Bastardi on outdoor grilling, 4th of July, AGW, and all that

Here’s a 4th of July message from Joe Bastardi of WeatherBell regarding this idiotic piece in the NYT. Click the image at left for the story. He’ll be on Fox News tomorrow morning to talk more about it.

Then there’s the always dependably irrational Brad Johnson of ThinkProgress.org (you know, the guy that shamelessly and without anything other than his own irrational thought processes blamed tornadoes on “climate pollution deniers -voting states who challenged climate legislation) who writes:

Firework shows from Texas to Massachusetts have been canceled because of the deadly climate conditions…

Oh noes! Deadly climate conditions. Lock your doors, bar your windows, don’t let your children look at the sky! Yeah, I guess Brad has never heard colloquialism “hot as a firecracker on the Fourth of July”. Of course what is missing is historical context. How many Forth of July fireworks displays were canceled in 1934 during the drought, or 1988 during the California drought? Or has the trend in fireworks cancellation been accelerating (cuz it’s the trend that is important you know) with CO2 increase? But I digress, they aren’t interested in anything but the politically expedient moment.

Here’s one for Brad:

Climate doesn’t kill people, weather does.

But enough of the defective thinking over at TP.

Joe writes via email:

I will be on Fox and Friends tomorrow morning (6:52AM ET) to debunk the notion that outdoor grilling is a cause of global warming.

First of all, mans yearly contribution to the atmosphere of CO2 results in an increase the size of a hair on a  1km bridge.  If we take the whole atmosphere, ocean system together, and realize most of the energy is in the oceans anyway, the amount man contributes is so small, its probably the width of a hair on a trip to a galaxy light years  away. In addition  CO2  is loved by plants, so I have  a new motto for the fourth,  Grill a steak, Help a Tree!!!!

But there is something more behind this.  Not only is this  another foolish global warming  idea, but it’s an attack on a cherished 4th of July American ritual (summer too)  and an American tradition that lasts into other season (tailgating) but its targeting meat eaters too.  And when one looks at that, one sees why this should be interesting tomorrow morning since I am supposed to be on a set where we are grilling up some meat and I am going to make darn sure the adage bulk up or leave town is applied. I will bulk up, then leave town.

Now if you want to eat something different, be my guest. I am not going to stop you. But if you want to help green the planet, there is probably some tree out there that would take the greenhouse gasses that your grilling is adding and use them for its own purpose… so go on you red blooded American.

Grill that steak and help that Tree. Its the patriotic thing to do.
ciao for now

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

86 Responses to Bastardi on outdoor grilling, 4th of July, AGW, and all that

  1. John Tofflemire says:

    OMG!!!!!!

  2. tokyoboy says:

    To the American folks…… A Happy Independence Day!

  3. Anything is possible says:

    As you feast on your burgers, you can also reflect on the fact that their methane-farting days are well and truly over. The environment wins again!

    Happy Independence Day.

  4. John Q. Galt says:

    Also take care to NOT eat your Brussels sprouts. All those gassy emissions and all. /sarc>

  5. Jay Davis says:

    Just got finished grilling ribs on my charcoal grill. Am now going inside to sit with my wife in the air conditioned dining room to eat them. Afterward, we may go to “downtown” Churchville in my truck to get some dessert – soft ice cream. Later we may go and watch a fireworks display. In other words, we are doing what we always do on the glorious 4th of July. Hope the AGW fanatics have fun doing whatever delusional people do on their country’s birthday, wherever that is.

  6. ShrNfr says:

    Noted in passing, the fireworks on the esplanade in Boston may well happen in the rain.

  7. Theo Goodwin says:

    God Bless Anthony and Joe! Happy grilling Fourth of July to both.

    Please, please, call shame on the Warmista for scaring children. Warmista are disgraceful in their behavior toward children, using the worst kind of fear tactics to frighten and indoctrinate them.

  8. DJ says:

    Most of the third world will be celebrating having food on the 4th of July by grilling on a wood, charcoal, or coal, or dung fire. While the 4th to them is just another day, they’ll still be grilling on the 5th, the 6th, the 7th…………….

    But we get slammed for doing it one day.

  9. u.k.(us) says:

    From:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/opinion/30palmer.html

    “I’m not advising you to forsake grilling this holiday and join the ranks of raw-foodists.”….
    ==============
    Yet, you mention it.
    You poor, guilt-ridden…

  10. oMan says:

    I am inclined to think the warmistas are not terribly sophisticated in their strategy; but if one did ascribe sophistication to them, it would explain why they are going after the Fourth of July. Because it is deeply damaging to our morale to give ground on this (highly symbolic, deeply felt) occasion. But it is an occasion that has not needed defending against such silly salient attacks as CO2, thus does not have well-prepared defenses. It is entirely too easy to laugh incredulously and say “oh, fine, whatever,” and give ground because of course everyone understands these people are absurd, and by pressing their case they make their absurdity even more abundantly clear. Except: not. This is exactly how the fight is lost. Over apparent trifles. Pretty soon we are trying to defend the “core” ideas, and it’s too late. My recommendation: tell them to go to heck; early, loud and often.

  11. PaulH says:

    Do environmentalists need shrinks?
    http://www.grist.org/living/2011-06-22-do-environmentalists-need-shrinks
    Bwwwwwhaaaahahahhaaa!!! :-)

  12. Brian H says:

    The real explanation for that “fitted news”
    Attending parades increases likelihood of patriotism and Republicanism:

    Democratic political candidates can skip this weekend’s July 4th parades. A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.

  13. Curiousgeorge says:

    Palmer neglected to mention beer, which would obviously be off the menu, according to his philosophy, due to high CO2 content. Braaaaapppp! Tap another keg!

  14. starzmom says:

    Happy Fourth Everybody!! There are some folks out in western Kansas who are too dry for fireworks–here in northeast Kansas we have more water than we know what to do with. It all evens out in the long run–really.

  15. Speed says:

    From the article:
    There are few easy choices in environmental analysis.

    He got one thing right.

  16. Greg, Spokane WA says:

    There’s lots of greenery popping up here in Spokane. Given our all too short growing season I think it needs all the help it can get, so grilling/BBQing as much as possible seems like an excellent idea.

    And as @Anything is possible says, those cows won’t be belching out the dreaded methane. /sarc

  17. kbray in california says:

    I’m sequestering CARBON for the holiday via the consumption of a great vintage of “Two-Buck-Chuck”. (that’s a $1.99 bottle of trader joe’s wine for the un-initiated…).
    Unfortunately it is reacting with something and causing me to “off-gas methane”…
    If I drink enough, I may try to ignite the “fumes” for my contribution to “fireworks” for the Forth of July and my “feelings” toward “global warming” for the “Fifth (column)” of warmists… It may all “end” with just a “hot butt”.

    HAPPY FORTH of JULY to all who care !!! Where is the party for 100 Million Hits?
    I’ll contribute. Best regards to all… Ken.

  18. Scott says:

    This piece would have been okay except for the hair vs. bridge and hair vs. next galaxy analogies. If people want to do the math to argue this, please be my guest. Otherwise, the article is fine and makes several good points.

    Also, I remember the 1988 drought covering much more than CA. A quick look at the Palmer indices shows this to be the case:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/historical-palmers.php?index=pdsi&month%5B%5D=7&beg_year=1988&end_year=1988&submitted=Submit

    Try comparing that to 2011:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/historical-palmers.php?index=zndx&month%5B%5D=5&beg_year=2011&end_year=2011&submitted=Submit

    (Note, that’s a May map because June isn’t up yet and obviously July isn’t up yet either.)

    Clearly, 1988 was FAR WORSE than what we’re seeing now. Every year has dry spots in the U.S. in early July. If there weren’t any, I’d be worried that the CAGW were right!

    -Scott

  19. trbixler says:

    No fireworks in Marina Del Rey, city of Los Angeles is out of money!

  20. Ric Werme says:

    starzmom says:
    July 3, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    Happy Fourth Everybody!! There are some folks out in western Kansas who are too dry for fireworks–here in northeast Kansas we have more water than we know what to do with. It all evens out in the long run–really.

    Do you guys get all the fireworks from western Kansas to add to your displays?

  21. trbixler says:

    Just noticed the weather map has L.A. bright red with a temp of 67 F. New York 73 and blue. Mann at work? No fireworks but bright map?

  22. mike g says:

    @trbixler says:
    July 3, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    No fireworks in Marina Del Rey, city of Los Angeles is out of money!

    That’s actually stopping them?

  23. dp says:

    Didn’t we just go through this nonsense last year in Russia where it was agreed a little regional warmth (and I presume cooling as when it recently snowed in California) was the result of natural events? Brad has earned his tattoo.

  24. Tom t says:

    Dang, if only our ancestors did not discover fire.
    I had thought the AGW alarmists had wanted to knock us back to the stone age. Now it looks like they want to knock us back even farther than that.

  25. David Falkner says:

    The NYT. Geez.

    Anyone want to come to our Winter Solstice celebration of the Solstice tree decorated by ambiguous sled faring folk dressed in red? Frank and Tim are getting married. You’re all invited. Don’t forget, bring veggies because you know meat is bad for the environment. Oh, and please try to leave the USBs of stolen government files in the right reporter’s stocking. Revkin doesn’t approve of stolen files folks.

  26. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    For those who don’t know who Joe Bastardi is here he is on video talking about cooling that is likely coming to the earth and not warming:

  27. twawki says:

    Independence day from the greens – every day of the year

  28. Fergus T. Ambrose says:

    Drink beer and avoid CO2 hair in food.

  29. WillR says:

    Youse guys are late to the party. We had this scare in Canada years ago — and it helps cut down plution yah know! No smoke from barbeecues and no more asthma and no more smog.It made the rounds in Toronto area just a few years ago. I promptly barbied a few burgers and contemplated the injustice of the universe…

    Uur experts (weathermen, climatologists, mayors) went in TV to say it was all true and we could slay the CO2 monster if we just tried harder. Shessh!

  30. R.S.Brown says:

    Joe could mention the ski resorts out west opening up for the holiday
    weekend to take advantage of the snow that should have melted off
    last month.

    See:
    http://apnews.excite.com/article/20110703/D9O8868O0.html

    Have a safe & happy 4th !

  31. crosspatch says:

    Charcoal is a renewable energy resource. The charcoal CO2 goes into the air, from there to a tree, and from there to more charcoal and back to the grill. The charcoal is CO2 that came out of the atmosphere very recently.

    It is a biofuel.

    If charcoal grilling is bad, then so is the use of biofuels in other sources of energy such as engine fuels.

  32. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    R.S.Brown

    Snow, a thing of the past.

    ;O)

  33. rbateman says:

    A couple of endangered species here:
    1.) Beans, beans the magical fruit…. Banned
    2.) Jack & the Beanstalk (more Banned Beans)
    3.) Bean Counters (maybe that’s not so bad, but they are people too, so have a heart)
    4.) Chili Cookoffs – OMG all those beans, peppers and meat – a methane moment awaits

    Ready the Doomsday Volcano-busting Array … Fire!
    There, no more life left on Earth to cause Global Warming. A Class L Planet (Lifeless).
    120,000 years from now, upon awakening from the Next Ice Age, there is only blue water, brown dirt and lots of lava rocks.
    If there are traces of Ancient Civilizations on Mars, that’s what probably happened. They got Gore Fever and the resulting crater we now know as Olympus Mons. Mars vented it’s core heat to space, forming the Asteroid Belt, froze up and then lost it’s atmosphere to the Solar Wind.
    Don’t let fools play with nuclear matches.

  34. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    crosspatch

    Richard Feynman on fire, describing the same type of cycle you are talking about:

    Well worth watching!!

  35. Skeptic Tank says:

    From the article (I just had to read it):

    Charcoal is made of wood, so the carbon it releases upon combustion is approximately equal to the carbon the tree it came from once removed from the atmosphere. In theory, charcoal should be less damaging than propane, which releases carbon that has been sequestered harmlessly underground for hundreds of millions of years.

    And where was it hundreds of millions of years ago before there was complex life on the planet? It was all in the atmosphere. The atmosphere was loaded with it.

  36. Joe Bastardi says:

    actually, the contribution of humans yearly to the atmosphere of co2 is equal to that. Humans contribute a minute amount of c02, most of it is in exchange between oceans, earth and air. Since w increase about 1.8 ppm a year and humans contribute less than 5%, well that works out to pretty close to that. I didnt come up with it, but check it out. Now, lets understand that the oceans contain most of the total energy of the atmosphere ocean system. Much much much more than the air, of which humans are contributing yearly .09 ppm. So, see if you can follow the math, since the oceanic heat content dwarfs the air, then the estimate is so small, that using the galaxy analogy is probably not bad. But if you want, I will settle for Pluto.. it has been kicked out of the planets I hear and needs some good press.

    Now lets take it further. how much of that is contributed by your grill.

    As I said, fire it up, feed yourself and help a tree

  37. crosspatch says:

    I am also not convinced that the oceans have completely recovered from the LIA. As the oceans warm, they will release CO2. We had a very long period of cold temperatures. It is easy to cool a body of water by reducing the air temperature above it. It is very difficult to warm it when the air temperatures rise. It would take a much longer time to warm the ocean than it takes to cool it. We don’t really have any data on the abyssal deep. I would not be surprised to learn that the oceans at depth are still recovering from the LIA.

  38. rbateman says:

    Joe Bastardi says:
    July 3, 2011 at 9:35 pm

    Poor Pluto will finally get some good press and some of that good old NASA Imaging & Science stuff:
    The New Horizon probe is projected to reach Pluto on July 14, 2015, and that’s the Right Stuff.
    In the meantime, keep up the Dr. Joe CO2 Fever medicine show.

  39. dcardno says:

    Oh yeah – fire up the grill!
    To all our American friends, all the best on your Independence Day! Be happy, and be safe.

  40. Justthinkin says:

    Up here in the Great Whit North(well,maybe noy longer if the warmistas are right),I even BBQ on New Year’s Day.It has been my tradition and my friends for over 30 years.Oh.And we support PETA….People Eating Tasty Animals.

  41. UK Sceptic says:

    I got the steaks, I got the barbie, I got (gasp) nice weather, Will be firing up this evening (Monday) and Johnson can have an apoplexy on me.

  42. Mac the Knife says:

    Why must we have this tension…this racist bigotry between flora and fauna? Can’t we all getta along? Yah, sure, you betcha! };>)

    Dry rub ribs cooked low and slow, spicy barbeque chicken, braturst with ‘kraut, sweet corn, and baked beans, all smoke grilled on a natural charcoal and white oak fire, are on the menu for the neighbors Independence Day gathering tomorrow. Please note that we use only biodegradeable, free range, environmentally friendly, responsibly harvested, charcoal and white oak firewood to fire our 4th of July barbeque pit! The citronella tiki torches will be burning as twilight deepens into dark….. and then the perimeter of Shady Lake WA goes to ‘Def Con 1, Full Launch – First Strike’, in a madhouse paroxysm of fireworks that run until nearly 12:00am! Vegans, AGW fanatics, and the aurally timid need not attend!

    May God Bless the Free and Fun Loving Nation of the United States of America!

  43. John Finn says:

    Joe Bastardi says:
    July 3, 2011 at 9:35 pm
    actually, the contribution of humans yearly to the atmosphere of co2 is equal to that. Humans contribute a minute amount of c02, most of it is in exchange between oceans, earth and air. Since w increase about 1.8 ppm a year and humans contribute less than 5%, well that works out to pretty close to that. I didnt come up with it, but check it out. Now, lets understand that the oceans contain most of the total energy of the atmosphere ocean system. Much much much more than the air, of which humans are contributing yearly .09 ppm. So, see if you can follow the math, since the oceanic heat content dwarfs the air, then the estimate is so small, that using the galaxy analogy is probably not bad. But if you want, I will settle for Pluto.. it has been kicked out of the planets I hear and needs some good press.

    Huh? I think your understanding of the carbon cycle might be a bit confused. It’s true that CO2 increases by ~1.8ppm per year and it’s true that humans produce ~5% of natural CO2 emission – but it’s this 5% which produces the 1.8 ppm rise.

    Before ~1850 the earth’s biosphere released ~150 GtC (not sure of the exact figures but ~150 GtC is in the right ‘ball park’) annually – but it also absorbed ~150 GtC annually so the atmospheric CO2 concentration remained roughly in equilibrium at ~280 ppm. Human CO2 production has distrurbed that equilibrium and since 1850 the CO2 concentration has risen to ~390 ppm.

    Your main point about the negligible impact of barbecue grills is valid, though.

  44. John R T says:

    Remember Earth Day? Costa Rica´s Central Valley got an early start on fireworks. Just when everybody was to cut the lights, this tropical paradise honored and thanked China for building the National Stadium. How does one honor the guest who invented fireworks? Right: a pyrotechnic extravaganza. Did I mention the light show? Earth Day, on the Isthmus!

    Entertainment recently from the Asamblea Legislativa: VERY serious discussions about honoring a agreement to evaluate hydrocarbon deposits under the Caribbean coast. Now the local Greenies demand that the USA contractor not look for oil: look for natural gas, only! [Education draws a lot of attention, locally. Maybe by 2021, when CR becomes ´carbon neutral,´ the science classes will explain the carbon connection.]

    No fireworks tomorrow. Local media seldom have kind words for North Americans, and joining in Independence Day celebrations could prompt the locals to compare this socialist state to what freedom offers.

    Happy Fourth of July. I will have a fire in the chimenea: our neighbors are wearing sweaters.

  45. John Marshall says:

    As a Royalist I should perhaps not say this,=—- Have a great Independence Day. Keep those steaks a coming help several trees.

  46. AK says:

    With the midday sun beating down upon my black metal smoker I hardly need any propane at all to maintain a steady 220°F. I guess one could call that “solar-augmented” hybrid BBQ :)

  47. View from the Solent says:

    I understand there was a difference of opinion over our respective choice of beverage some 238 years ago. But I don’t hold it against you. Have a great day.

  48. Bloke down the pub says:

    To all you colonials, have a happy independance day.

  49. Gary says:

    C’mon now, the SurfaceStations.org project showed that barbequing DOES affect climate change.
    http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=12306

    /sarc

  50. Pamela Gray says:

    Here at the ranch: T-bones and beer with thick slices of homemade bread to soak up the juice.

  51. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Thank God we don’t celebrate independance day in the UK, all that guilt I would be feeling.
    Oh! I just remembered It’s my wifes birthday and she loves a barbecue.

  52. Latitude says:

    John Finn says:
    July 4, 2011 at 1:41 am
    Before ~1850 the earth’s biosphere released ~150 GtC (not sure of the exact figures but ~150 GtC is in the right ‘ball park’) annually – but it also absorbed ~150 GtC annually so the atmospheric CO2 concentration remained roughly in equilibrium at ~280 ppm. Human CO2 production has distrurbed that equilibrium and since 1850 the CO2 concentration has risen to ~390 ppm.
    ===================================================
    John that is absolutely amazing………
    Every time in the past that temperatures have risen coming out of ice ages, like the LIA…
    …CO2 levels have risen with it

    I think most people confuse equilibrium with limiting…………..

  53. Douglas DC says:

    In La Grande, Oregon : Barbeque, fireworks and listening to a local rocker/blues guy Al “Too Loud “MacLeod and the “Red Light Runners” at the University. Expect lots of Co2, Methane and
    a (which seems to be the goal of the Greenies to stop) a good time…

  54. Jer0me says:

    and an American tradition that lasts into other season (tailgating)

    Seriously? You have a tailgating season in the US? I guess it explains a lot…. ;-)

  55. Patrick Davis says:

    In the UK, patio heaters and BBQs of this nature, have been blamed for gorebull warming…that is at least ONE fact! Shame about Gore and his mocumentary though. *sigh*

  56. Phil's Dad says:

    John Finn says: (July 4, 2011 at 1:41 am)

    “Before ~1850…the atmospheric CO2 concentration remained roughly in equilibrium…since 1850 the CO2 concentration has risen to ~390 ppm.”

    On the other hand Mr Finn “Plant stomata suggest that the pre-industrial CO2 levels were commonly in the 360 to 390ppmv range.” (from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/)

    Supported by

    Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
    Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
    Warsaw, Poland

    “A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution.”

    and…

    Wagner 1999, Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration.

    “Our results falsify the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. SI-based CO2 reconstructions may even suggest that, during the early Holocene, atmospheric CO2 concentrations that were >300 ppmv could have been the rule rather than the exception.”

    The post concludes that “The anthropogenic contribution to the carbon cycle since 1860 is minimal and inconsequential.

    Which is pretty much what Mr Barsadi is saying.

    And of course longer term they have been an order of magnitude higher – and life goes on.

  57. Phil's Dad says:

    Apologies to Mr Bastardi for misspelling his name in my last comment. I seemed to have lost a T somewhere. Oh dear… that’s how this whole 4 July thing started.

    Have a good one and put an extra banger on the grill for me.

  58. stephen richards says:

    John Finn says:

    July 4, 2011 at 1:41 am
    Huh? I think your understanding of the carbon cycle might be a bit confused. It’s true that CO2 increases by ~1.8ppm per year and it’s true that humans produce ~5% of natural CO2 emission – but it’s this 5% which produces the 1.8 ppm rise.

    and I think your understanding is mostly arm waving. None of the figures quoted has ever been empiriclly measured, unless of course you can prove differently.

  59. Scott says:

    Joe Bastardi says:
    July 3, 2011 at 9:35 pm

    actually, the contribution of humans yearly to the atmosphere of co2 is equal to that.

    No it’s not, and your numbers aren’t convincing. See below.

    Humans contribute a minute amount of c02, most of it is in exchange between oceans, earth and air. Since w increase about 1.8 ppm a year and humans contribute less than 5%, well that works out to pretty close to that. I didnt come up with it, but check it out. Now, lets understand that the oceans contain most of the total energy of the atmosphere ocean system. Much much much more than the air, of which humans are contributing yearly .09 ppm. So, see if you can follow the math, since the oceanic heat content dwarfs the air, then the estimate is so small, that using the galaxy analogy is probably not bad. But if you want, I will settle for Pluto.. it has been kicked out of the planets I hear and needs some good press.

    Yearly CO2 emissions are supposedly ~2.93e10 kg/year. You’re throwing around a bunch of numbers I don’t agree with…but who cares? I’ll give you the total mass of CO2 in both the oceans and the atmosphere… ~1.8e17 kg, so wow…you’re right, human emissions are minute…at only 160 ppb here. But wait! I wasn’t arguing the human emissions part, I was arguing your analogy of hair.

    The average diameter of a human hair is 99 microns, that’s 9.9e-5 m. Compared to a 1-km bridge, that’s only 99 ppb…almost 2 times a lower than the human CO2 emissions compared to the mass of the CO2 in the oceans and atmosphere combined.

    Let’s compare to Pluto…orbital radius is ~5.87e12 m. So a hair is only 1.7e-8 ppb of that! Sorry, you’re off by a factor of 9.5e9 (that’s 9.6 billion) even when assuming the oceans are 100% CO2.

    And to your original analogy…the 3rd closest galaxy (and closest substantial one) is the Large Magellenic Cloud, supposedly ~157,000 light years away…or roughly 1.57e21 m away. One hair is about 6.3e-17 ppb of this, so you’re off by a factor of 2.5e18, or a factor of 2500000000000000000x (again, assuming all oceanic and atmospheric CO2).

    Now lets take it further. how much of that is contributed by your grill.

    Personally, I’d love to see this calculation done compared to your hair vs. next galaxy comment. One grilling might contribute more than that!!!! People just do not get the enormous orders of magnitudes in distance that we routinely work with.

    Here’s the thing…I completely agree that a grilling episode won’t hurt anything. Heck, I tend to think that human CO2 emissions will only have a small impact on the environment (I believe in near-neutral feedbacks). But your analogy of hair vs. next galaxy is so bad you need to be called out on it to keep from embarrassing yourself by ever making it again.

    -Scott

  60. Latitude says:

    it’s time for a RGatesism……..
    =================================================================
    “I might add that the Precautionary Principle demands that the burden of proof is on the deniers to show that billions of tons of fossil carbon emissions each year that have cumulatively raised the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by 40% since the Industrial Revolution DOES NOT cause harm. Really, how can you change the concentration of a major atmospheric gas that much, especially one that already kept Earth from freezing solid at its pre-anthropogenic concentration, and ignore the consequences?”
    ==================================================================
    280 ppm + 40% = 390 ppm (parts per million)

    .028 + 40% = .039

    a difference of .011 in 250 years

    human contribution less than 5% of .011 = 0.00055

    if humans contributed nothing .039 – 0.00055 = 0.03845
    CO2 levels would still be .038 = 380 ppm

    cutting all emissions in half = 0.000275

    .039 – 0.000275 = .0387 = 387 ppm

  61. Thanks Joe, Anthony.
    Plenty of BBQ around here :-)
    Happy Independence Day!

  62. Scott says:

    Latitude says:
    July 4, 2011 at 11:14 am

    The <5% is of total CO2 emissions (or gross), not emissions-sinks (or net, which is what causes the raise you base your numbers on). While (I believe) it has not been conclusively shown that all of the net raise is due to mankind, at least base your argument on the supposed reality and not a straw man.

    -Scott

  63. Latitude says:

    Scott says:
    July 4, 2011 at 1:28 pm
    =================================
    Thanks Scott, that was a lot of help
    Now would you get that chip off your self righteous shoulder and ‘splain it?
    Use the same numbers I used, and not those hyped up scary ones………

  64. Latitude says:

    Here, let’s go right to the source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

    “But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).”

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

    29 GT X 60% = 17.4 GT ‘remains in atmosphere’
    750 gigatons = 390 ppm
    750 GT X 2.25% = ~17 GT
    390 ppm X 2.25% = 8.8 ppm
    .039 X 2.25% = 0.0008875
    I said 0.00055, close enough

    Now, if I’m wrong, don’t just say so, tell me why, I want to know………

  65. Scott says:

    Latitude says:
    July 4, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    Hi Lat,

    Sorry if I came off a bit abrasive earlier. I’d just prefer that this mistake not be proliferated because it’s a poor argument and there are plenty of other skeptic arguments that have merit…no reason to do a straw man. I’ll try to rephrase both the scientists’ argument and yours to a common water-in-the-bucket analogy so you’ll see what I mean.

    Here is the scientists’ argument: So say we have an arbitrarily large bucket…maybe 10 gallons. It has a small hole in the bottom (the sinks). Now, lets say Mr. Natural (played by Robert Redford) pours water into the bucket at a constant rate equal to 750 liters/day (the natural sources). However, the bucket does not overflow because the hole at the bottom is there. Because the rate of water leaving depends on the height of the fluid head (Torricelli’s Law), it can reach a steady-state volume of liquid in the bucket…in this case, 2.80 gallons. Note that now the outflow/sink is also at 750 liters/day. Now, lets say Mr. Mann comes up and starts adding in 29 liters/day on top of the the natural stuff (this is the anthropogenic source). The volume of water in the bucket begins to increase and at some point reaches 3.90 gallons, although this is likely not the steady-state volume, as the volume is still increasing. And what about the 40% of man’s input getting absorbed? Well, the fluid height is higher, so the “sink” now outputs 750 liters/day + 0.40*29 liters/day = 762 liters/day…but water is still accruing.

    So that is what the scientists claim. No, I don’t know if it’s true, though I tend to believe it because I haven’t seen any significant evidence to the contrary. The biggest evidence against it would be data showing that past CO2 levels fluctuated quite a bit from 280 ppm (thus showing the system was not at a 280 ppm steady state). IIRC, stomata analyses may indicate this. Regardless of whether it’s right though, this is the AGW position and should be portrayed accurately. As you can see, even though man contributes only ~3% of the input on top of natural sources, it could be theoretically responsible for all of the increase. Now, it’s an entirely different argument as to whether man IS responsible for it…

    Your argument (and apparently Joe Bastardi’s) is something like this:

    750 liters/day = 2.80 gallons. Man adds an amount (29 liters/day), and only 60% of that stays, so more like 17 liters/day. 17 liters/day = ~2.3% of 750 liters/day, and 2.3% of 2.80 gallons = ~0.065 gallons…and that’s man’s contribution. Because we’ve increased by 1.1 gallons and only contributed ~0.065 gallons of it, that’s ~5.9% of the total observed increase.

    I believe the problem here is confusing rates with concentrations. The input of CO2 is 750 Gt/year. This is not the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or anywhere else. That’s like saying because you drove 60 mph somewhere that you traveled 60 miles…it’s not true at all…the units/dimensions are different

    I hope that clears it up and helps to keep people from making the same mistaken argument. Once I see a straw man argument (which happens from both sides), I tend to stop listening to that person. Joe only made it worse by making the absurd comparison of hair widths/ distance to another galaxy vs. manmade CO2 emissions in the atmosphere…that’s about as far off as comparing the volume of a bucket to the volume of a large lake or something (that’s off the top of my head, but should be a reasonable comparison…someone feel free to correct me).

    -Scott

  66. Brian H says:

    Scott;
    A few issues:
    1) The assumption that the “sinks” are linearly dependent on concentrations needs to be documented;
    2) related, but since much of the CO2 is gobbled up by plants, this is something to be encouraged;
    3) The 280 “set point” may be the starvation level at which plants begin to lose their ability to take up more CO2 into their tissues, and is hence not a “normal” to be advocated, but the very brink of disaster.

    Since the LIA, and coincidentally the beginning of weather documentation and “meteorology” as a field, represent the coldest point in the Holocene, adopting that point as a baseline to be maintained seems perverse and self-destructive.

    So whatever the human contribution to CO2 rise might be, it behooves us to maximize it, not minimize.

  67. John Finn says:

    I notice there are one or two determined souls out there who are still not convinced that the increase in CO2 since ~1850 is due to fossil fuel burnimg.

    Latitude says:
    July 4, 2011 at 6:32 am

    John that is absolutely amazing………
    Every time in the past that temperatures have risen coming out of ice ages, like the LIA…
    …CO2 levels have risen with it
    I think most people confuse equilibrium with limiting…………..

    The temperature change between glacial and interglacial periods is 6-8 deg C. From ice core records we know this caused ~100 ppm change in CO2 concentration. The temperature change since 1850 has been ~0.7 deg , i.e. less than one degree. It’s not the warming that’s caused the ~110ppm rise since 1850.

    Phil’s Dad says:
    July 4, 2011 at 9:30 am
    On the other hand Mr Finn “Plant stomata suggest that the pre-industrial CO2 levels were commonly in the 360 to 390ppmv range.” (from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/)

    The problem with the various alternative measures of CO2 is that they are not from consistent locations. The CO2 concentration in the middle of London, Paris or New York is probably 450-500 ppm. Mauna Loa is remote enough to measure just the background (or well-mixed) CO2 levels. It’s not just Mauna Loa either. Several other remote measuring stations around the world, e.g. antarctica, tell the same story. They all agree to within a few ppm.

    In a nutshell: The large shifts (upwards and downwards) in CO2 concentration that are shown in some records (e.g Beck) are not representative of the global situation. A 1 ppm in CO2 globally represents an increase of ~2GtC increase in atmospheric carbon.

    Look at the C13/C12 ratio data . That alone is siufficient evidence that fossil fule burning is the cause. Read Willis’ post here and check out the close relationship between human emissions and atmospheric concentrations. Note that concentrations increased during the 20th century – even during cooling periods

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/some-people-claim-that-theres-a-human-to-blame/

    If that’s not good enough for you read the 4 Ferdinand Engelbeen posts. Willis and Ferdinand are not, by any means, CAGW proponents but like any other reasonable analyst they’ve reached the same undeniable conclusion.

  68. John Finn says:

    Latitude says:
    July 4, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    29 GT X 60% = 17.4 GT ‘remains in atmosphere’
    750 gigatons = 390 ppm
    750 GT X 2.25% = ~17 GT
    390 ppm X 2.25% = 8.8 ppm
    .039 X 2.25% = 0.0008875
    I said 0.00055, close enough
    Now, if I’m wrong, don’t just say so, tell me why, I want to know………

    You’re wrong be cause (a) you’ve confused the mass of Carbon and CO2 (equ 1 highlighted) and, more importantly, (b) you’ve introduced a completely arbitrary and unceccessary calculation (equ 5 highlighted).

    I haven’t got time to research accurate numbers now, but the following is a very, very rough back-of-the-envelope calculation.

    Atm CO2 = ~400ppm = 800 GtC

    i.e. 1 ppm = 2GtC (it’s actually 2.13 GT C – but no matter)

    Each year humans burn ~8GtC which ordinarily would add ~4ppm to the atmosphere. However, around 50% of this is sequestered so the annual net increase is ~2 ppm. The actual average figure is currently ~1.8 ppm, but my sequestration rate is a bit iffy and my GtC/ppm conversion is a slightly off but you get the general idea.

  69. Andy says:

    John Finn says:
    July 5, 2011 at 3:07 am

    I’m not quite sure where you’re coming from John, but I refuse to get excited about a small change that is measured in parts per MILLION.
    Whichever way you look at it, it is a ridiculously small amount, and I refuse to get worried about it.

    In many years time I’m sure historians and scientists alike will marvel and laugh at the Western World’s current obsession about man-made CO2. I am also sure they will marvel at foolish people really refusing to light a barbecue in the vain hope that such actions will counteract the (relatively) massive amounts of CO2 produced by Chinese industry.

    I had a barbecue here in London last weekend. It was great.

  70. Latitude says:

    Thanks guys……it’s clear as mud now
    …I agree with Andy

    It’s a whole whopping 40% increase of nothing…..
    280 ppmillion + 40% = 390 ppmillion
    .028 + 40% = .039

    It’s a whole whopping increase of 0.011

    40% of nothing is still nothing

  71. Andy says:

    I forgot to say in my last post:

    Happy Independence day to you in the (rather spiffing) United States of America,

    From a chap in an outpost of the (distinctly authoritarian and un-democratic) United States of Europe.

    Best wishes,

    Andy

  72. PhilJourdan says:

    They sure cancelled them here! But then when lightening is striking, they tend to get nervous about asking people to brave the rain to watch a light show that pales in comparison to what Ma Nature can dish up!

  73. John Finn says:

    Andy says:
    July 5, 2011 at 8:53 am
    John Finn says:
    July 5, 2011 at 3:07 am
    I’m not quite sure where you’re coming from John, but I refuse to get excited about a small change that is measured in parts per MILLION.

    I’m afraid this is another nonsensical argument. Emission spectra clearly show that the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere has a significant influence on outgoing LW radiation – particularly in the higher, colder and drier regions of the troposphere. Rather than take my word for it read this CA post by Steve McIntyre.

    http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/08/sir-john-houghton-on-the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect/

    Scroll down the page to Fig 3 which shows a graph of an upwelling spectrum. Underneath Steve has written the following

    The large notch or “funnel” in the spectrum is due to “high cold” emissions from tropopause CO2 in the main CO2 band. CO2 emissions (from the perspective of someone in space) are the coldest. (Sometimes you hear people say that there’s just a “little bit” of CO2 and therefore it can’t make any difference: but, obviously, there’s enough CO2 for it to be very prominent in these highly relevant spectra, so this particular argument is a total non-starter as far as I’m concerned. )

    However, if you are not convinced by Steve’s observations then try 380 ppmv of arsenic oxide in your tea or coffee. Actually – DON’T . Jack Barrett suggests a safer, simpler experiment, i.e.

    Take a jug containing a litre of water. The water is transparent to visible radiation. But then add a few drops of milk and stir. This is equivalent of diluting the milk by a factor of about 5000, i.e. the milk ‘concentration’ is 500 ppmv. Is there any visible effect?

    There are literally thousands of examples where a small concentration produces a significant effect.

    Latitude says:
    July 5, 2011 at 12:09 pm
    Thanks guys……it’s clear as mud now
    …I agree with Andy

    Ok so you agree with Andy …but not with Steve McIntyre, Jack Barrett and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands scientists working in a multitude of related disciplines – and I don’t just mean CAGW proponents.

    I’ll stick with the science-based opinions if that’s alright by you.

  74. Scott says:

    Latitude says:
    July 5, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Thanks guys……it’s clear as mud now

    Lat, please give me some detail on where my explanation fell short and I will try to make it clearer. If you’re confused about rates vs. mass, consider a similar example. Go run 5 mph (8 kph) for 2 sec. Not so bad, right? Now, instead, go run 5 miles (or 8 km)…which would you rather do? They clearly aren’t the same. The 3% comes from the RATE of input, and because the rate of output doesn’t change as much, there is a net accumulation…what I was trying to show with my bucket example. Please explain how this is not clear.

    It’s a whole whopping 40% increase of nothing…..
    280 ppmillion + 40% = 390 ppmillion
    .028 + 40% = .039

    Horrible argument. 280 ppm is not nothing, it’s actually quite a lot. Most toxins kill in much lower concentrations. How would you like it if the atmosphere had 280 ppm hydrogen sulfide, sulfur hexafluoride, radon, or heck, uranium hexafluoride? Life would not exist, period. And if you think that 280 ppm is nothing in terms of absorption spectra, try dissolving 280 ppm of food coloring in water (that’d be ~1 drop in 5 oz of water…160 mL for you metric people). Can you see it?

    The too low to matter argument is very poor and actually the opposite of what’s closer to the truth…that the already high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere mean that many absorption bands are already saturated, reducing the effectiveness of the greenhouse effect. So basically, you’d do better to argue that CO2 concentrations are too high!

    -Scott

  75. Andy says:

    John Finn says:
    July 5, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    Scott says:
    July 5, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    Sorry guys, your arguments are starting to get a bit lame.

    CO2 is not:
    arsenic oxide, hydrogen sulfide, sulfur hexafluoride, radon, uranium hexafluoride
    or…….
    …….. milk

    So you can’t compare them to CO2.

    Let me try and explain:
    I wouldn’t like to drink anything with arsenic in it, but I’ll quite happily drink a Coke chock-full of fizzy CO2.
    Equally, you might be able to see milk in a drink, but so what? If CO2 was coloured we’d see it too. But it isn’t, so we can’t. That still doesn’t make CO2 dangerous.

  76. Latitude says:

    Scott, that is so lame, there are no words to describe something that’s as lame as what you just said………

    Scott said: “Most toxins kill in much lower concentrations.”

    Jez Scott, almost everything on the face of this earth evolved when CO2 levels were in the thousands and several thousands. There’s a reason those periods are called optimums. CO2 is obviously not a toxin in any concentration that we could achieve even if we tried to.

    And as far as your absorption spectra, if you think “many absorption bands are already saturated” then the party’s over. What’s the problem? We can raise CO2 levels as high as we want now…..

    I wouldn’t have known that nothing survived the Eocene Epoch Optimum if you hadn’t told me………

  77. Scott says:

    Andy and Lat, I really expected better from you, you’re making us skeptics look foolish!

    Guys, you are the ones that said that ppm-level stuff was not a problem:

    Latitude says:
    July 5, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    It’s a whole whopping 40% increase of nothing…..

    Andy says:
    July 5, 2011 at 8:53 am

    I’m not quite sure where you’re coming from John, but I refuse to get excited about a small change that is measured in parts per MILLION.

    Then when examples of ppm-level compounds causing problems are presented, you push them aside? No, CO2 is not a “toxin” at those concentrations, but that wasn’t the point and you know it. Let’s look at what Andy said:

    Andy says:
    July 5, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    Equally, you might be able to see milk in a drink, but so what? If CO2 was coloured we’d see it too. But it isn’t, so we can’t.

    But CO2 is NOT optically transparent at all wavelengths, thus it IS colored – and that’s the point! What is so hard to understand about that?

    And Lat:

    Latitude says:
    July 5, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    CO2 is obviously not a toxin in any concentration that we could achieve even if we tried to.

    I suggest you ask the Apollo 13 astronauts about that and see what they have to say.

    But you two have apparently succeeded here, because you’ve entirely gotten the conversation away from the point.

    Here is the point:
    Lat – my bucket analogy is not perfect but more than adequate for showing how humans could have caused all of the increase from 280 to 390 ppm. It does not say we did, nor does it say that 390 ppm is dangerous (and I think anyone that’s seen me post here or at other sites knows that I don’t think 390 is dangerous). If you still disagree, then post something showing why you disagree or stop spreading info that makes skeptics look bad (that humans only contributed a tiny amount to the rise in CO2 conc).

    Also Lat, you need to choose one – is the CO2 concentration so low that it doesn’t matter or so high that it doesn’t matter? It can’t be both. And just because a band is saturated doesn’t mean CO2 can’t have an effect. If you don’t understand how, then read up or do the math yourself, because otherwise you’re making skeptics look bad.

    Andy – What matters isn’t the toxicity (or threat) of a substance or its concentration, it’s the combination of the two. Heavily toxic compounds like arsenic or radon can kill at sub-ppm levels. That successfully refutes you’re low conc argument. A compound like water takes much higher amounts to kill, but extended total immersion or a sudden gush of it in a flood is deadly. So that refutes your harmless argument. CO2 falls somewhere in between, and you need to realize that.

    Do you guys even realize that I’m not a CAGWer? By many people’s standards, I’m a skeptic. And other knowledgable skeptics would agree with what I’ve said – people like McIntyre, Lubos Motl, and Roy Spencer all agree with the radiative heat theory analysis that has been performed (and suggests a climate sensitivity of only 1.1 C/doubling IIRC). Why don’t you two agree with this? I just don’t get it, and it makes people here at WUWT and skeptics in general look bad. From my point of view, you two are pulling a Chris Mooney and refusing to learn any of the science and just picking your point of view for some other reasons (his appear to be political, I don’t know what yours are.)

    Very disappointing.

    -Scott

  78. Andy says:

    Jeez Scott,

    As Lat said, CO2 levels have been MUCH higher in the past, so I think we can stop worrying about life on Gaia.
    Working levels of CO2 in submarines average out at about 4000ppm, so let’s not get too worried about spaceships.
    “many absorption bands are saturated” (the logarithmic thing – the warmists hate that being mentioned, a bit like the missing hotspot)

    What I (and I believe Lat) are trying to get across to you is that this obsession with man-made CO2 is ridiculous. The past decade has seen flat-lined temperatures whilst CO2 levels have continued to rise, so no matter how much people stress about “toxicity levels” we seem to be doing fine. (Surely as a sceptic you’d agree with that?)

    I’m a scuba diver, and if I started comparing CO2 to milk, my diving pals would think I’d taken leave of my senses. We’re far more worried about real ecological problems like over-fishing than a panic about temps changing by tenths of a degree. (The over-fishing ruins our under-water sight-seeing).

  79. Latitude says:

    what Andy said………………
    It’s not uncommon for homes and businesses to have CO2 levels over 2000 ppm ………
    …people live in that all day long

    Riddle me this……..
    At the end of the Eocene temperatures started falling, while CO2 levels continued to rise.
    CO2 levels reached somewhere around 1500-2000 ppm, some people have said even higher.
    Yet, the planet went into another ice age/glaciation period anyway.

    ……..obviously, CO2 is not driving the bus

  80. Scott says:

    Guys, we’re arguing entirely different things here now.

    I am NOT arguing that current levels of CO2 are causing massive problems or will in the future. What I’m arguing is that the “it’s a very low concentration and so doesn’t matter” and “man has contributed very little to the increase in CO2″ (those quotes are to define the arguments, I don’t think anyone said them exactly like that) arguments aren’t just wrong but make skeptics look bad too. You don’t seem to be bringing these issues up now, so can you agree to not use those arguments anymore?

    And one thing I’m curious about…you’ve shifted the argument to CO2 concentrations way in the past. I want to know why you’re confident in those concentrations but not in radiative heat transfer theory. Radiative theory is fully testable in the lab via empirical observations…aka, it’s hard science. Contrast this to historical science, which always requires several unverifiable assumptions in order to operate. For instance, for the CO2 concentrations in the past using ice cores, there are the assumptions of no net gain/loss of CO2 in the ice or diffusion of CO2 in the ice (or if those are assumed to have happened, then a value must be assumed for that amount). And on top of that, there are always the unverifiable assumptions going into the radiometric dating…that the decay rate has been constant, that the ratio of parent/daughter products at t=0 is the assumed value, and no parent or daughter products entered are left the system in an unexpected way during the decay process. Given all that, I’d say that radiative transfer theory is on much more solid ground than any historical science. So why the preference to believe the historical science over the operational science?

    -Scott

  81. Latitude says:

    We’re making skeptics look bad…..
    but comparing CO2 to hydrogen sulfide, sulfur hexafluoride, uranium hexafluoride arsenic or radon is perfectly sane?

    You’re the one shifting the conversation all over the place.
    No one said they believed anything more than the other. I mentioned a wide range of possibilities.
    When anyone knows enough to model the entire system in “the lab”, get back to me.
    Starting with modeling in “the lab” high CO2 levels, with all that radiative transfer, leading to another ice age……………..because that’s real life and it’s happened more than once

  82. Andy says:

    Scott,

    I agree with you entirely about radiative transfer. It is, as you say, “solid science” i.e. good, hard-nosed, easily tested, empirical stuff. Not the GIGO cr*p from some wishy-washy model.

    However, I have yet to see any empirical results that demonstrate we are undergoing run-away warming due to Man’s CO2 production. In fact, the last decade of flat-lined temperatures is empirical evidence that suggests otherwise, and this is why I refuse to waste time comparing CO2 to radon, arsenic, or milk.

  83. Scott says:

    Lat – when did I shift the conversation all over the place? You’ve brought up CO2 “driving the bus” and ancient CO2 levels. My original comments were about the following:

    You said ppm level stuff didn’t matter (“40% of nothing is still nothing”). I showed that the “nothing” can matter in plenty of situations, thus refuting your argument. So stop using that argument. If you want to show that 400 ppm of CO2 has no effect, that’s great. Just don’t claim that ppm levels are “nothing”, it’s so incredibly wrong.

    You totally screwed up the AGW believers’ argument and then tore it down…a straw man. I explained what their argument is, something you never responded to. I ask again – what is wrong with the bucket example and how can I make it clearer (rather than “clear as mud”)? If you understand it, then please stop using that straw man argument.

    And please show me where I “compared” CO2 to the above chemical compounds. I used those as examples of ppm level concentrations mattering. Just look at the paragraph where I mentioned them…CO2 isn’t mentioned in the entire paragraph! So I was comparing them to your (now clearly refuted) argument of “40% of nothing is still nothing”. Heck, I should have used CO2 as the example. Anyone that’s used an IR spectrometer in organic chemistry can tell you that fluctuations in the CO2 concentration change the appearance of the spectrum. That’s analogous to my food coloring example which you seem to have ignored. Is that because you now realize that ppm-level compounds have an effect? If so, then stop using your argument of ppm levels not mattering!

    And I still think it’s funny that you seem to think that radiative transfer theory is invalid outside of the lab (what laws of physics change in the atmosphere?) but you believe ancient ice core CO2 concentrations, why is that? Also, you imply that high CO2 concentrations lead to an ice age.

    Starting with modeling in “the lab” high CO2 levels, with all that radiative transfer, leading to another ice age

    How did high CO2 lead to an ice age? Correlation is not causation…I’m sure you’re fine with that when arguing with CAGWers.

    Also, do you think Roy Spencer’s hypotheses on the climate are valid? They’re based off of the assumption that the radiative transfer results are correct you know.

    -Scott

  84. Latitude says:

    LOL you’re a hoot….
    40% of nothing is still nothing…is not the same as doesn’t matter
    Life is like a bucket of chocolates….
    I said that the ‘results’, not the actions, you are attributing to radiative transfer theory is only valid inside of the lab….
    I do not believe ice cores CO2 or temperatures reconstructions are very accurate, I do know that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and that even at those high CO2 levels, the planet went into another ice age….
    “How did high CO2 levels lead to another ice age?” dunno, you tell me………according to radiative transfer theory in “the lab” ……………

    Scott, I agree, you’re 100% right. CO2 is like arsenic and food coloring. And the CO2 cycle on this planet is like a bucket with a hole in it. People die all the time on submarines when CO2 levels are 4000ppm and in homes and offices at ~2000ppm….and that high CO2 levels stop the planet from going into ice ages……..

    Happy now? I’m done, but thanks for your time…………

  85. Scott says:

    Latitude says:
    July 6, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Well, none of that successfully addresses my points earlier, so I guess I’m done too.

    -Scott

  86. John Finn says:

    Latitude says:
    July 6, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    I said that the ‘results’, not the actions, you are attributing to radiative transfer theory is only valid inside of the lab….

    CO2 absorbs LWIR radiation in the atmosphere. We can see this clearly from emission spectra observed by satellites. What’s more CO2 is highly influential at the drier, colder altitudes of the upper troposphere where there is very little water vapour. This is key to the CO2 effect.

    I do not believe ice cores CO2 or temperatures reconstructions are very accurate, ..

    Can we just take it that you don’t believe anything which contradicts your point of view.

    I do know that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and that even at those high CO2 levels, ..

    Oh – so you do believe in some reconstructions – or is that just the bits you happen to like. Perhaps you could clarify.

Comments are closed.