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    “The problem for the IPCC and the CO2 GHG theory, is that it was developed before we discovered that CO2 lags Temperature. When it was first discovered that CO2 varies with temperature the lag was not known, so everyone assumed that it was CO2 driving temperature and this was taken to be proof of GHG theory”

    Rubbish! “An inconvenient truth” was criticised for not mentioning the lag, but it was well known. Think about it, even those dumb climate scientists knew that there were no humans emitting CO2 in ancient times. So they knew that it was the temperature rise that started the CO2 rise. But they also knew that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so it amplified the rise (see above in this thread). But now we are emitting CO2, and the rise in atmospheric CO2 comes from those emissions, not from temperature rise. There is no conflict in those statements.

  197. John B says:

    Marc,

    Sorry if you find me condescending. I explained how the greenhouse effect works, and then I answered your question about “0.00% of the incoming radiation”. You said you were about to make your point. I just wanted to hear it.

  198. izen says:
    June 27, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    Yes, that’s exactly the kind of get-out for the scare-mongers I’m talking about. Thank you for expressing it so succinctly.

    We don’t need heads on sticks; what we need is a return to real science.

  199. Pamela Gray says:

    R. Gates says:
    June 27, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    Yep, R. Gates. That right thar is settled science topped with consensus.

  200. Tilo Reber says:

    R. Gates:
    “Negative feedback #1 for keeping CO2 in check and preventing a run-away green house effect is the rock-weathering carbon cycle. As temperatures rise and more CO2 builds, water vapor also builds and the hydrological cycle begins to accelerate. This acceleration of the hydrological cycle means more rock weathering, and this weathering serves to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, bind it to minerals that are then washed to the oceans where they eventually end up as limestone. This process is well known.”

    We’ve already been down this road. The record shows that CO2 was still rising strongly when temperature turned around and went down. So this effect has nothing to do with reversing temperature.

    R. Gates: “At some point, that melting water alters the thermal and salinity gradients of the ocean conveyor enough that the heat pump shuts down, the poles begin to cool and ice begins to form.”

    The saliniy/conveyor belt theory was debunked a few years ago. There is now no existing evidence for this. It is simply a wild conjecture. In fact, there is some evidence that the current strenghtens with warming.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation

    So you are back to square one. You have no mechanism and no explanation for how temperature can start a steep decline while CO2 is still on a steep rise. Why are you so determined to not accept the obvious. CO2 forcing is just not that strong.

  201. Tilo Reber says:

    izen: “Nature gets the first, last and only vote on this matter and as merely the art of the possible the politics will be shaped by that.”

    Yeap, and so far I like the results coming from the exit polls.

  202. Tilo Reber says:

    John B. “Your house gets warmer. But it doesn’t go on getting warmer till the windows melt, does it?”

    Your heater has a limit. The limit for CO2 heating is running out of CO2. That doesn’t happen at 300-400ppm.

    John B. “but stop thinking you have found the killer flaw in basic science.”

    The basic science only seems to be off in assuming too high of a climate sensitivity number. But then there never really was any basic science to support the high number to begin with.

  203. Moderate Republican says:

    ferd berple says @ June 27, 2011 at 4:00 pm “The IPCC says that CO2 is the main driver of climate.”

    Another strawman ferd.

    Bullcr^p until you can show us where the IPCC actually says that. (hint – the IPCC has never said “CO2 is the main driver of climate”.

  204. Moderate Republican says:

    Tilo Reber says @ June 27, 2011 at 6:33 pm ‘You have no mechanism and no explanation for how temperature can start a steep decline while CO2 is still on a steep rise. Why are you so determined to not accept the obvious. CO2 forcing is just not that strong.”

    Again with the notion that CO2 is the only forcer – and yes that presumption is embedded in your “rebuke”. I can see why you write it like that since it creates a bogus argument that looks as is if calls into the question the science, but it’s a bogus hypothetical that simply shows that you need bogus arguments to try and make your point.

  205. JimF says:

    Peter Kovachev says:
    June 27, 2011 at 11:16 am “…The best path to enbark on, methinks humbly, is to gradually and firmly push, to keep on pushing and winning “territory,” and to reduce resistence by humanly providing soft landing spots and face-saving measures for the losers….”

    izen says:
    June 27, 2011 at 2:45 pm “…But this pre-supposes that Nature cooperates and provides conclusive refutation of the AGW theory. Criteria that all but the most rabid eco-extremist would accept….”

    Peter: Maybe that’s the approach for Europe, but not here. If the Republicans win it all, these folks stand to lose big. It’s already started, with votes against ethanol. The EPA and its illegal efforts against CO2 will be completely defunded, etc.

    izen: Nature may or may not deliver, but “Big Green” is the key component. I don’t mean the environmental idiots and wind power grifters and so forth: I mean the economy (US $). These aforementioned people have cost us untold billions, maybe trillions, and we simply can’t tolerate them any more. More than anything, the economic plight we find ourselves in will force action that will overcome the obstacles (I don’t hold out any hope for Europe; they are going to have to pay for their follies in blood and tears, I fear).

    Imagine if the US really opened the doors to developing its own energy resources (just one area of the economy hamstrung by rampant environmentalism). The massive new onshore discoveries of gas and increasingly, oil, in tight shales accessible with horizontal drilling and fracking on completion (cf. North Dakota, where the Bakken play has made ND the state with the lowest unemployment rate in the nation, down around 4%). Offshore, multibillion barrel potential exists in the Gulf beneath the salt (now accessible to seismic exploration and drilling techniques) and in the Atlantic rift basins (similar to Brazil’s newly-discovered trend where they now tout 35+ billion barrels in reserves after only a few years of work). We haven’t even mentioned Alaska, coal or oil shales. All this could stimulate hundreds of thousands of good jobs.

    Vicious Little Green (the environmental cabal) is going to fight like hell against this – and lose. Once they’ve lost, they won’t be coming back.

  206. Moderate Republican says:
    June 27, 2011 at 7:15 pm

    Again with the notion that CO2 is the only forcer – and yes that presumption is embedded in your “rebuke”. I can see why you write it like that since it creates a bogus argument that looks as is if calls into the question the science, but it’s a bogus hypothetical that simply shows that you need bogus arguments to try and make your point.

    ==========================

    Wah wah wah. Have you ever interacted in real life in genuine competition?

    I thought not.

    Wedgy time.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  207. JimF says:

    R. Gates says:
    June 27, 2011 at 4:31 pm “…blah, blah…” Why don’t you write a book? You seem to have it all figured out. ;)

    Or else go read this article, which is a sensible concept of global climate change primarily controlled by plate tectonic activity, and which actually supports or better explains some of the ideas you list in this post I am responding to:

    ALARMIST GLOBAL WARMING MODELS VS THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD
    Pierre Jutras

    http://www.smu.ca/academic/science/geology/bios/documents/ALARMISTGLOBALWARMINGMODELSVSTHEGEOLOGICALRECORDHongKong2007.pdf

    Enjoy.

  208. Tilo Reber says:

    Moderate Republican: “Again with the notion that CO2 is the only forcer ”

    Nope. No such notion. And you never saw me write that. What is stated, by the warmers, is that CO2 is a strong forcing agent and Milankovitch is a weak forcing agent. That being the case, how is it possible for temperature to sharply change direction when CO2 is still rising steeply. That would mean that the weak forcing agent is overcoming the strong forcing agent. Very unlikely. The other option is to identify another strong forcing agent to overcome CO2. I have seen no such agent offered by the warmers.

    I can’t make out what you are trying to say with the rest of your babble. Maybe you want to try again? I know that there is something in there about me making a bogus argument. Want to try to indentify what you think that bogus arguement is – or is it just you reading in your own interpretation of things that I never said?

  209. Marc says:

    John B says:
    Marc,
    I explained how the greenhouse effect works, and then I answered your question about “0.00% of the incoming radiation”. You said you were about to make your point. I just wanted to hear it.

    Marc’s response
    Okay — I was working today, and couldn’t really get to what I wanted to say, so let’s put aside my snippiness earlier.

    The reason I read and participate in a blog like this is to learn, in general, and to continue to evolve, if appropriate, my views on CAGW and AGW. It is a subject that interests me from a scientific point of view and a socialogical/psychological dynamic point of view.

    I have a wife and young kids, and a large stake in a decent world. I am not a scientist but take a scientific-like curiousity in the world, and like figuring out things that can be figured out and also knowing what isn’t yet known. I have dual degrees in engineering and history from two of the top universities in the country; but I’m not saying that to brag, I was definitely mediocre as far as my engineering class was concerned — there were some real studs (and studettes). I make huge differentiations between knowledge, intelligence, common sense and wisdom.

    I have been earnestly trying to come to a belief in the possibility of CAGW and/or material AGW, for the past two years. Despite vigorous attempts, including the initial inclination to believe it to be both true and needing some action, I have been unable to find the evidence which would support such a position with honest facts about what is known.

    Let’s take them in order:
    A) I was really turned off by the clear and massive fraud perpetrated my Michael Mann and the IPCC. The orginaly hockey stick has been shown to be unambiguously fraudulent and wrong in so many ways: a) statiscally, M&M demonstrated that even using Mann’s data, proper statistical modeling would not produce that shape at all. b) the underlying data is horrific i) it uses proxies that are truly unknown in their reliability as temperature reconstruction ii) even if the proxies are valid, their level of accuracy is dubious, and there is complete dishonesty on using the correct error bars for the reconsstructions, which makes current temperature trends indecipherable in the error bars iii) the data is massaged and cherry picked and altered to a degree making it false iv) even honest data is polluted by things like UHI, and there’s not much honest data out there. c) the mixing of proxy data, instrumental data and other more precise instrumental data in reconstructions is just plain disingenous and scientifically invalid.
    I could go on, but the points here are two:
    1) It nearly impossible for me to get over such massive fraud by the leaders of the so called science and trust the data and conclusions.
    2) The leaders are lying about what they actually know — they do not know, nor can they reasonably predict what kind of situation we are in or where the climate is heading or why.

    B) My second larger point plays off the last point above — the leaders of this field are taking particles of knowledge and drawing conclusions which the level of science doesn’t support. It doesn’t hold up. They make leaps that would fail to persuade teachers in middle school science classes.

    I live by the credo that knowledge of one’s ignorance is the beginning of wisdom. No matter how intelligent or learned one may be, one is severely compromised by not being able to distinguish what one doesn’t know. Honest arbiters of this issue would be significantly more muted in their conclusions and prognistications.

    The evidence seems clear that the climate is a chaotic system that, even with super computers, is orders of magnitude beyond our ability to predict. We know only a fraction of the drivers and the correct coefficients and permutations that would make prediction possible. Therefore, any handwring is superstition at this point regarding a future that we can neither predict nor control. It is driven by leaps of logic and knowledge that are utterly unscientific, as are most superstitions. furhermore, the future climate is much likelier to be driven by large black swan events or non-linear occurrences than anything put in a computer model. These models are worse that those at Long Term Capital Management and they will fail miserably. There are no better than shamanic crystal balls.

    The scientists are trying to turn a little knowledge into something that it isn’t — a window into the future. The basic premise is that, “all other things being equal,” more CO2 will create more warming. What we know about chaotic systems is that most certainly all other things will not be equal. Secondly, the behavior of energy in a controlled environment with respect to CO2 cannot suggest in the least what will be the behavior of energy in the complex climate system.

    So a couple of basic calculations apear to be complete BS:

    1) The so called energy budget will be changed many times before we reach a point where accuracy of it is refined to a truly useable level — decades to centuries — and by the way, it will change along the way and act differently along the way in response to a nearly infinite number of drivers.

    2) The calculation that a doubling of CO2 will have a 1.2C impact absent forcings is breathtakingly simplistic and essentially irrelevant. This is not calcuable in such a complex system of when and where CO2 will be at any time in any concentration at any time of year in any atmospheric conditions. There is to much randomness and chaos in the real system for this to be calculable Not to mention the fact that actual forcings, were they relevant, could just as easily negative 1 or 5 or whatever.

    There will be massive climate change no matter what we do over the long-run.

    The agenda of those promoting this shamanic endeavor is very familiar to any history student of substance. It grows out of an insecure need to be powerful based upon a FALSE internal belief in one’s own insufficiency and unworthiness. It comes from an unhappy and unhealthy place where the dark attributes of the human psyche dominate and drive behavior in ways unknown to the unfortunate and unfortunately malevelolent actors in the unnecessary and destructive drama that subverts the emergence of a higher human condition.

    I have to put the kids to bed — respond if you dare.

    Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other.

  210. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Billy Liar-

    At the end of the Permian, giant volcanic eruptions occurred in Siberia, spewing out some 2 million km3 of basalt lava, and covering 1.6 million km2 of eastern Russia to a depth of 400–3000 metres, equivalent to the area of the European Community. It is now accepted widely that these massive eruptions, confined to a time span of 1 My were a significant factor in the end-Permian crisis.

    So the paper doesn’t really support his view because it attributes the mass extinction to a long lasting and massive volcanic event.

    Actually the paper thinks that the Siberian Traps volcanism set the process in motion, by emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide. This then destabilized the methane hydrates, which amplified the previous warming, according to this extinction model.

    Think carefully- can you think of anything at the present time that is emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide, that could take the place of the Siberian traps?

    Like, for example, the roughly 30 billion tons of CO2 per year emitted by our combustion of fossil fuels?

  211. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Tilo Reber-

    Moderate Republican: “Again with the notion that CO2 is the only forcer ”

    Nope. No such notion. And you never saw me write that. What is stated, by the warmers, is that CO2 is a strong forcing agent and Milankovitch is a weak forcing agent. That being the case, how is it possible for temperature to sharply change direction when CO2 is still rising steeply. That would mean that the weak forcing agent is overcoming the strong forcing agent. Very unlikely. The other option is to identify another strong forcing agent to overcome CO2. I have seen no such agent offered by the warmers.

    Oh, I can give you another strong forcing agent- methane and it’s indirect atmospheric chemistry effects. Methane levels could certainly decline while CO2 remains high, leading to a cooling effect. Methane actually oxidizes into CO2.

    I follow your argument, and it seems like a potentially sound argument- if CO2 was the only greenhouse gas, and discounting random variability. I’m not sure about your data, though. When is this decline in temperature while CO2 remains high, that you are talking about?

  212. Tilo Reber says:

    I decided to visit Skeptical Science to see what their take was on the way that temperature changes direction while CO2 continues to climb. Evidently there was a commenter that actually understood the problem that this presented for a theory of strong CO2 forcing. After reading the responses from the AGW faithful it became apparent that they didn’t even understand the question. They gave responses such as, “CO2 was a feedback agent and therefore it only amplified the effect of a primary agent like Milankovick.” Clearly this is dumb, as CO2 cannot act as a negative feedback to enhance a negative Milankovich forcing when the CO2 is still going up. In fact, if Milankovich is a weak forcing agent as the warmers claim, and CO2 is a strong forcing agent as the warmers claim, then Milankovich would never be able to overcome CO2 in the case where CO2 is rising steeply. And clearly, CO2 was rising steeply at the time when temperature changed direction. I think another important question is, if CO2 continued to rise for 800 years after temperature changed direction, where did this CO2 come from?

  213. don penman says:

    People ask why we are in this cycle of ice ages,why does the Earth not keep on getting warmer during the interglacials or keep on getting colder during the glacial periods.I think that albedo is something that is underestimated as a forcing, it may explain our current warming better than co2.The oceans produce more cloud which act as a sun shade but continents have no shade and have to warm up as albedo falls

  214. John B says:

    Marc says:
    June 27, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    “…respond if you dare”

    I shall, this evening, but right now I have to go to work.

  215. cba says:

    albedo isn’t underestimated, it’s totally ignored as a forcing. It is almost totally an unknown even now. Clouds comprise the vast majority of the albedo in today’s world, a job usurped by the snow and ice during glaciation periods.

    Effects are also twofold. Cloud cover fraction affects the albedo and the particulate nature of the clouds can also vary and substantially affect their reflectivity and consequently the Earth’s albedo even without a change in the cloud cover fraction.

    The only way the CAGW promoters have been able to get their ‘models’ to support their position has been to assume that increased temperatures with increased h2o vapor content will result in a few percent decrease in cloud cover. This isn’t even the results of a gcm. In fact, it was an assumption made when they were using a one dimensional model to create parameters for their gcm 20+ years ago.

  216. Bill Illis says:

    Milankovitch forcing is, indeed, very, very small. There is hardly any change at all.

    Pick a city 130 kms north of you. That is what the summer sunshine is like at the deepest part of the Milankovitch cycles.

    Pick a city 130 kms south of you. That is what the winter sunshine is like at the deepest part of the cycle. ie. no difference at all really, especially over a whole year with the winter sunshine actually being stronger.

    But if you live on Baffin Island, northern Greenland or on the Arctic sea ice, now your winter snow does melt completely in the summer. 130 kms makes a difference here – it doesn’t at 65N, but it makes just enough difference at 75N. The sea ice becomes permanent all summer. Glaciers build up on land (initially only on Baffin Island and northern Greenland) and slowly start moving south. More sunlight is reflected – 90% is reflected by snow and solid glacial ice, 70% with permanent sea ice versus 30% in normal interglacial summers.

    Again, it is the Sun rather than CO2 feedback. Except this time, it is “Sunlight reflected” or Albedo rather than changes in the Sun’s energy or the axial tilt.

    And a huge amount of sunlight has to be reflected before a glacier can make it all the way down to Chicago. The summer sunshine in Chicago is like Milwaukee in the ice ages. In fact, a much, much bigger amount of sunshine has to be reflected for the glaciers to get down to Chicago than global warming theory calculates – they still want to believe CO2 is a big factor. But it is all Albedo.

  217. ferd berple says:

    Rubbish! “An inconvenient truth” was criticised for not mentioning the lag, but it was well known.

    Which mainstream climate scientists came out and criticized “An inconvenient truth” for not mentioning the lag?

    Did Hansen? Mann? Jones? Trenberth? How about RealCliamte? They knew there was a lag, but the general public did not. Instead the general public was told that the correlation between CO2 and Temperature proved that CO2 was driving temperature.

    When I saw “An inconvenient truth” I didn’t know there was a lag. I found the film as convincing as did many people. It was not until the ClimateGate emails came out that I decided to investigate for myself and discovered the lag.

    When I discovered that Gore had manipulated the facts to create a false impression, I asked myself why? Why hadn’t mainstream climate scientists come out at the time and said the film was wrong? Why hadn’t the media come out at the time and said the film was wrong? Why had both the mainstream climate scientists and the media instead labelled those that did criticize the Gore film as “deniers”? Why was there a campaign to discredit people that said the Gore film was wrong?

    Gore receive a noble prize for his efforts, for knowingly representing propaganda as science and the mainstream climate scientists went along with it. They remain silent and knowingly allowed a lie of omission. Worse, they actively called people that criticized Gore’s film “deniers”, saying that they didn’t understand the science. The scientists that should have criticized Gore instead tried to actively silence those that did and carried this campaign into the media.

    When I watched “An inconvenient truth” the two factors that I found most convincing were the ice cores, showing that Temperature always rose when CO2 rose, and the “hockey stick”. Only much latter, after ClimateGate did I learn that CO2 lagged Temperature, which means that Temperature causes CO2, nothing more nothing less. It was only after ClimateGate that I learned that the hockey stick had been manipulated, that contrary data had been omitted from the series.

    When I discovered this, I knew in no uncertain terms that AGW was not science. Like many people, I am trained in science and this is not how science works. Science never hides errors or contrary data, otherwise how can you trust any of the findings? You don’t need to be a Climate Scientists to know this. You don’t need to pur out a peer reviewed paper. This is fundamental to the Scientific Method that allowed us to replace belief and superstition with facts.

    How can anyone trust Gore in the future, knowing that he was aware of the lag yet chose to hide it? How can anyone trust mainstream climate science, knowing that they were aware that Gore was painting a false picture, and yet they chose to remain silent. Worse, they actively participated in the fraud, trying to discredit those that spoke up against the film.

    Quite simply you cannot. Once someone has abused their public trust by knowingly participating in a lie, they cannot be trusted again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

  218. ferd berple says:

    ‘Like, for example, the roughly 30 billion tons of CO2 per year emitted by our combustion of fossil fuels?”

    30 billion tons is a misleading statement. Nature releases 700 billion tons of CO2 each year. Human emissions are a drop in the bucket, only about 1 part in 25.

    We know from the ice cores that warming releases CO2. We know that the earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age. According to the CO2 GHG theory, this CO2 released by the warming is causing even further warming, which is releasing even more CO2, which is causing even more warming, which is releasing even more CO2.

    How can humans hope to stop this? We can’t stop the warming that has occurred since the Little Ice Age. We don’t even know what caused the Little Ice Age or why it ended. We don’t even know if we should stop it. The Little Ice Age was a time of great hardship in Europe, leading to famine and revolution.

    Since we can’t stop the warming since the LIA and the CO2 it is releasing and the further warming this is causing and the further CO2 this is releasing and the further warming this is causing and the further CO2 this is releasing, etc., etc., doesn’t it make much more sense to develop the technology to live in a warmer world?

    It costs a lot less to life in a warmer world than a cooler world. The evaporation of water is a low cost cooling technology that requires almost no energy. In contrast, heating requires quite a bit of very expensive energy.

  219. ferd berple says:

    Rubbish! “An inconvenient truth” was criticised for not mentioning the lag, but it was well known.

    The general public was not aware of the lag. Mainstream Climate Science did not come out and correct the error. Instead they chose to label those that did criticise the film as “deniers”, that they didn’t understand the science, that they should not be listened to.

    I was not until after the ClimateGate emails were released that I learned of the lag between temperature and CO2. Many of the public are still not aware of this and believe what they have been told in the Gore film.

    The simple fact that Gore knowingly participated in a fraud and that mainstream climate scientists knowingly covered this up either through lies of omission or trying to actively discredit those that criticized the film is strong evidence that these people cannot be trusted.

    Having lied before, why would they suddenly start telling the truth now? Much more likely they would lie further to try and hide the lies.

  220. Tilo Reber says:

    Bill Illis: “Milankovitch forcing is, indeed, very, very small.”

    Thanks Bill. I was wondering, are you aware of any Milankovitch charts? I was thinking of something like an anomaly line chart. One axis would be time, the other would represent the sum of Milankovitch forcings as an anomaly. I would be interesting to look at the quality of the correlations between Milankovitch and ice age turning points.

  221. Tilo Reber says:

    Leland Palmer: “I’m not sure about your data, though. When is this decline in temperature while CO2 remains high, that you are talking about?”

    Look at this chart about 330 thousand years ago. And it’s not just CO2 remaining high, it’s CO2 continuing to rise strongly while temperature is in decline.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/2000px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png

    Leland Palmer: “Methane levels could certainly decline while CO2 remains high, leading to a cooling effect.”

    It can’t be a very strong effect, otherwise there would never be a reason for a climate alarm over rising CO2 levels.

  222. Marc says:

    John B

    A few corrections before you respond:

    I meant respond if you “care” — didn’t mean to imply what dare meant.

    My critique of the psychology CAGW proponents applies to the leaders like Mann, Gore, etc., not you personally. There’s a big difference between the profound character flaws of those dangerous power seekers and the personality of the average citizen trying to figure out the truth from all the propaganda. So please don’t feel the need to respond to that critique at a personal level.

    Lastly, please ignore typos — I frankly just didn’t have the time or energy to proofread; and the input window was being flaky, causing me to have to type without being able to see the output (below the window). My computer or something was off. I assure you I can spell, or look words up when I don’t know, and I can produce completely correct grammar when I want. Not that you would, but others have tried to capitalize on typos and the like to impy the commenter is ignorant. I may be, but in this case I simply didn’t care enough to make things perferct for a casual conversation.

    I look forward to your responses.

    Best regards,
    Eli

  223. A G Foster says:

    savethesharks says:
    June 26, 2011 at 9:02 pm
    “I cannot believe that I am agreeing with Tamino…”

    Tamino is Grant Foster. I am Arthur Glenn Foster, Jr. Thanks anyway. –AGF

  224. A G Foster says:

    View from the Solent says:
    June 27, 2011 at 2:58 am
    A G Foster says:
    June 26, 2011 at 8:26 pm
    “‘The mass extinctions began 10,000 years ago’ —————————————————————————————————-
    “Hunh? 10,000 years is a blink of an eye. +95% of all the species that ever existed were extinct by then. Either gradually or by events such as at the K/T boundary https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_event

    So…do you think I didn’t know about the K/T extinctions? Do you know about the Pleistocene megafauna extinctions? Most of the big animals have been wiped out–by humans. Polar bears are among the safest–they should easily survive the tigers. As the population expands, more animals, big and small, are coming under fire, and the only thing that could save them is a human catastrophe. If there were any truth to these CO2 scares, and if we loved the critters more than the people, we should say, bring it one; even nuclear war would benefit wildlife. Chernoble’s environs really have turned into a wildlife refuge–better than no space at all.

    So I repeat, the mass extinctions began 10,000 years ago. Maybe I should make that 15,000 years ago. –AGF

  225. A G Foster says:

    CO2.

    beng says:
    June 27, 2011 at 8:41 am
    *****
    “A G Foster says:
    June 26, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    “‘Two different lags are evident, one of which–the more important one–is ignored by the Society’s statement: the 6 to 8 millenium lag between June 65 North insolation and T and the roughly 1 millenium lag between T and CO2.’

    “Not sure I understand that. The peak 65N summer insolation was ~11k yrs ago. The peak temp in the Holocene Optimum was ~10k to 8k yrs ago (even before all the glacial remnants were gone) — only about 1k yr lag. Temps since the HO have slowly dropped in tune w/the decreasing summer insolation (w/the typical ~1k yrs “cycles” — MWP & LIA).

    “Not sure where you get a 7k yr lag in temps vs insolation.”

    We’re talking ice cores over several hundred thousand years. And we’re talking about periodicity, not amplitude. And a sizeable literature.. If you want, I’ll dig some up. –AGF

  226. Bill Illis says:

    Tilo Reber says:
    June 28, 2011 at 7:37 am

    ———–

    Here are the Ice Ages and Milankovitch cycles over the last 3 ice ages. Basically, it doesn’t really work. It takes a really good down-cycle to put us into an ice age and then the up-cycles only work about one-third of the time in successfully melting all the ice to bring us into an interglacial. Bascially, one needs to take into the account the accumulated volume of ice versus the accumulated ability of Milankovitch cycle to melt that volume.

    http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/9195/milkanvsiceages.png

    Going back 800,000 years. Even stranger.

    http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/8735/milankovitch800k.png

    One should also be aware that the forecast for the Milankovitch Cycles in the future is there will not be a deep enough down-cycle to put us into another ice age for 50,000 years (possibly even as much as 130,000 years). This should be the longest interglacial in the last 2.5 million years. They are not as regular as everyone believes.

    For the inconvienent truth followers, here is Al Gore’s chart the way it should have been shown with the impact of CO2 shown in the proper scale and with the lag noted.

    http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/1640/last800klr.png

  227. A G Foster says:

    savethesharks says:
    June 26, 2011 at 9:02 pm
    A G Foster says:
    June 26, 2011 at 8:26 pm
    The mass extinctions began 10,000 years ago and continue today and have nothing to do with CO2, but everything to do with over hunting, over fishing, exotic species introduction, etc. CO2 is the iron pyrite of environmentalism–preventer of all cures. –AGF

    ====================

    I cannot believe that I am agreeing with Tamino…

    I don’t know this Tamino character (Mozart’s?)–Maybe Foster Grant or Grant Foster–not me. Thanks anyway. –AGF

  228. John B says:

    ferd berple says:
    June 28, 2011 at 6:42 am

    Which mainstream climate scientists came out and criticized “An inconvenient truth” for not mentioning the lag?

    Did Hansen? Mann? Jones? Trenberth? How about RealCliamte? They knew there was a lag, but the general public did not. Instead the general public was told that the correlation between CO2 and Temperature proved that CO2 was driving temperature.

    No, they did not criticise it, that was done by skeptics. So, why not? I think they knew it would be misinterpreted or deliberately misrepresented, so they went for a simplification. The cycles in question are over thousands of years. They are started by other factors, e,g, Milankovitch, but then the CO2 released by the oceans starts to drive temperature as a feedback ,until other factors dampen things down. That is what the science says. The lag is a few hundred years, but after that CO2 drives things (not exclusively, but significantly) for thousands of years.

    FWIW, I think they made a mistake by not mentioning it, as it left themselves open to this sort of attack.

  229. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Tilo Reber-

    It’s an interesting graph. Visualizing what was going on at the time, the earth was apparently glaciating, and growing bigger icecaps. This chilled the oceans, leading to them absorbing more CO2.

    Likely, we’re talking Milankovitch forcing coupled with the ice/albedo feedback, is my guess. As the icecaps got bigger, they reflected more and more light into space, resulting in cooling. Cooling then led to more CO2 absorption by the oceans.

    One thing you don’t seem to see about this graph is the positive correlation between CO2 and temperatures- a very good correlation. You seem to see the exception to the rule, not the rule. I guess that’s OK, but you do have to remember that lots of things are going on in the system, including possible changes in ocean circulation, possible methane releases from the hydrates on the steep up slope of the warming, and the ice/albedo feedback.

  230. izen says:

    @-Tilo Reber says:
    June 27, 2011 at 6:43 pm

    izen: “Nature gets the first, last and only vote on this matter and as merely the art of the possible the politics will be shaped by that.”

    Yeap, and so far I like the results coming from the exit polls.
    —————

    Really?!
    This year is already in the top ten warmest years of the last hundred,

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/5

    Antarctic sea ice extent was the 4th lowest recorded,
    Arctic sea ice extent is at record lows,
    glacier mass balance continues to fall,

    http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/

    the Pine Island ice-sheet is on the way out and with it could go the WAIS.

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-ocean-currents-antarctic-ice.html

    If you ‘like’ those results, seeing them as not supportive of AGW then I wonder what sort of climate you would consider supportive of AGW that would cause you to doubt your present position?

  231. John B says:

    @Marc,

    Thank you for correcting “respond if you dare” to “respond if you care”, it makes all the difference. The sad thing is, “dare” seemed par for the course for this forum.

    In the new, caring light, I shall try to respond to what I think are your main points…

    Marc says:
    June 27, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    A) I was really turned off by the clear and massive fraud perpetrated my Michael Mann and the IPCC. The orginaly hockey stick has been shown to be unambiguously fraudulent and wrong in so many ways: a) statiscally, M&M demonstrated that even using Mann’s data, proper statistical modeling would not produce that shape at all. b) the underlying data is horrific i) it uses proxies that are truly unknown in their reliability as temperature reconstruction ii) even if the proxies are valid, their level of accuracy is dubious, and there is complete dishonesty on using the correct error bars for the reconsstructions, which makes current temperature trends indecipherable in the error bars iii) the data is massaged and cherry picked and altered to a degree making it false iv) even honest data is polluted by things like UHI, and there’s not much honest data out there. c) the mixing of proxy data, instrumental data and other more precise instrumental data in reconstructions is just plain disingenous and scientifically invalid.

    The hockey stick is (a) not nearly importanty to AGW as “skeptics” would like you to believe and (b) not broken. Because, (a) the criticisms levelled at it have been far more widely criticised themselves. (b) even if you remove all the data and techniques that were criticised, you get pretty much the same answer, and (c) dozens of other studies have replicated the results, none have seriously contradicted them. Don’t take my word for it, step out side the skeptic-o-sphere and see what you find.

    B) My second larger point plays off the last point above — the leaders of this field are taking particles of knowledge and drawing conclusions which the level of science doesn’t support. It doesn’t hold up. They make leaps that would fail to persuade teachers in middle school science classes.
    [snip]
    So a couple of basic calculations apear to be complete BS”

    But they’re not! 24 hours ago you didn’t understand the greenhouse effect. Now, hopefully, you do. Well, all of climate science is like that. It can seem like nonsense, but there are actually real scientists out there, doing real science, and it is complicated. The problem is, that many lay people only get watered down simplifications of it, and think that that is the science. It’s not! Forget about all the zealots, politicians, eco-warriors and wind turbine salesmen. There is real science behind AGW, if you just look a bit deeper. And “taking particles of knowledge” is another way of saing “cherry picking”, which I think you will find the “skeptics” are far more guilty of.

    Happy hunting!

    John

  232. John B says:
    June 28, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    No, they did not criticise it, that was done by skeptics. So, why not? I think they knew it would be misinterpreted or deliberately misrepresented, so they went for a simplification. The cycles in question are over thousands of years. They are started by other factors, e,g, Milankovitch, but then the CO2 released by the oceans starts to drive temperature as a feedback ,until other factors dampen things down. That is what the science says. The lag is a few hundred years, but after that CO2 drives things (not exclusively, but significantly) for thousands of years.

    That’s interesting. Can you point me to any published papers which discuss this effect (the “CO2 driving things for thousands of years”) because I’ve not come across this before.

    FWIW, I think they made a mistake by not mentioning it, as it left themselves open to this sort of attack.

    Science is supposed to be all about attack, isn’t it? Or did I sleep through the part in my science classes where the teacher explained that science was about everyone slapping one another on the back, telling each other what a good job they have done. Science only progresses through scepticism and challenge. Without scepticism we’d still believe in the aether.

    It seems to me that it is only in Climatology, and perhaps some sectors of Parapsychology, where scientists routinely suppress, hide, or ignore data and information which undermines their theories, and attack those who challenge their results, rather than defending their theories or admitting they were wrong.

  233. John B says:

    Dersk Sorenson said: Science is supposed to be all about attack, isn’t it? Or did I sleep through the part in my science classes where the teacher explained that science was about everyone slapping one another on the back, telling each other what a good job they have done. Science only progresses through scepticism and challenge. Without scepticism we’d still believe in the aether.

    No, science is not all about attack. Idologically driven, so-called “skepticism” is all about attack, which is why climate scientists sadly have t0 take it into account. And, FYI, it was Einstein, a scientist, who did away with the notion of the aether, not someone just picking holes in Newton.

    [Apologies for my loose use of words re. CO2 "driving". CO2 was a significant feedback, amplifying the warming. That is widely accepted, maybe not here.]

  234. izen says:

    @- Marc says:
    June 27, 2011 at 9:02 pm
    “The reason I read and participate in a blog like this is to learn, in general, and to continue to evolve, if appropriate, my views on CAGW and AGW. It is a subject that interests me from a scientific point of view and a socialogical/psychological dynamic point of view.”

    Me too.
    Being faced with uncritical agreement is hardly a test of the ideas you hold. I hope you don’t mind if I attempt to answer some of your points….

    “Let’s take them in order:
    A) I was really turned off by the clear and massive fraud perpetrated my Michael Mann and the IPCC. The orginaly hockey stick has been shown to be unambiguously fraudulent and wrong in so many ways: ….. the data is massaged and cherry picked and altered to a degree making it false iv) even honest data is polluted by things like UHI, and there’s not much honest data out there. c) the mixing of proxy data, instrumental data and other more precise instrumental data in reconstructions is just plain disingenous and scientifically invalid.
    I could go on, but the points here are two:”
    ———–
    Before the two points I would question the importance or significance you are attributing to one study of NH paleo-temperatures. It is hardly central to the over 100 years of physics behind AGW or the numerous other measurements that broardly confirm the results you are apparently unequivocally dismissing as fraudulent.

    “1) It nearly impossible for me to get over such massive fraud by the leaders of the so called science and trust the data and conclusions.”
    ———
    Of the many diverse sources of data we have about temperature, sea level, ocean heat content ice extent and other climate indicators there are always quibbles about possible inherent errors.
    But it takes a mature conspiracy theorist to ascribe the correlation between all these measurements to systematic errors always favouring AGW – or worse that it is a global cabal with fabrication by every involved scientists on the planet.

    “2) The leaders are lying about what they actually know — they do not know, nor can they reasonably predict what kind of situation we are in or where the climate is heading or why.”
    ———————-
    I have no idea who ‘The leaders’ are that you are granting such omnipotent authority to decide what they know – or are lying about.
    The science, and most of the data are out there in the public domain, anybody can, and does, go and decide for themselves to the best of their ability. I would disagree with your assessment of what can be known and predicted from the data and the underlying science.

    “B) My second larger point plays off the last point above — the leaders of this field are taking particles of knowledge and drawing conclusions which the level of science doesn’t support. It doesn’t hold up. They make leaps that would fail to persuade teachers in middle school science classes…..
    The evidence seems clear that the climate is a chaotic system that, even with super computers, is orders of magnitude beyond our ability to predict. ”

    Wrong, and obviously so.
    The seasonal changes we experience are part of the climate, the ability to predict that December will be colder than June in the NH is well within our capabilities, and strongly confirmed by observational data. Such climate changes are constrained by the thermodynamics. How those changes occur in detail, the weather of seasonal change is certainly chaotic and inherently unpredictable but deterministic. However the envelope of that chaos is constrained by the 1LoT, it is ergodic and so perfectly open to prediction and measurement. You have not made a case for climate (rather than weather) being as unknowable as you claim.

    “furhermore, the future climate is much likelier to be driven by large black swan events or non-linear occurrences than anything put in a computer model. ”
    ————————-
    Interesting assertion.
    Historical and paleoclimate studies show the opposite. A system with a limited number of states and a high degree of stability within any one state. Major climate change is causally linked to clear driving factors, whether it is orbital change in the Milankovitch cycles, tectonic effects of the closing of the Panama channel, the carbon ‘belch’ of the PETM or the regular succession of seasons in the higher latitudes.

    A big ‘black swan’ event might be a major asteroid strike, or a super-eruption like Yellowstone… or a process that puts comparable amounts of non-condensing GHGs into the atmosphere as such exceptional geological excursions.

    “1) The so called energy budget will be changed many times before we reach a point where accuracy of it is refined to a truly useable level — decades to centuries — and by the way, it will change along the way and act differently along the way in response to a nearly infinite number of drivers.”
    ———
    No, the energy budget is closely constrained by the stability of the solar input. Unless you are expecting gross climate effects all that you can change are details about how that ‘fixed’ input propagates through the system. Past climate history puts very strong constraints on the possible range of behavior. Energy in and energy out are well defined and well measured, all we are arguing about is really the ‘gradient between the surface we live on and the effective energy emitting surface of the globe.

    “This is not calcuable in such a complex system of when and where CO2 will be at any time in any concentration at any time of year in any atmospheric conditions. There is to much randomness and chaos in the real system for this to be calculable Not to mention the fact that actual forcings, were they relevant, could just as easily negative 1 or 5 or whatever.”
    —————–
    Military research in the 50s, tracking radioactive fallout from nuclear tests, established conclusively that CO2 is well mixed, the ‘chaotic variations’ you are invoking are about as real as a claim that a sugared coffee will alter in sweetness from mouthful to mouthful.

    “There will be massive climate change no matter what we do over the long-run. ”
    ——————–
    The only statement in your list I completely agree with.
    How we respond and adapt to climate change on whatever timescale or ‘long-run’ you consider is a combination of how robust and flexible our societies can be and how well we understand the possible changes that could occur.
    You have expressed extreme pessimism about the limits of our knowledge, I dont think that is justified by the historical record or the depth of knowledge of the physics and specifically the thermodynamics.

    The energy change represented by the extra CO2 is the biggest and fastest changing causal agency in the climate at present – and for the last few thousand years. It can be exceeded by albedo changes, either in cloud coverage or ice/snow extent. But the best evidence for both of those factors is that they are amplifying the CO2 effect.
    Handwaving about the complexity or chaos of the climate does not negate the requirement to consider the effect of such a large magnitude change to the system Even chaotic systems have comuputerable and predictable ranges of behavior. Thats why we can build quite accurate water-clocks from the chaotic dripping of a spout!
    Complex, chaotically dissipative systems have a profound built-in trait.
    You can never change just ONE thing.

  235. izen says:

    @-Derek Sorensen says:
    June 28, 2011 at 1:35 pm
    “Can you point me to any published papers which discuss this effect (the “CO2 driving things for thousands of years”) because I’ve not come across this before.”

    Increasing carbon dioxide concentration appears to have globalized deglacial warming, with climate sensitivity near the upper end of values from general circulation models (GCMs) used to project human–enhanced greenhouse warming; data from the warm Cretaceous period suggest a similarly high climate sensitivity to CO2.
    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1810/1831.short
    or
    http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2771
    CO2 is the biggest control climate knob. And it has been the biggest knob as far back as we can tell. So says Richard Alley. Actually it isn’t so much him saying this, as the latest science. Richard Alley is merely summarizing the science

    “It seems to me that it is only in Climatology, and perhaps some sectors of Parapsychology, where scientists routinely suppress, hide, or ignore data and information which undermines their theories, and attack those who challenge their results, rather than defending their theories or admitting they were wrong.”

    No, its far worse in Biology Especially anything with a medical link.
    For ego and hubris consider how our knowledge of the complete human genome was established, and that Craig Venter’s genome is the historical basis…
    It also has cases of outright fraud and deceit. But notice they are eventually detected and any ‘results’ corrected. The Korean cloning scandal would be a good example.
    By comparison climate science is a paradigm of rectitude, integrity and consensus!

  236. @John B: “No, science is not all about attack. Idologically driven, so-called “skepticism” is all about attack, which is why climate scientists sadly have t0 take it into account.”

    I think you are misunderstanding my point. I used the word “attack” because that was the word you used. I would normally have used the word “scepticism”. And I stand by what I said, although I’ll try to rephrase it to make it clearer:

    Science is all about scepticism. Science cannot progress if we all just agree with the latest idea. Science has to be testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Climate science is none of these. Data and algorithms are withheld/hidden (so the findings cannot be tested or replicated) and when actual observations contradict theory, instead of throwing out the theory, Climate science assimilates the observations and retrospectively changes it’s predictions to match the observations ()so it isn’t falsifiable). And this is even to the extend of changing the name of the phenomenon it is supposedly observing – vis: “Global Warming” is only ever uttered by sceptics these days; AGW believers prefer the term “Climate Change” because Earth isn’t actually warming, and hasn’t been for over a decade. That’s not science, it’s marketing.

    So, please, explain it to me in terms I can understsand: if Earth isn’t actually warming – what is all the fuss about? I promise to listen.

  237. Tilo Reber says:

    izen: “This year is already in the top ten warmest years of the last hundred,”

    Depends of which source you pick. But even yours is irrelevant. There has been no warming for more that 13 years. It’s like going up a stairs and getting to the top floor. When you start walking on the top floor, every step is higher than what you took on the way up. But it doesn’t mean that you are still climbing. So “10th warmest” doesn’t mean a thing. The slope is still flat. The IPCC says that we should have gotten .26 C of warming in those last thirteen years, and we’ve got nothing. Not only have we got nothing, we don’t even have any source of natural variation that we can blame having nothing on. The climate models are barely holding on by their error bands. The rate of sea level rise is slowing. Take the satellite data, split it in two, and the second half trend is less than the first. The rate of ocean heating is also slowing. So yeah, I love the exit polls.

    And before we get into an argument about having nothing, I base my judgement on UAH, RSS and HadCrut3.

  238. Missed somthing.

    @John B again (I promise I’m not having a go at you): previously you said:

    No, they did not criticise it, that was done by skeptics. So, why not? I think they knew it would be misinterpreted or deliberately misrepresented, so they went for a simplification. The cycles in question are over thousands of years. They are started by other factors, e,g, Milankovitch, but then the CO2 released by the oceans starts to drive temperature as a feedback ,until other factors dampen things down. That is what the science says. The lag is a few hundred years, but after that CO2 drives things (not exclusively, but significantly) for thousands of years.

    And in my reply I asked you this:

    That’s interesting. Can you point me to any published papers which discuss this effect (the “CO2 driving things for thousands of years”) because I’ve not come across this before.

    I suspect you overlooked my question in your reply re the word “attack”, but I really would appreciate it if you could point me to the work that supports this assertion. I am not trying to make a point here, and I am quite prepared to admit that it is ignorance on my part that I don’t know this already.

  239. Tilo Reber says:

    Leland Palmer: “One thing you don’t seem to see about this graph is the positive correlation between CO2 and temperatures- a very good correlation.”

    Of course I see the correlation. CO2 follows temperature. But temperature doesn’t follow CO2. That is why you can see cases where CO2 is rising steeply and temperature reverses, ignoring the CO2 forcing that is still on the rise and going where some other forcing is taking it. This shows clearly that there are other elements of natural variation that are stronger than CO2. Considering how weak Milankovich is suppose to be, either there are some other very strong elements overriding CO2 or CO2 induced climate sensitivity is simply not that large. I have yet to see any evidence that it is as large as 3C per CO2 doubling.

    Now ice albedo forcing can be very strong. But you have to get the temperature turned around and going down before you can get any of that effect. So in the absence of that effect what is there to overcome the rising CO2 level and turn temperature around as it does. The only thing that makes sense to me is that CO2 forcing is simply not that strong.

  240. Tilo Reber says:

    John B: “until other factors dampen things down. That is what the science says. ”

    “Other” factors? I would have thought that “the science” would have a better explanation. By the way, have you ever seen a Milankovitch forcing chart to check its correlation with ice age turning points? I keep wondering why I have never seen such a chart.

  241. D. Patterson says:

    Leland Palmer says:
    June 28, 2011 at 1:13 pm
    Hi Tilo Reber-
    [....]
    One thing you don’t seem to see about this graph is the positive correlation between CO2 and temperatures- a very good correlation. You seem to see the exception to the rule, not the rule. I guess that’s OK, but you do have to remember that lots of things are going on in the system, including possible changes in ocean circulation, possible methane releases from the hydrates on the steep up slope of the warming, and the ice/albedo feedback.

    Now you are resorting to outright lies. Even a cursory glance at a chart of Earth’s geological past reveals there was no consistent pattern in the relationship between temperature and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. For millions and tens of millions of years at a time there were anti-correlations and inconsistent rates of change. If carbon dioxide had the influence claimed by AGW proponents, the geological evidence we actually observe in Nature could not exist. So, you are faced with making a choice between the AGW conjecture on faith or the physical evidence observed in Nature.

  242. Tilo Reber says:

    izen: “But it takes a mature conspiracy theorist to ascribe the correlation between all these measurements to systematic errors always favouring AGW – or worse that it is a global cabal with fabrication by every involved scientists on the planet.”

    This is the same lame tactic that warmers have been using for years. Claim that the skeptics are about conspiracy theories as a way of showing that they are nuts. But skeptics don’t talk about conspiracies; only warmers attribute conspiracy theories to them. No conspiracies are required. Only politically like minded people or people with like minded agendas are required. And we can see this effect in action all of the time. When Mann publishes upside down Tiljander data it is not just one man who is making one mistake. His paper is peer reviewed and the peers are silent about the mistake. The scientific journals that he publishes in are silent about the mistake. The AGW blogs are silent about the mistake. And they are not just silent once over one mistake. Mann has had the issue explained to him and he has repeated the mistake three times. And all of these people have been silent three times when the mistake was already widely known. And regarding the errors, can you point to one of Mann’s many mistakes that were in opposition to the AGW agenda.

    Also, tell me what you think that Keith Briffa means when he says these words in one of the climategate emails.

    “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. ”

    What do you suppose the “pressure” is that he is talking about?

  243. Marc says:

    John B

    Shockingly unconvincing and non-responsive. We simply are not close to being able to predict the climate.

    It is a chaotic system — not in dispute.

    A brief blurb on chaotic/deterministic systems for your pleasure:

    Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

    There is no agreement on any of this — CO2 may are may not be a material forcing agent, but the system is absolutely unpredictable, and it is pretense and arrogance to believe otherwise. Remember that hubris begets nemesis — the spirit of divine retribution against those who succumb to hubris.

    I am sorry, but you seem to suffer from not knowing what you don’t know. That lack of wisdom can completely undermine any intelligence or knowledge you might otherwise possess. It also sets you up for a fall.

    Such a resistance to becoming aware of one’s limits usually results from a subconscious feeling that being wrong, or not adequately knowledgeable, makes one unworthy. It doesn’t, so I would encourage you to let go, self-reflect, recognize your limits (nothing to be ashamed of). People don’t love perfection, they love real humans — and all of us are fallible and limited.

    It will be very hard to do that because letting go of belief in one’s potence is very scary; it is a strong coping mechanism for humans, especially if exposed to intensive demands or shame during childhood.

    I wish you luck, peace, wisdom and peace. I said peace twice because I like peace.

    All the best,
    Eli

  244. Marc says:

    John B — My apologies.
    My reply was to Izen for his crazy response.

    Izen:
    Read my last post to John B was meant for you.

    Futhermore, Izen:

    izen: “But it takes a mature conspiracy theorist to ascribe the correlation between all these measurements to systematic errors always favouring AGW – or worse that it is a global cabal with fabrication by every involved scientists on the planet.”

    It is not a conspiracy theory, though Mann et al conspired, it is a large scale corruption scheme, with lots of like-minded folks in on the game, and gaming rubes like you. What is it that causes you to enthusiastically embrace a corrupt endeavor? Work on it.

  245. Marc says:

    John B

    You said the following:

    24 hours ago you didn’t understand the greenhouse effect. Now, hopefully, you do.

    Seriously?! You have demonstrated yourself to be clueless beyond redemption. Superciliousness is not a flattering character trait. You have know clue what I understand and don’t and simply don’t have a clue, period. It is clear you draw conclusions from insuffiicient information which is why you’re lost on the climate.

  246. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Tilo Reber-

    Of course I see the correlation. CO2 follows temperature. But temperature doesn’t follow CO2. That is why you can see cases where CO2 is rising steeply and temperature reverses, ignoring the CO2 forcing that is still on the rise and going where some other forcing is taking it. This shows clearly that there are other elements of natural variation that are stronger than CO2. Considering how weak Milankovich is suppose to be, either there are some other very strong elements overriding CO2 or CO2 induced climate sensitivity is simply not that large. I have yet to see any evidence that it is as large as 3C per CO2 doubling.

    Yes, as temperatures increase or decrease due to Milankovitch forcing, CO2 is likely absorbed or released from the oceans, under normal conditions without huge influxes of carbon into or out of the carbon cycle. If on an upswing, CO2 released from the oceans amplifies the Milankovitch forcing, and the water vapor feedback to CO2 amplifies the CO2 forcing. So the system tends to wander, with initial slight forcings amplified by various positive feedbacks. Once icecaps start growing, they also tend to continue growing by the ice/albedo feedback.

    Looking at your graph, there is a very steep rise in temperature at about 330 thousand years ago. That sudden rise could possibly be due to a medium to small methane release from some source, just speculating of course. As icecaps grow and sea levels fall, pressures on some hydrate deposits are decreased, and this allows them to start to dissociate, or so goes the theory. Other scientists think that the methane comes from decay of plant sources. But there is a spike in methane concentrations right around 330 thousand years ago:

    madmikedavies.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/800px-vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

    The methane curves seem to follow the temperature curves even more closely than CO2, and seem to have less of a time lag.

    Another thing left out of your model is water vapor concentration. Water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. So, if glaciation was taking place, and temperatures were declining, water vapor forcing would also decline, leading to a further downward trend in temperature.

  247. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi D. Patterson-

    Now you are resorting to outright lies. Even a cursory glance at a chart of Earth’s geological past reveals there was no consistent pattern in the relationship between temperature and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. For millions and tens of millions of years at a time there were anti-correlations and inconsistent rates of change. If carbon dioxide had the influence claimed by AGW proponents, the geological evidence we actually observe in Nature could not exist. So, you are faced with making a choice between the AGW conjecture on faith or the physical evidence observed in Nature.

    It’s a nice line of BS, but clearly there is a correlation between greenhouse gas levels and temperature in the Vostok ice cores, as Tilo Reber acknowledges.

    madmikedavies.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/800px-vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

    Clearly, these curves correlate with one another. In normal Milankovitch driven and water vapor, CO2, methane and ice/albedo feedback amplified warming and cooling, there is an obvious and transparent correlation.

    AGW is not normal Milankovitch driven warming and cooling. It is a special case of warming, CO2 driven with methane, methane atmospheric chemistry, and water vapor positive feedbacks.

    The time lag is actually something we have to worry about. As temperatures rise, CO2 is clearly going to start coming back out of the oceans.

  248. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi D. Patterson-

    No outright lying either done or intended.

    Now you are resorting to outright lies. Even a cursory glance at a chart of Earth’s geological past reveals there was no consistent pattern in the relationship between temperature and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. For millions and tens of millions of years at a time there were anti-correlations and inconsistent rates of change. If carbon dioxide had the influence claimed by AGW proponents, the geological evidence we actually observe in Nature could not exist. So, you are faced with making a choice between the AGW conjecture on faith or the physical evidence observed in Nature.

    It’s a nice line of BS, but clearly there is a correlation between greenhouse gas levels and temperature in the Vostok ice cores, as Tilo Reber acknowledges.

    madmikedavies.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/800px-vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

    Clearly, these curves correlate with one another. In normal Milankovitch driven and water vapor, CO2, methane and ice/albedo feedback amplified warming and cooling, there is an obvious and transparent correlation.

    AGW is not normal Milankovitch driven warming and cooling. It is a special case of warming, CO2 driven with methane, methane atmospheric chemistry, and water vapor positive feedbacks.

    The time lag is actually something we have to worry about. As temperatures rise, CO2 is clearly going to start coming back out of the oceans.

  249. izen says:

    @- Marc says:
    June 28, 2011 at 5:00 pm
    “Shockingly unconvincing and non-responsive. We simply are not close to being able to predict the climate.

    It is a chaotic system — not in dispute.

    A brief blurb on chaotic/deterministic systems for your pleasure:

    Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.”

    Most pleasurable…
    especially the irony as you go on to accuse ME of suffering from the Dunning -Kruger effect!

    The orbits of the planets and the moons is also a chaotic system. Deterministic but unmeasurable differences in initial conditions lead to widely diverging outcomes.
    Of course the timescale of that chaotic variation is well beyond our field of interest so the calculations we make about orbital times are accurate enough for our purposes.
    That is just one way in which a chaotic system can also be ‘predictable’.

    But more fundamentally chaotic systems may be inherently unpredictable in the sense that initial conditions cannot be known to a degree that enables specific predictions about the state of a system at a specific time, but the BOUNDARY of the behavior can be predicted. Chaotic systems are capable of description and prediction at the level of the envelope of behavior. Especially if the system is energy-driven and therefore thermodynamically constrained.

    Weather is an initial condition problem on a chaotic system and therefore unpredictable.
    Climate is an envelope problem on a thermodynamically constrained system and is therefore quite open to prediction as I showed with the example of seasonal changes.

    “…It will be very hard to do that because letting go of belief in one’s potence is very scary; it is a strong coping mechanism for humans, especially if exposed to intensive demands or shame during childhood.
    I wish you luck, peace, wisdom and peace. I said peace twice because I like peace.
    All the best,
    Eli”

    Thank you for your kind wishes which I’m sure are well intentioned.
    But the faux humility you have about human knowledge of the climate is an individual failing, not universal, and is correctable by education. The history of global warming would probably be a good place to start to discover how AGW grew from a speculation, through a hypothesis to a well established theory.
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
    Perhaps it will also make clear why the accusation that the science is distorted by a cabal of like-minded conspirators is so ridiculous.

    As is so often the case given the human propensity for projection the rest of your psychobabble reveals more about the source than the target.

  250. don penman says:

    If there was no ice in the summer at the poles at both extremes of the Milankovitch cycle then we would have no ice ages?Does the occurrence of ice ages depend on the average temperature of the Earth over the Milankovitch cycles?

  251. John B says:

    Marc says:
    June 28, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    John B

    You said the following:

    24 hours ago you didn’t understand the greenhouse effect. Now, hopefully, you do.

    Seriously?! You have demonstrated yourself to be clueless beyond redemption. Superciliousness is not a flattering character trait. You have know clue what I understand and don’t and simply don’t have a clue, period. It is clear you draw conclusions from insuffiicient information which is why you’re lost on the climate.

    Well, if you did understand the greenhouse effect, you wouldn’t have asked the questions you did at e.g. June 26, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    I think that was sufficient information, don’t you?

  252. Marc says:

    John B

    No that isn’t sufficient. That is like saying I don’t no grammar because I said you have know clue about what I no in my previous post.

    Studied environmental engineering at nation’s leading univ in engineering — many years ago — and passed many a test on the earth’s systems, including greenhouse effect. The purpose of my questions was entirely different than you suspect, and your arrogant assumption with virtually no information is emblematic of your unfounded confidence in your conclusions, regarding me and the climate. It is hubris, we know it when we see it. Hubristic people can’t see it in themselves and are beyond redemption.

    If you want to admit that you have no clue about what I know, then maybe we could exchange ideas. If you’re going to be arrogant, then it is pointless.

  253. John B says:

    Marc,

    I can only go on what you post here. You asked questions about the greenhouse effect that even a glancing acquaintance would have made unnecessary. If you already understood it, then you are right, I have no idea what the purpose of your questions was.

    John

  254. Marc says:

    John B

    That’s the point, the willingness to draw conclusions based on terribly limited information is precisely what limits the use of your intelligence. You are assuming I didn’t know the answers to my questions before asking them. My purpose was to elicit exactly the kind of over-response that a couple of you fell for. It was my personal experiment in drawing out the psychological tendencies of alarmists. Let’s just say the results were consistent with my hypothesis.

    Why would you think you could draw any conclusion from such limited information? That question is much more pertinent, I would say absolutely central, to the climate discussion than the micro details you and your ilk like to throw around as substitutes for wisdom.

    It is funny that you guys believe you are the scientists and rational people when you are really the superstitious ones, over believing in science that doesn’t yet exist and wanting to rely on models that are plausibly right until they are actually wrong, hoping to defend yourselves from the true randomness of our existence and future, but endangering the rest of us through over-zealous pursuit of your own superstitious belief in your potency and efficacy.

    I am told that this personality trait is endemic to the human condition, intractable and unhearable and unbearable to the possessor. That seems to be true.

  255. izen says:

    @- Marc says:
    June 29, 2011 at 1:04 pm
    “That’s the point, the willingness to draw conclusions based on terribly limited information is precisely what limits the use of your intelligence. You are assuming I didn’t know the answers to my questions before asking them. ”

    Do you think it irrational to conclude that if a person asks a question they are most likely NOT to know the answer?!

    You asked –
    “Marc says:
    June 26, 2011 at 12:05 pm
    Can anyone explain to us how co2 traps energy from going out but doesn’t prevent at least the same amount of energy from coming in?
    It seems like we are being told that it should be hotter in the shade because the canopy keeps the energy from going out.
    Is there any explanation of this?”

    There is no indication this question and plea for an explanation is in any way rhetorical. Those of us who conclude that you are ignorant of aspects of AGW science are not doing so on the basis of “terribly limited information” as you assert, but on information that permits of no alternative interpretation EXCEPT that you do not know this stuff and are asking for answers.
    If you now reveal that you do in fact know how and why CO2 traps FAR more energy emitted from the surface than entering from the Sun then our ‘mistake’ is not the result of “terribly limited information” but that your previous ‘questions’ were at best unintentionally misleading, or at worst duplicitous.

  256. Marc says:

    John B and Izen: (two peas in a pod)

    Do you think it irrational to conclude that if a person asks a question they are most likely NOT to know the answer?!

    Most likely? Maybe. But “most likely” is not certainly. And failure to consider things other than ‘most likely” leads to major errors. That is the entire point here. You are taking your limited knowledge and thinking you have the most likely answers and asking us all to treat you as if you have certainty. And I don’t even think CAGW is most likely at this point, from the information and science we have.

    Considering “most likely” is very limited thinking, and running with it is perilous. That is what we are all trying to tell you alarmists. But, alas, I have resigned myself to having no impact of your superstitions of potency. Maybe others can be enlightened to learn the dangers of knowledge without wisdom and love.

    And yes, I freely admit to my duplicity. That is the best way to entrap criminals and expose arrogance. Duplicity in the service of exposing wrong is acceptable to me, just like FBI agents posing as youngsters to entrap pedophilic predators.

    I think the current debate over climate is not one of science, per se, but one of psychology and sociology. In my world, love is the ultimate, and love is not possible in the oppressive shadow of hubris. So I am ultimately pursuing my own belief in the primacy of love as the ultimate in the human condition. And of course I will protect my circle of love with vigilance and ferocity and duplicity, despite whatever claims of contradictions your limited understanding will want to throw back at me.

    Any human imposed cure to the alleged disease of AGW, is many times more harmful to the human condition than AGW itself, if it exists to any material degree. Meaning, I will take my chances with the climate over corrupt, power-mongering humans attaining significant power

  257. John B says:

    I am speechless!

  258. Marc says:

    John B

    I am quite pleased to hear that. If folks like you would take a step back and think more before talking, we wouldn’t have to waste so much of our precious time pushing back against folks like you.

    What you can rest assured about is that we are not about to cede power or moral authority to technocrats or autocrats in the alleged name of our own well being.

    All the shouting in the world about your superior knowledge and intellect is not going to inform us of anything, or change the mind of clear-thinking, right-minded, decent folk that populate this side of the blogosphere. You keep thinking it is only because we don’t understand what you are saying that we don’t agree with you and if you talk more or louder, we will eventually come along. We won’t.

    It is not because we don’t understand what you are saying, or the unimpeachable rectitude of what you believe your views possess. We simply think you are playing God, and we don’t want any part of it. It is convenient that your ideas always lead to the same place — more power and authority to people like you and those you support.

    Those who aspire to power and authority are least deserving of it. So, you are not informing me of anything. I have heard and examined all the arguments. You are overreaching your abilities and thus dangerous to love and liberty. There is really nothing for you to say. You don’t get that we get you — you just don’t get us. All your particles of knowledge will fail to make you wise or loved or safe in a chaotic and unpredictable world. The safety you seek is not attainable, no matter how hard you try.

    Your belief otherwise results in you missing out on the best human existence has to offer.

    Again, I do hope you can reform your approach and achieve love, modest wisdom and occasional peace. That’s is pretty much all this ride has to offer.

  259. izen says:

    @- John B says:
    June 29, 2011 at 4:55 pm
    “I am speechless!”

    I’m not! -grin-

    This is a poster who on the strength of their belief in the ‘rightness’ of their opinion openly declares their use of duplicity…. to expose the dishonesty and hubris of others.
    Presumably on the basis that the means justifies the end.
    .
    .
    .

    You’re right, it needs no further speech or comment!

  260. Marc says:

    Yep.

  261. John B says:

    @Izen

    Does Poe’s law apply here?

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

  262. izen says:

    John B says:
    June 30, 2011 at 12:05 am
    “Does Poe’s law apply here?”

    I hope so.
    I would much rather have been fooled into thinking ‘MARC’ is for real by someone smart than think there really is someone that much of a fool!.

  263. Marc says:

    It is a pleasure to see the two of you getting along so swimmingly.

    John B says:
    June 30, 2011 at 12:05 am
    “Does Poe’s law apply here?”

    I hope so.
    I would much rather have been fooled into thinking ‘MARC’ is for real by someone smart than think there really is someone that much of a fool!.

    Marc says:
    Keep hope alive! So is it your take that either I am a fooler or a fool? Are there any other possibiities? I’ll show you my IQ if you show me yours.

    And how about the two of you? Unrecognized geniuses? Serious men among fools and rubes? Burdened with the duty of enlightening? Altruististic lovers of knowledge and your fellow man?

    It has been great fun for me, I hope you can say the same. I suspect we will meet in a comment section again. You guys have families?

    All the best,
    Marc

Comments are closed.