Weekend open thread

I’ll be offline most of this weekend, as I got virtually no work done for myself this week thanks to the BEST “PR before peer review shenanigans” and the compliant cadre of barking media lapdogs that followed with tails-a-wagging looking for a sound bite.

Discuss topics on science, weather climate, etc here quietly amongst yourselves. don’t make me come back here.

About these ads

255 thoughts on “Weekend open thread

  1. Say hypothetically that the CO2 emissions needed to be reduced down to zero by say 2050-2060 roughly. What would be the best policy, technology, and treaty measures to do so such that our livelihood, economy, etc remain productive/happy? Trying to do policy brainstorm, looking forward to suggestions.

  2. Have a good rest Anthony, and recharge your batteries. It looks like this BEST thing is going to run for a while, particularly with the way they’ve chosen to proceed with it. There’s been a lot to digest post-wise this week.

  3. .”.compliant cadre of barking media lapdogs that followed with tails-a-wagging looking for a sound bite.”

    Made me laugh out loud. You’re a pretty good writer Anthony, when you’re inspired. Very nice.

  4. The Suicide Derby now has four contestants:
    California and Australia vying for first place
    England close behind,
    and nuclear-abolishing Germany the latest entrant.

    If EPA has its way the entire USA will join California.

    India, China, and Brazil must be laughing all the way to their latest power plant or oil well.

  5. BEST has put a gust of wind in ti the AGW sails but the hard facts havn’t changed. How many times have we had false expectations in life and learned to lower the bar until it is almost at ground level! Perhaps it is their last gasp before Durban, and the best they can do to try to avoid another debacle. I think the writing is on the wall, so take a good breath of air and get your battery charged up for what is coming next.

  6. otter17 says:October 22, 2011 at 10:19 am
    “Say hypothetically that the CO2 emissions needed to be reduced down to zero by say 2050-2060 roughly. What would be the best policy, technology, and treaty measures to do so such that our livelihood, economy, etc remain productive/happy?”

    Ah… You do realize that humans exhale CO2? Even ignoring that minor difficulty… Zero emissions would mean forsaking luxuries like cooking meat on a stick over a primitive fire, or agriculture (slash&burn would be all that was left, and those fires release CO2 as well).

    It wouldn’t do much for “our livelihood, economy, etc”, but if you really want to eliminate all human CO2 emissions, there’s always total nuclear conflagration. Sure, the firestorms would cause an initial spike in anthropogenic CO2, but after that we wouldn’t be causing any more (you might want to mention that option to Harold camping).

    Which I suppose is the hardcore greenies’ whole point.

  7. otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 10:19 am

    Say hypothetically that the CO2 emissions needed to be reduced down to zero by say 2050-2060 roughly
    =============================================
    Why?
    …a 40% increase in nothing…..is still nothing

  8. Carl Bussjaeger says:
    October 22, 2011 at 10:58 am

    “Ah… You do realize that humans exhale CO2? Even ignoring that minor difficulty… Zero emissions would mean forsaking luxuries like cooking meat on a stick over a primitive fire, or agriculture (slash&burn would be all that was left, and those fires release CO2 as well).”

    Yes of course we “animals” exhale CO2, haha. What I meant were fossil fuel emissions. Emissions coming from the existing carbon cycle (such as breathing, fires), would be ok. What I mean, is how to get CO2 emissions to balance with the carbon cycle (eliminating the 2ppm rise in CO2 each year).

  9. otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 10:19 am
    “Say hypothetically that the CO2 emissions needed to be reduced down to zero by say 2050-2060 roughly. What would be the best policy, technology, and treaty measures to do so such that our livelihood, economy, etc remain productive/happy? Trying to do policy brainstorm, looking forward to suggestions.”

    Build LFTR reactors. The anti nuclear faction wouldn’t be happy, but in your scenario they would obviously have to accept that without LFTR’s they had to choose between
    a) the end of the world
    b) living in the woods without machinery, medicine and computer games.

    Now explain how CO2 emissions bigger than zero would end the world; I love a good dystopian fantasy. Also, please explain how zero CO2 emissions will be enforced globally. Keep in mind that the global police force must do its policing WITHOUT emitting CO2. I know, that’s a tough one.

  10. Humans average .5 liters of air each breath @ 5% CO2 16 breaths/min. or 1152 liters of CO2 per day times 7 billion people gives 8.064 trillion liters of CO2/day. divide by 22.4 (liters per gram molecular weight) gives 360 million moles of CO2 At 44g per mole gives 15.84 billion Kg of CO2 per day for the human race. or 5.782 trillion Kg CO2 per year or 5.782 billion metric tons of CO2 emitted per year by humans breathing.

    I am thinking if the AGW people, The preservationist environmental people, the tree hugers, bunny hugers, and the liberal socialist millionairs who support them, would limit themselves to one breath per minute, it would save 1 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions per year… I mean, do the math.

  11. Latitude says:
    October 22, 2011 at 11:20 am

    “Why?
    …a 40% increase in nothing…..is still nothing.”
    _______________________

    The increase in CO2 due to emissions is finite and measurable, not nothing. As an analogy, 40% increase in Blood Alcohol Content is not trivial.

    Nevertheless, that isn’t the point. The point is to have a mitigation plan of some sort in case warming meets or exceeds projections. It is prudent to have a plan in the pocket.

  12. Interesting quote.

    “Bureaucrats write memoranda both because they appear to be busy when they are writing and because the memos, once written, immediately become proof that they were busy.” – Charles Peters

  13. The Moon

    Anthony, enjoy your deserved R&R.
    There is a lot of sepculation about comets and meterors striking the earth. To some extent ( I consider substantially) the Earth has been protected by the Moon which has intercepted many such objects. This is evidenced by the cratering of the far side of the moon. Any of those impacts could have forestalled the development of life on Earth.
    As a specualtive thought, imagine an Earth-like planet where the moon orbits at a much lower distance and tidal ranges are 500 – 600 feet. Would life evolve quicker? How much evaporation would develop with huge beaches?

  14. Come on Vuk, enough of the trailers lets have your main show :)

    Interstellar Bill

    I am insulted by your comments. Britain is way ahead of the field in its AGW stupidity. A retraction is needed sir :)
    tonyb

  15. otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 11:58 am
    . As an analogy, 40% increase in Blood Alcohol Content is not trivial.
    ===============================================
    I don’t mean this as an insult….but I’ve seen that analogy before….and it’s the stupidest analogy anyone could ever use……
    5000 ppm CO2 is not toxic……….

  16. DirkH says:
    October 22, 2011 at 11:31 am

    “Now explain how CO2 emissions bigger than zero would end the world; I love a good dystopian fantasy. Also, please explain how zero CO2 emissions will be enforced globally. Keep in mind that the global police force must do its policing WITHOUT emitting CO2. I know, that’s a tough one.”
    ________

    I’m not sure of all the answers, which is why I posed the question. For example, I’m not sure exactly how much emissions the carbon cycle can absorb. Let’s just say zero emissions or close to that. There are varying degrees of potential damage to the environment, economy, livelihood, etc that can arise due to a change in climate that outpaces the economy or environment’s capability to adapt. I see it kind of as a risk management and general trend analysis problem, like the military does. Check out this Pentagon report from Feb. 2010, see pages 84 through 88 in particular for potential threats.

    http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf

    As far as ensuring globally binding CO2 emissions targets? That is also a tough question, for sure. Again, that is why I asked my question in the first place. I would imagine some form of treaty structure and atmospheric monitoring of CO2 would be able to determine if emission targets are being met. I would hope police wouldn’t have to go around.

  17. I live in South Africa and I’d love to use my proximity to the upcoming IPCC Conference to make some sort of point. I considered a sky message saying e.g. ‘IT’S A SCAM, FOLKS’ or something, but it’s too expensive.

    I’d love to rent a stand (if they will have such a thing) selling ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’, ‘The Delinquent Teenager…’, and such.

    Any suggestions?

  18. Latitude says:
    October 22, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    “I don’t mean this as an insult….but I’ve seen that analogy before….and it’s the stupidest analogy anyone could ever use……
    5000 ppm CO2 is not toxic……….”
    ___________________________

    In order for it to not sound as insulting, one can frame it as “I disagree with the premise of the analogy”, rather than “it’s the stupidest analogy anyone could ever use”.

    I wasn’t saying that CO2 is directly toxic to humans in large quantities. The purpose of the analogy is to show that small quantities of a substance can have a fairly large impact. In the case of CO2, potentially small quantities (in the parts per million) have a measurable impact on radiative transfer in the infrared spectrum (preventing heat from radiating out). Demonstration in Youtube video.

  19. Here is a couple of projects for somebody else to do.
    The tornado season of 1974 and 2011 are often compared. Today’s radar is better at identifying tornadoes. What percentage of tornadoes were missed by the 1974 radar?

    Next major project. The year of each layer of ice core is known. Is there an interactive chart that can do the following. I am going to suggest that it be similar to stock market charts with which you can look at different lengths of time and show several stocks at once. The few ice core charts I have seen cover 400,000 years so if you have lines for temperature and CO2 to be able to see them they have to be so wide that they cover a thousand years and it will look like they move exactly together. If there was an interactive chart that would let us choose the gases or isotopes to be on the graph and allow us to zoom into, for example 250 years, then we could see without overlap the temperature and CO2 lines from 1,700 to 1,950.

  20. 10 Steps to turning the American economic engine back on…

    1. Repeal Obamacare & Reform Tort Law, Cut FDA by 30%
    2. Eliminate Tax Code, deploy Flat Tax or Fair Tax…
    3. Repeal EPA Regs. since 1990, Eliminate EPA, Block grant 30% of current EPA funds to States
    4. Balanced Budget based on GDP w/ yearly outside audits released to public
    5. Block grant Medicaid and Medicare to States, Reward Patients for better health
    6. Eliminate the DEA, DOE, HUD, DHS, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
    7. Further reduce Federal Employment by 30% via attrition over following 7 years
    8. Term Limits, No Czars, No Fed. Gov. Salary > ???k but they can keep their pension & benefits
    9. Sell Federal Assets and apply them ONLY to reducing the National Debt
    10. Cut Foreign Aid by 50%, Close 50% of Overseas Military Bases, Defund United Nations

  21. otter17 still doesn’t get it. We’re not talking about plutonium here.

    At current and projected levels CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.

  22. otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 12:44 pm
    I wasn’t saying that CO2 is directly toxic to humans in large quantities. The purpose of the analogy is to show that small quantities of a substance can have a fairly large impact.
    =================================================
    otter said: “The increase in CO2 due to emissions is finite and measurable, not nothing. As an analogy, 40% increase in Blood Alcohol Content is not trivial.”
    ======================================================

    Otter, go all out then. Compare it to arsenic, rat poison, valium….LOL

    Compare it to something else that even in large quantities has very little impact……….

    What are grasses? C3? or C4’s?
    How high were CO2 levels that allowed them to evolve?
    How efficient are they at sequestration?
    At what level of CO2 do they stop growing?
    What CO2 levels becomes limiting for them?

    Why are CO2 levels so low?

  23. >>
    I got virtually no work done for myself this week thanks to the BEST
    <<

    This brings to mind the book written by Sandra Boynton, “Don’t Let the Turkeys Get You Down.” It seems appropriate.

    Jim

  24. As a new approach, I would like to see a list of alarmists and their organizations, and the media who go along with them.
    Every time they make some alarmist and unscientific pronouncement, they are given points.
    Each week the list is sorted in descending order of the number of points, and the top 100 or so alarmists are published. Each week their point totals are reduced by a small factor.
    So a new claim, say, that the sea level will rise a few metres, will get them 1000 points, while the points for some bad science done a few years ago will slowly fade away. So if alarmists stop saying alarmist things they will move down the list and disappear eventually.
    The enormity of the alarmist claim decides the amount of points initially awarded.
    Every media who publishes the worst of the alarmist stories gets points, and every cite of bad science gets new points.
    I think I know who will be at the top of the list, but I would like to quantify that.
    I propose that, as a start, WUWT articles since Climategate be analyzed for the points list. The alarmist stories don’t have to be about climate, but probably will be.

  25. Smokey says:
    October 22, 2011 at 1:05 pm
    “otter17 still doesn’t get it. We’re not talking about plutonium here.
    At current and projected levels CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.”

    Latitude says:
    October 22, 2011 at 1:11 pm
    otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 12:44 pm
    “Otter, go all out then. Compare it to arsenic, rat poison, valium….LOL”
    _________________

    Guys, I repeat: I am not saying that CO2 is an inherently toxic substance and the analogy isn’t meant to convey that meaning. I realize that CO2 is a part of the carbon cycle. The premise is that a release of long-sequestered CO2 changes the balance of the carbon cycle and can change the radiative transfer properties of the atmosphere. All I am saying is that even though it has a small quantity, that doesn’t mean that its properties are negligible.

  26. otter17 says (October 22, 2011 at 10:19 am): “Say hypothetically that the CO2 emissions needed to be reduced down to zero by say 2050-2060 roughly. What would be the best policy, technology, and treaty measures to do so such that our livelihood, economy, etc remain productive/happy?”

    (1) I reject the premise of the question. The worst realistic projections of the IPCC would not approach the catastrophe caused by eliminating fossil fuel usage by 2060. Note that the fantasies of the hysterics (“last breeding pair of humans in the arctic”) are in fact fantasies.

    (2) Assuming it must be done, it can’t be done within the parameters of the question, i.e. economy remaining “productive/happy”. It can be done with a drastic reduction in the living standards of the world and the inevitable population crash, but that hardly qualifies as “productive/happy”.

    (3) Assuming the priority is “productive/happy”, anthropogenic CO2 emissions can be reduced over the long term by rapid economic growth. Remove impediments to economic improvement like “green” power mandates, corporate subsidies (e.g. Solyndra), anti-nuclear hysteria, the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, minimum wage laws, Kyoto-like treaties, “carbon” trading, portective tariffs, etc etc ad nauseam. As the world gets wealthier, it gets “greener”, and population levels off. At some point the wealth-fueled technology improvements and increasing demand for fossil fuels will make alternatives (e.g. nuclear) more attractive, and fossil fuel consumption will decrease–wihout impeding economic growth.

  27. Juraj V. says:
    October 22, 2011 at 12:09 pm
    “Coming La Nina seems pretty deep.”

    if only they would chamge the scale so as we could see how deep… What’s the point of showing a graph with the interesting bit plotting off scale?

  28. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    October 22, 2011 at 10:22 am

    Vuk – nice graphs! The second one says ‘its the Sun stupid’ about as strongly as is possible. The NA SST trend of 0.25 C/century is also interesting since the trend on the CET since 1659 is 0.24 C/century.

    Looking forward to your write up!

  29. otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 1:32 pm
    Guys, I repeat: I am not saying that CO2 is an inherently toxic substance and the analogy isn’t meant to convey that meaning.
    The premise is that a release of long-sequestered CO2 changes the balance of the carbon cycle and can change the radiative transfer properties of the atmosphere.
    ======================================================
    But you set yourself up…..alcohol is toxic
    Try another analogy, like food or fertilizer…..that would be a closer analogy to CO2.
    Ex: the right amount of fertilizer…..too much kills the plant
    CO2 only makes a few people woozie at over 10,000 ppm. Not drunk or toxic……

    What I’m trying to get you to think about is……why was CO2 sequestered?
    Just like fertilizer…plants, bacteria etc use it up….sequester it
    What happens when it becomes limiting?
    Some plants shut down completely around 200 ppm……..

    Yes, it changes the balance of the carbon cycle….for the better
    Levels much lower and we would start seeing certain groups of plants and bacteria going extinct.

  30. otter17, that’s just trolling. You’re trying to re-argue the entire AGW hypothesis, and throwing in the Strong Precautionary Principle on top of it.

    Here’s a wee question to ponder: human CO2 emissions have fluctuated strongly since the Mona Loa records began. None of those fluctuations show up. Why not?

  31. @ Gary Hladik

    1) I did not ask anyone to accept the premise. It was only posited as a hypothetical situation and there was no mention of last breeding pairs. Nevertheless, thanks for the contributions.

    As for items 2) and 3), don’t they conflict? In 2) you say that it is impossible to meet the parameters, but in 3) you indicate that rapid economic growth can reduce CO2 emissions (though I guess not to zero). So, I suppose they don’t conflict if in item 3) the CO2 emissions aren’t reduced to zero.

    Ok, so let’s say that you believe that item 2) is unwaveringly true, what would the incentive be to believe in any scientists or scientific bodies that lay out CO2 emissions targets or predicted wide scale harm to the environment? There likely would be a default to adaptation to whatever comes if item 2) is held as absolute truth.

  32. Brian H says:
    October 22, 2011 at 1:55 pm
    “otter17, that’s just trolling. You’re trying to re-argue the entire AGW hypothesis, and throwing in the Strong Precautionary Principle on top of it.

    Here’s a wee question to ponder: human CO2 emissions have fluctuated strongly since the Mona Loa records began. None of those fluctuations show up. Why not?”
    _________

    No, the argument isn’t that the AGW hypothesis is true necessarily, only to find what back pocket plan to have if contrarians happen to be wrong and the NAS, AAAS, IPCC, etc happen to be right. You admit that there is a chance that the contrarians are wrong, right? Plus, ocean acidification seems to be an issue with some scientists. The plans that are thought up, don’t necessarily have to be implemented.

    As far as human CO2 emissions and their relationship to the Keeling curve, this Wiki page offers some resources. I don’t know of any scientist that rejects the idea that human CO2 emissions are not the primary contributor to the measured increase in the atmosphere and oceans. If you know of any, provide evidence.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

  33. otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 2:04 pm
    what would the incentive be to believe in any scientists or scientific bodies that lay out CO2 emissions targets or predicted wide scale harm to the environment?
    =========================================================
    none what so ever……..
    We are below our CO2 target now.

    As an example of how close we are to being too low.
    If you change that 40% increase, to a 40% decrease….

    390 X 40% = 156ppm
    390 – 156 = 234ppm

    At 234ppm the growth rate of some very large groups of plants and bacteria would be so severely slowed down, they would not be able to compete. Hold those levels long enough, and they would go extinct.

    How can we be that close to the edge, and want to limit CO2? Knowing that for no known reasons, CO2 levels have dropped much more than that in the past………….some of the reasons we do know. Evolution of grasses for one……….

  34. Plus, ocean acidification seems to be an issue with some scientists.
    =====================================
    otter, the things they are worried about dying, because of “ocean acidification”….
    ….only evolved because CO2 levels were much higher

    You can’t “acid” something until you run out of buffer…
    …C(arbon)O2

  35. Latitude says:
    October 22, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    “none what so ever……..
    We are below our CO2 target now.”
    _______________
    Do you know of any scientist that indicates what you are saying? I haven’t heard of such a target, though I am curious.

    “As an example of how close we are to being too low.
    If you change that 40% increase, to a 40% decrease….”
    ______________
    So you are worried about too little carbon dioxide? What would cause the carbon dioxide levels to decrease 40% below pre-industrial levels? Careful to not be too alarmed about the lack of carbon dioxide, haha (I kid).

    Anyway, I’m not necessarily here to argue what the best CO2 level is. I’m just trying to see if recommendations for CO2 targets from scientists are realistically do-able and what type of mitigation plans would work as per NAS recommendations.

  36. Hey, otter17,

    If you’re really worried about the “GHG” contribution of a couple parts per million of a relatively weak “greenhouse gas” (which is fairly odd to start with, since as others have pointed out, CO2 concentrations have been a lot higher in the past without killing dear mommy Gaia), why not focus on the stronger greenhouse gases?

    I propose emergency funding to manufacture giant sponges to sequester the planet’s water. (I also propose emergency funding for me to buy up bottled water stock.)

  37. Latitude says:
    October 22, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    “otter, the things they are worried about dying, because of “ocean acidification”….
    ….only evolved because CO2 levels were much higher”

    Do you know that for sure? Has there been a biological study where tests are performed to see what acidification levels are ok for which species?

    Anyway, I just mentioned ocean acidification as a side issue (but still an issue that some scientific working groups and the Royal Society of the UK seem to take concern with given unrestricted CO2 emissions). I’m not sure what ocean acidification would require for emissions targets.

  38. otter: I’m just trying to see if recommendations for CO2 targets from scientists are realistically do-able and what type of mitigation plans would work as per NAS recommendations.
    ===============
    I don’t think so at all….not when you have Russia, China, India, Japan, etc saying no
    When the UN considers countries that have more money than God “developing, like Kuwait, Saudi, etc and developing countries can go for it…..
    and the only countries going for it are so small no one would even notice…….
    US emissions have been dropping anyway….

    Even if the science was rock solid, it’s the politics that makes it a no show……..
    ….the science being a farce doesn’t help

    Biologists will tell you the mitigation plans need to be to increase CO2 levels to at least 1000ppm.

  39. Carl Bussjaeger says:
    October 22, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    “If you’re really worried about the “GHG” contribution of a couple parts per million of a relatively weak “greenhouse gas” (which is fairly odd to start with, since as others have pointed out, CO2 concentrations have been a lot higher in the past without killing dear mommy Gaia), why not focus on the stronger greenhouse gases?”
    _______________________

    As I understand it, the instantaneous release (or high rate) is what potentially causes the issues with rates of adaptation, etc. Read the DoD report I posted above (pages 84 through 88) for some potential threats that the US military identifies. I don’t think anybody says that our current emissions will be capable of destroying the planet. Mass extinctions such as the Permian wiped out roughly 95% of the planet’s life, but of course we are still here. New evolutionary pathways and whatnot. I believe Dr. Hansen indicates we could have a kind of “Venus-like” planet if we are capable of burning every bit of coal, natural, gas, oil shales, tar sands, etc (very unlikely that we could do that, but it is a hypothetical situation). Dr. Hansen doesn’t sound quite sure about that assertion, though (I read it in his book “Storms of My Grandchildren).

    Anyway, I am just focusing on the CO2 targets presented by scientists. As far as water vapor, I don’t think we can control that since it is a feedback due to warming. I have heard that there is 4% extra water vapor on average in the Earth’s atmosphere due to warming, but I don’t think there is any easy or smart way to remove it. Again, focusing on the CO2 targets in order to come up with acceptable mitigation plans that don’t wreck everything.

  40. Zero emissions? Assuming “they” will be compassionate and let us breath, and what we’re talking about is “zero emissions from fossil fuels”, easy. Nuke it up. Forget regulations, permits, inspections… just build ‘em as fast as we can. I think this would be a horrible idea – exposes our g-g-g-grandchildren to (gradually decreasing) risk for a LONG time after any benefits expire! For an interesting read, go back to the first posts about Fukushima and watch the “experts” assure us it will all be over in 12 – 24 hours.

    When I first encountered the “CO2 = catastrophic warming” story, I asked myself “who benefits”? I immediately thought of “Big Nuke”. There really doesn’t seem to be much “Big Nuke” – too much risk to investors, even with Price-Anderson – but I’m still suspicious…

    (I’m pretty sure this differs from “Anthony’s opinion” but I’m betting I’ll be allowed to post it anyway – Thanks, Anthony!)

    BEST? A big nothing. They’re not really “doing science”, they’re just re-counting the beans. Apparently, they have some worthwhile alternative counting methods. Got about the same count as the last guys who counted. Pity they shot their wad. What difference does peer review make at this point? The fireworks are all shot off. If a reviewer, known or anonymous, points out that tubes three and seven were duds, who cares? Show’s over.

    In a reply in the “What I agree with…” thread, Anthony mentions that the Trenbreth Q&A was cancelled. Not much information on it. Can you tell us anything? (when you get caught up with your own work, and hopefully get some R&R – go shoot some skeet!)

    (I may have to change my sig)
    Best,
    Frank

  41. Latitude says:
    October 22, 2011 at 11:20 am
    otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 10:19 am

    Say hypothetically that the CO2 emissions needed to be reduced down to zero by say 2050-2060 roughly
    =============================================
    Why?
    …a 40% increase in nothing…..is still nothing

    _____

    Here’s a nice visual example of what 280, 390, and even 560 ppm of “nothing” looks like, using ink in water to help visualize this “nothing” that Latitude somehow believes CO2 is in the atmosphere:

  42. Otter17, I think that what you need is a proper science education, to correct a deficit of which you are unaware.

    Let me explain.You see, you are deeply wrong in your understanding, like the whole AGW “consensus”. You are wrong by so many layers you have no idea, and you will need to check our counter-evidence for each layer before you can believe we’re not just fooling around with you.

    You need to chew over a great many pieces of evidence that show that every single piece of AGW scare stuff is bunk. Helluva lot of evidence. Here on the skeptic blogs, “education” means learning to work through, and check, CHECKABLE EVIDENCE to arrive at your own conclusions, as per true science that unfortunately seems to be seldom practiced now, in Climate Science, outside these skeptic networks.

    Click my name to read my “Skeptics Climate Science Primer”. I’ve looked at every skeptics issue “Skeptical Science” claims to have “debunked”, and have found evidence to contradict them every single time. I’ve tried to make my work accessible, readable to both scientists and non-scientists. It’s not perfect or guaranteed correct. And don’t think it’s all my work. I’ve simply drawn together the work of experts worldwide. Some of my best critics – and some of my worst – have been warmists.

  43. Read otter17’s answers, and it’s obvious the goal is thread-jacking. In any case, the repetitious appeals to authority are tiresome.

    As for scientists disputing the efficacy of CO2, there’s this:

    The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration which is another time series shows a smooth accelerating increase ending in a linear trend of about 2ppmv/year over the past decade. This time series does not contain this predominent 65 year period so increase in CO2 concentration cannot be the driver of observed global temperature change; full stop!

  44. Latitude says:
    October 22, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    “Even if the science was rock solid, it’s the politics that makes it a no show……..”

    “Biologists will tell you the mitigation plans need to be to increase CO2 levels to at least 1000ppm.”
    __________________
    So, what if the science was hypothetically rock solid, the politics would still make an agreement impossible and we would have changed climate? There must be some treaty or agreement solution that is possible in that situation, right?

    Also, do you have a citation for that 1000ppm target that the biologists are potentially calling for? I’m a bit skeptical of that figure and the reasoning.

  45. R Gates

    Very well done with the ink in water. You make an important point, that small quantities can make a huge difference. Skeptics here refer to CO2 as “nothing” far too glibly, and you are right to criticize IMO.

    However, in making one essential point, you obscure another equally essential point. In fact your ink analogy will serve very well to demonstrate it. Now at very low levels of ink-in-water, tiny additions change the opacity a lot. But as you add more, you find that tiny additions quickly become completely unnoticeable, and quickly the water becomes opaque. When you’ve reached that level, which is still very dilute, then more ink produces no real increase in opacity.

    This is the REAL analogous situation we’ve reached with CO2. It’s already done pretty well all the blocking it can do at its particular wavelength.

  46. R. Gates says:
    October 22, 2011 at 3:15 pm
    =======
    OMG, does this mean the sun won’t shine anymore.
    Or is it just a really bad analogy.
    You can do better, I know you can.
    I’ve seen it.

  47. Brian H says:
    October 22, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    “Read otter17′s answers, and it’s obvious the goal is thread-jacking. In any case, the repetitious appeals to authority are tiresome.”
    _________

    Umm, if I am responding to people and they are responding back, how is that thread jacking? It is a conversation, I believe.

    And where specifically do I appeal to authority without good reason? I thought I was providing a variety of sources and yest some expert opinions. I even posted a Youtube video with an experiment, not an appeal to authority.

    As far as that quote from the Judith Curry website, has that been published to a peer review paper or does one already exist?

  48. Lucy Skywalker says:
    October 22, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    “This is the REAL analogous situation we’ve reached with CO2. It’s already done pretty well all the blocking it can do at its particular wavelength.”
    ______________________________
    Anthony asked this question at a recent seminar. Skip to 1:02:00 in the first video at the link.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/dr-ben-santer-speaks-on-climate-modeling-and-everything-else/

    ______________________________

    u.k.(us) says:
    October 22, 2011 at 3:33 pm
    “OMG, does this mean the sun won’t shine anymore.
    Or is it just a really bad analogy.
    You can do better, I know you can.
    I’ve seen it.”
    ____________________________

    No, CO2 isn’t translucent to electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum (light that we see). It does have a property where it “blocks” electromagnetic radiation in some of the infrared spectrum. An object can lose heat via giving off infrared radiation, so if the CO2 blocks the infrared, it traps heat. So the theory goes to the best of my knowledge.

  49. Lucy Skywalker says:
    October 22, 2011 at 3:20 pm
    “Otter17, I think that what you need is a proper science education, to correct a deficit of which you are unaware.”
    ____________________

    Ok, I’ll take a look at the primer some time. Do you link to peer-reviewed results like Skeptical Science does? Good citations and good sources make for good education, so if you have sources that conflict with Skeptical Science, that would be worth a look for sure.

  50. otter: Also, do you have a citation for that 1000ppm target that the biologists are potentially calling for? I’m a bit skeptical of that figure and the reasoning.
    ==================================================
    You shouldn’t be…
    What CO2 levels are optimum for growing plants in a greenhouse? What should CO2 levels be in a phytoplankton culture? an algae culture, some Pseudomona culture, etc etc
    Why would you want to have anything limiting?
    I gave you my answer for that in two posts already, C3 and C4 plants and when they stop growing.

  51. otter17 says:

    “Ok, I’ll take a look at the primer some time.”

    Why not start right now? Lucy Skywalker’s site is an excellent resource. You will learn that a lot of what you believe just isn’t so, which is pretty clear from your comments.

  52. Gates: Here’s a nice visual example of what 280, 390, and even 560 ppm of “nothing” looks like, using ink in water to help visualize this “nothing” that Latitude somehow believes CO2 is in the atmosphere:
    =====================================================
    Gates you are a hoot and a half……………..
    Why don’t you compare it to arsenic, rat poison, and alcohol…………….LOL
    Here’s how fast 280 kills….and here’s how fast 390 kills……..

    This is so bad, it’s almost as bad as the 40% increase in blood alcohol levels…..which will kill you BTW………..nice analogy for hysterical bedwetters

    Let’s say you take someone that is almost starving….increase their food intake by 40%
    Would that be a good thing…or bad thing

    How about if that dimwit in your movie started out with a plant with barely enough fertilizer, just clear water…and increased the fertilizer 40%

  53. @ Latitude

    Nobody is comparing CO2 to poison or toxins directly. Watch the video that Gates posted, it just shows that there can be an effect when changing small quantities. Again, the video is just an analogy.

    Also,
    “You shouldn’t be…
    What CO2 levels are optimum for growing plants in a greenhouse?”

    No. I SHOULD be skeptical of a 1000ppm target claim. If you know of some scientist or scientific results that show we ought to shoot for 1000ppm, please show some evidence. Sorry, but I won’t necessarily take your word for it.

  54. Smokey says:
    October 22, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    Yes, and if otter17 makes the effort (as most of the skeptics have HAD to do themselves!) he/she should be encouraged. I don’t mind if someone is still a warmist after doing the research – it’s those that blindly follow the media hyped mantra that are hard to take seriously as they clearly don’t have enough knowledge to back up the ‘settled science’.

  55. @Lucy,

    I clicked on your name. To answer Otter’s question, very little peer-reviewed support and what there is comes from the few, well-known contrarians. But it is an excellent, all-in-one-place resource for all the usual “skeptic” talking points. I certainly wouldn’t send anyone there for a science education :-)

  56. otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 4:23 pm
    Nobody is comparing CO2 to poison or toxins directly. Watch the video that Gates posted, it just shows that there can be an effect when changing small quantities. Again, the video is just an analogy.
    ====================================================
    and another stupid analogy………….LOL

  57. Don B says:
    October 22, 2011 at 10:27 am
    It truly astonishes me that as the rest of the world pulls back from carbon dioxide control, and while China and India always intended to increase their coal burning, Australia begins a carbon tax. Julia Gillard and her political friends are quite mad.
    ———-
    Not really. You simply don’t understand how international diplomatic negotiations work.

    If you do understand then it all becomes very logical and not mad at all.

  58. Carl Bussjaeger says:
    October 22, 2011 at 10:58 am
    Ah… You do realize that humans exhale CO2?

    Eureka!

    Memo to Greg Combet, Minister for Climate Change Australia

    Population of Australia is 22 million.
    According to Wikipedia an average person’s respiration generates approximately 450 litres (roughly 900 grams) of CO2 per day.

    Thus, the amount of CO2 released by human per day is 0.9 kg/day
    So, if there is 22 million Australians exhaling CO2 at the rate of 0.9kg/day the total CO2 emission by Australians annually is:
    = 0.90 x 365 x 22,000,000 kgs
    = 7227,000,000 kg per year. = 7,227,000 tonnes per year.

    Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2009 were 564,542,630 tonnes.
    So our percentage of greenhouse gases that we exhale is 7,227,000 divided by 564,542,630 = 1.28%.

    Therefore along with the Medicare Levy, I believe all Australians should pay a Breathing Tax of 1.28 % their income for contributing to Carbon Pollution.

    Then there are pets and domestic animals. There are about 15 million pet animals in Australia and at least 40 million livestock.

    A pro rata pet levy of $23 per kilo of the overall weight of each pet per annum could be considered and a set levy of $10 per head per annum of livestock for domestic use (export livestock could be exempt). Racehorses could be charged $20. A review of the culling of excess wild animals could be conducted.

    I consider the cost of a medium sized building in Canberra and another 350 public servants shouldn’t cost more than a couple of billion to set it up and administer the scheme and tax income would outweigh running costs.

    Mr Combet, I sincerely believe that the introduction of a Breathing Tax would go a long way in helping your aim of “tackling climate change” and demonstrate to the rest of the world that we are doing our bit to save the planet.
    For your consideration.

  59. Kev-in-Uk says:
    October 22, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    “Yes, and if otter17 makes the effort (as most of the skeptics have HAD to do themselves!) he/she should be encouraged.”
    ________________________

    Ah, thanks. I used to be a climate contrarian of sorts back in high school when I had first heard about the issue mentioned. Without looking at much information, I just assumed that humans were far too small to do anything like global warming. In college, I read quite a bit more on the subject, and even more after getting a job. Also, in college at Ohio State, I recall hearing a bit about Dr. Lonnie Thompson and his work with glaciers. I do like a recent paper of his, which kind of sums up the science and is understandable to me.

    http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/TBA–LTonly.pdf

    Anyway, I’m skimming through the primer now to get a grasp of how it is laid out.

  60. BargHumer says:
    October 22, 2011 at 10:52 am
    BEST has put a gust of wind in ti the AGW sails but the hard facts havn’t changed.
    ——–
    That’s correct. The hard facts have not changed. They just got harder.

    There was already considersble evidence that UHI did not affect global temperature trends, now there is more evidence.

    Maybe the reason why is that back in olden times people had fireplaces with chimneys that required the burning of a lot of wood and coal. These fires are not very efficient and so the wasted heat went up the flue and warmed nearby thermometers.

    Plausible but unproven as a mechanism to explain the negative BEST result in UHI. So feel free to analyst the BEST data to see if makes sense. No more excuses about hard to get data or lies about the data being hidden.

  61. otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 10:19 am
    Say hypothetically that the CO2 emissions needed to be reduced down to zero by say 2050-2060 roughly. What would be the best policy, technology, and treaty measures to do so such that our livelihood, economy, etc remain productive/happy? Trying to do policy brainstorm, looking forward to suggestions.

    Kill off everyone else? How about that? The rest would be happy…

    Seriously, there is no way to prevent people using fire. Homo Sapiens is the only fire-tending animal, our very nature, our biology, our anatomy is defined by fire. Our ancestors started using it well before becoming fully human. Our enormous skull (housing a pretty able brain), devoid of powerful muscles and with diminished teeth would be impossible without it. With no fire we would starve to death in several months, because raw food in general is not for human consumption.

    The human spirit itself is fire, and this fire is insatiable. It consumes knowledge, experiences and emits light, much light & warmth & love & creativity.

    For policing CO₂ emissions is to police fire. Should you be successful in this endeavor, liver of Prometheus is eaten in vain while you are left with zombies, at best. Why to make Zeus happy? An ancient pagan deity of greatly reduced power, his utmost weapon, lightning being tamed and distributed to each and every household to do useful work there, making women free of backbreaking chores.

    As for CO₂ levels 5 decades from now, take no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

    Current concentration is somewhat below 400 ppmv, while the stuff is not toxic at all until ten thousand ppmv is exceeded. Quite some safety margin. From the geologic record we do know for sure that life on this globe has prospered tremendously under carbon dioxide concentrations ten times higher than we have today. In fact there is no economic way to pump that much of the substance into the atmosphere, because we are running out of easily accessible carbon based geofuels before that could happen.

    At the same time carbon in its elementary form is not only fuel, but the best construction material imaginable. It is not mere happenstance that molecular nanotechnology of life is based on structures having carbon backbone. But we can do much better than that if we learn how to make self replicating programmable nanobots capable to construct diamondoid structures or intricate webs of carbon nanotubes coated with molecular instruments for any purpose according to design. As soon as it happens, a huge demand for carbon will emerge, and as we can learn from plants, the most accessible source is airborne CO₂. That is, in the long run, we are better to worry about CO₂ depletion of the atmosphere: simple economics dictates that it should be that way. We will have to develop procedures to replenish is, possibly using limestone as source. Admittedly, it would yield lime milk as a byproduct, which, if released to the environment in its unaltered form, could cause catastrophic ocean basification. But as I have already mentioned, sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

    You may also wonder what large scale energy source is available if carbon based geofuels are depleted. But that’s an easy one. We have this huge thermonuclear reactor nearby with its 383 yottawatt output and we don’t even know how to turn it off. It has enough fuel in it for billions of years. The only thing we need is a micron sized solar cell which does not produce electricity directly, but some not flammable, non-toxic energy rich substance like sugar using CO₂ and water and releasing O₂ into the environment, along with a fuel cell of the same size, producing electricity on demand by turning sugar and atmospheric oxygen into vapor and carbon dioxide. Pretty neat closed cycle, eh?

    If these molecular machines are designed carefully, their quantum efficiency can be quite high. The only remaining task is to produce them en masse at low cost using self replicating molecular factories. With this technological outlook in mind you can surely see the present (tax payer financed) rush for solar energy is a bit premature.

    Of course, we also have nuclear fission at hand. Not the old-fashioned unstable plants primarily designed to provide Plutonium for weapons, but some novel, inherently safe, sub-critical, self-terminating breeder type with passive cooling, possibly utilizing Thorium (which is five times more abundant than Uranium), burning out all the long half life isotopes from the fuel and not generating anything, even as an intermediate product, that could be used as a nuclear explosive. The waste from such a reactor does not have to be sequestered for eternity, just for several centuries before its radioactivity decreases to environmental levels. And, for a given amount of waste, one could extract a hundred times more energy.

    It happens to be a fact of thermodynamics, that to enrich a substance which is scarce in nature, the energy needed is proportional to the logarithm of scarcity of that element, provided of course the technology applied operates close to the thermodynamic limit. But with advanced molecular nanotech it should be easy to construct such molecular sorters.

    It means that even if all the rich ores containing fissionable material are depleted, we still have a virtually inexhaustible supply from poor sources, if energy is cheap. But the very inexhaustibility of fuel supply makes energy cheap enough to grant it, at least for the next several billion years.

    Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: and yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

  62. @ Otter17

    Hartmann, Kester Davies. Plant propagation Principles and Practices
    1990
    Pg 42
    “Under conditions where CO2 is limiting the photosynthesis rate [at adequate light intensities and relatively high temperatures – about 29*C (85*F)] an increase in CO2 concentration, to between 1000ppm and 2400ppm, can be expected to result in an increase in photosynthesis, as much as 200 percent over the rate found at 300ppm”

    Harmann, Kester Plant Propagation 4th edition 1983
    Pg 46

    I’ve been involved in glasshouse crop production for 50 years now, we routinely have 1500ppm up to 2400ppm in our production houses, and also the propagation tunnels. Production for tomatoes, cucumbers, capsicums would be 50% over that produced without CO2 enrichment.

  63. mkurbo says:
    October 22, 2011 at 1:00 pm
    10 Steps to turning the American economic engine back on…
    ——
    Better yet, stop fighting over the steering wheel.

    Business will get moving again if you take away the uncertainty. A bunch of power crazed idealogues with over simplified ideas is doing a lot of damage.

  64. otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 3:53 pm
    Lucy Skywalker says:
    October 22, 2011 at 3:20 pm
    “Otter17, I think that what you need is a proper science education, to correct a deficit of which you are unaware.”
    ____________________

    Ok, I’ll take a look at the primer some time. Do you link to peer-reviewed results like Skeptical Science does? Good citations and good sources make for good education, so if you have sources that conflict with Skeptical Science, that would be worth a look for sure.

    OK, that got a laugh from me.

    otter17 is just one more who has been suckered by Skeptical Science’s “peer-reviewed” science.

    otter17 probably believes that if John Cook says “this is what a skeptic believes…”, then that is the skeptical position.

    From the best I’ve determined, this is what most of both “skeptics” and “lukewarmers” believe:

    “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

    Many here know where that statement originates, but the source of the phrase isn’t as important as is the general sentiment it portrays.

    otter17 – if someone tells you either a “skeptic” or “lukewarmer” believes differently than that statement, you should question them for a direct source/link to exactly what that skeptic/lukewarmer is claiming. I know I haven’t read or heard every word that every skeptic/lukewarmer has written or said, but I am certain that much of what skeptics/lukewarmers are reported to believe, such as what Skeptical Science claims, is deliberately misleading and deceptive.

    Oh, and for the record – I’m not sure one can either derail or hi-jack the “open thread” topic.

  65. Party! Party! Weekend! Climate! Party!

    Put forth the CO2 keg and sniff away.

    It’s dangerous stuff right, EPA and climate communist hippies says so, therefor it ought to be really cool to sniff it, right? (Submariners can’t join in the fun, what with they’ve obviously survived too dangerous levels of CO2 them in-pay-of-oil-baron-basterds, and by observations is so terribly old and outdated in climate science any ho’.)

    CO2 is dangerous stuff, it makes Coca Cola steal it, mix with cola, and make pure water cold from the poor “boil”.

    At least Bud the wiser delivers a buzz. :p

  66. otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    I do like a recent paper of his, which kind of sums up the science and is understandable to me.

    http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/TBA–LTonly.pdf

    Anyway, I’m skimming through the primer now to get a grasp of how it is laid out.
    ============
    I assume when you say, “I do like a recent paper of his”, that objectivity has left the realm, along with reason.

  67. Berényi Péter says:
    October 22, 2011 at 4:53 pm
    For policing CO₂ emissions is to police fire. Should you be successful in this endeavor, liver of Prometheus is eaten in vain while you are left with zombies, at best.

    Yes! A Zombie Apocalypse!

    Is this a corollary to Godwin’s Law?

    “If not Hitler, Zombies.”

    :)


  68. otter17 says:
    “…
    Has there been a biological study where tests are performed to see what acidification levels are ok for which species?
    …”

    In a word: Yes


    “…
    Anyway, I’m not necessarily here to argue what the best CO2 level is. I’m just trying to see if recommendations for CO2 targets from scientists are realistically do-able and what type of mitigation plans would work as per NAS recommendations.
    …”

    In a word: No
    [emphasis mine]

    Among many, many other sources, see:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/21/happer-on-the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/11/christy-attention-brought-by-climate-change-views-almost-a-drug/

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PrimeronGlobalWarming.pdf

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/09/the-climate-engine/

    http://www.iloveco2.org/2009/04/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than.html

    http://www.giurfa.com/gh_experiments.pdf

    The answers to the questions you ask are there (or in other places you may discover), but you have to put forth the effort to find them.
    If you are just trolling here to see what a stir you can cause, well don’t bother reading any of the sources cited.

  69. otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 3:49 pm
    “No, CO2 isn’t translucent to electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum (light that we see). It does have a property where it “blocks” electromagnetic radiation in some of the infrared spectrum. An object can lose heat via giving off infrared radiation, so if the CO2 blocks the infrared, it traps heat. So the theory goes to the best of my knowledge.”

    Otter, CO2 does not only absorb IR but in equal measure re-emits it, see here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/

    So it works more like an IR redistributor.

    and this; notice the last figure, showing how saturated the CO2 absorption band already is.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/15/9373/

    Meaning that it’s a dense IR redistributing fog already (mean path length on the order of 20m on ground level); more CO2 will only shorten this path length slightly.

  70. Brian H says:
    October 22, 2011 at 3:23 pm
    “Read otter17′s answers, and it’s obvious the goal is thread-jacking. In any case, the repetitious appeals to authority are tiresome.”

    Open threads are fair game.

  71. I think this qualifies for an Open Thread. And this is related.

    The UN/IPCC is fabricating history, just like programmer Harry fabricated many years of temperature records, and like Hansen’s GISS routinely alters the past temperature record – always in a manner that is the most alarming to the public.

  72. M A Vukcevic says
    Great info as usual Vukcevic. You really have a talent for good graphs-keep them coming.

  73. DirkH says:
    October 22, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    “Otter, CO2 does not only absorb IR but in equal measure re-emits it, see here:”

    I screwed up a word or two in my initial layman’s explanation of the theory. Nevertheless, I’ll see what the IR re-emitting property does in your link.

  74. F. Ross says:
    October 22, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    “The answers to the questions you ask are there (or in other places you may discover), but you have to put forth the effort to find them. If you are just trolling here to see what a stir you can cause, well don’t bother reading any of the sources cited.”
    ____________

    Generally, I like links to peer-review paper abstracts, but I can dig through the links for info, thanky. And if anything talk to Latitude about trolling. I was trying to calmly/rationally explain an analogy, and he just kept calling it stupid and laughing.

  75. “Put forth the CO2 keg and sniff away.”

    As a non-communist hippie, I have in fact done this. Brewing some beer I bottled too soon, and poured it back into the crock – having heard that CO2 had “interesting” effects, I took a couple deep breaths. Whoa! It’ll never catch on as a recreational drug – the suffocating sensation makes it unpleasant. Might be some use for “dry waterboarding” (you did not hear this from me). Definitely psychoactive.

    (Anyone foolish enough to try this – do NOT suck it straight out of a compressed tank! Freeze your lungs! Blow it into a garbage bag first and suck it from there… or brew some beer…)

    Love, Peace, and Happiness,
    Frank

  76. u.k.(us) says:
    October 22, 2011 at 5:27 pm

    “I assume when you say, “I do like a recent paper of his”, that objectivity has left the realm, along with reason.”
    ___________________

    Have you read the paper? If not, you cannot in good faith just blindly accuse me that my objectivity and/or reason have left me. If so, then ok that is your opinion.

  77. R. Gates says:
    October 22, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    Here’s a nice visual example of what 280, 390, and even 560 ppm of “nothing” looks like, using ink in water to help visualize this “nothing” that Latitude somehow believes CO2 is in the atmosphere:

    Dirk H’s point applies so as to make this video completely off the mark. Ink absorbs light and does not reradiate it. To do an analogous experiment, you would need to drop tiny mirrors or shiny spheres into the water and try to shine a flashlight through it.

    But even that would miss the mark as the scattering to the sides would be measured as “lost”. The water would need to be miles thick and infinitely wide and the light source would need to be infinitely wide too. Even that wouldn’t exactly replicate the effect of the atmosphere covering a sphere, but it would be pretty close (except that CO2 only scatters some portions of IR, not the whole range).

    The absolutely absorptive nature of ink is NOT analogous to the scattering of IR by CO2. The video is misleading. I wonder if the presenter really thinks CO2 absorbs IR the way ink absorbs light.

  78. u.k.(us) says:
    October 22, 2011 at 3:33 pm
    R. Gates says:
    October 22, 2011 at 3:15 pm
    =======
    OMG, does this mean the sun won’t shine anymore.
    Or is it just a really bad analogy.
    You can do better, I know you can.
    I’ve seen it.
    ———
    As CO2 is mostly transparent to the wavelengths of sunlight, no matter how high the CO2 levels go, we would not be in danger of blocking out sunlight. The ink example simple shows visually what we can’t see in term of the effects of something at low ppm. I would of course expect certain skeptics to refuse to grasp this analogy.

  79. JohnWho says:
    October 22, 2011 at 5:17 pm
    OK, that got a laugh from me.

    “otter17 is just one more who has been suckered by Skeptical Science’s “peer-reviewed” science.
    otter17 probably believes that if John Cook says “this is what a skeptic believes…”, then that is the skeptical position.”
    ___________________________

    Well, what I meant was that Skeptical Science provides links to a lot of peer-reviewed papers when they make a posting, which tends to lend more credibility. Obviously, Skep Sci on its own isn’t a peer reviewed journal, and of course conduct due diligence to check out the peer reviewed papers cited to see if the conclusions in the papers match Skep Sci’s conclusions.

    Oh, and I don’t believe that the official contrarian position is what Skeptical Science says. Skep Sci provides citations when they quote a contrarian argument. Check out this example. It has an example quote from the BBC at the top and some links to peer-reviewed papers scattered throughout the body text (from journals like Science, Journal of Climate, etc).

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

  80. otter17 the problem with peer reviewed is just what all the recent kerfuffle is about when it comes to climate science peer review is broken and until total transparency is coming forth from the warmist camp anything “peer reviewed” will be correctly viewed with suspicion and hefty doses of salt it has been shown that the CRU and others have worked to destroy anything they view as nonconformist before it can get published “even if I have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” how then can you be so set on that system as giving anything worthwhile. also was Newton peer reviewed in his day? just askin.

  81. Frederick,

    Of course the presenter doesn’t think that CO2 acts like ink. He is simply making the point that you cannot say outright, “such a small proportion of something cannot be significant”. When you have gotten over that prejudice, to see what effect atmospheric CO2 does have, you run the numbers. The numbers say that doubling of CO2 causes about a 1 degree C rise in temperature (the numbers do not say that the effect is saturated). But the numbers also say that as the teemperature goes up, water vapour increases, which makes the temperature go up some more, giving a total effect of something like 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2, with some degree of uncertainty.

    Have a great weekend,

    John

  82. otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 7:21 pm
    JohnWho says:
    October 22, 2011 at 5:17 pm
    OK, that got a laugh from me.

    “otter17 is just one more who has been suckered by Skeptical Science’s “peer-reviewed” science.
    otter17 probably believes that if John Cook says “this is what a skeptic believes…”, then that is the skeptical position.”
    ___________________________

    Well, what I meant was that Skeptical Science provides links to a lot of peer-reviewed papers when they make a posting,…

    That is the “hook” that “Captain” Cook uses on the unsuspecting.

    See PaulID’s post above.

  83. Zero emissions? Assuming “they” will be compassionate and let us breath, and what we’re talking about is “zero emissions from fossil fuels”, easy. Nuke it up. Forget regulations, permits, inspections… just build ‘em as fast as we can. I think this would be a horrible idea – exposes our g-g-g-grandchildren to (gradually decreasing) risk for a LONG time after any benefits expire! For an interesting read, go back to the first posts about Fukushima and watch the “experts” assure us it will all be over in 12 – 24 hours.

    Excuse me, risk, Fukushima, what, exactly, are you talking about??
    Number of people who were killed, or even injured, by Fukushima, still zero.
    Fukushima was not even the only nuke plant in the area (for both earthquake and tsunami), danger from others, zero, and Fukushima was a 30 year old plant.
    This was with one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded, plus a tsunami, and the nuke plants were still completely safe.
    I mean, just how much evidence do you need that these plants are safe???

    And as for the press, where you know doubt “learned” of all this Fukushima “danger”, they are frankly guilty of bald faced lying. I mean, number of people killed or even injured by radiation, zero, number of people killed outright by earthquake and tsunami, at least 25,000, and that does not even count those seriously injured, maimed, bereaved, and without homes or jobs in winter. And while all those people (those who survived) were suffering all that, what did the press report on day after day after day, Fukushima, where the number of casualties was, and still is, zero. And they are still at it, such as a recent news report of “hot spots” in some city, while admitting that these “hot spots” were, in fact, completely harmless to anyone. Sooo, I guess the phrase “cold spots” just doesn’t sell enough papers, right? Ask yourself, why was this even news? Why are they reporting as “news” something that has absolutely no effect on anyone anywhere? When you can figure that one out, the light will dawn.

    Dear news media:
    Remember back in ’50s and early ’60s, when we set off something like 900 atomic bombs in
    Nevada? And how we just let the fallout blow wherever and it landed all over the
    eastern US? And how it wiped out life as we know it and all that was left from
    Colorado to the Atlantic were six-legged rats battling two-headed cockroaches in
    the glowing ruins?

    Yeah. Exactly. So shut up with the panic already

    Yes, they really did set off a bunch of above-ground nuclear tests. It happened so often that people would gather their lawn chairs just at the edge of Reno (or Las Vegas, I forget which) and have nuclear tailgate parties to watch these things. One fellow was miffed because he missed the first one, reason, he had radiation poisoning (he worked to create it). He died…a couple of years ago…at age 86.

    How to get rid of that nuclear waste (that being the excuse to call nuke plants dangerous you will come up with next)? Did you know that the Canadians have invented a nuke plant that can turn nuclear waste into electricity? In fact, it is so good at it it can turn raw uranium ore into electricity. No need to pile it up at places like Fukushima (in steel containers), because stupid nuclear panic has not allowed us to dispose of it safely as we planned. It was this nuclear waste, not the actual nuke plant, which was the source of most of the (too small to be harmful) radiation at Fukushima, or didn’t you know that?

    Still afraid of nuclear power? Wanna buy a bridge?

  84. @ Smokey

    I’m in my apartment icing a sprained knee from basketball earlier. Never had that happen before. Sprained ankle, sure, but this is a bit different. Not too much swelling. Probably ought to hobble off to bed.

  85. John B says:
    October 22, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    “But the numbers also say that as the teemperature goes up, water vapour increases, which makes the temperature go up some more, giving a total effect of something like 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2, with some degree of uncertainty.”
    _____
    3C is a very reasonable estimate (always of course with a degree of uncertainty), and it is not just the water vapor feedbacks, but the whole package of fast and slow feedbacks, all of which we don’t fully know of course. Hence, the paleoclimate data becomes useful, to see what the earth was like at the closest historical point in the past when CO2 was doubled from our pre-industrial levels. (Going from 280 to 560 ppm). We need to go back to the mid-Pliocence for this, about 3.3 Million years ago. Looking at this era, we see that global temps were around 3C to 4.5C warmer…which correlates closely with what global climate models are saying. Giving these two independent sources of estimates, it seems 3C of warming is very reasonable with a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels, when one looks at all the feedbacks, both slow and fast.

    This chart on this topic makes an interesting read:

    http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eespteam/prism/products/agu3.pdf

  86. otter17 says:

    Otter, knees ARE different. Get it looked at and don’t try to tough it out. If you know any dancers or actors, ask them for a recommendation.

  87. otter17 says (October 22, 2011 at 2:04 pm): “As for items 2) and 3), don’t they conflict?”

    Not sure what you’re asking. I thought I was quite consistent that you could achieve zero emissions by 2060 OR maintain/improve human welfare but not both. If you emphasize human welfare, the emissions reduction is a side effect, but not intentionally, not so soon, and probably not as much. No conflict there.

    “Ok, so let’s say that you believe that item 2) is unwaveringly true, what would the incentive be to believe in any scientists or scientific bodies that lay out CO2 emissions targets or predicted wide scale harm to the environment?”

    None. I can live with that. We have bigger problems.

    “There likely would be a default to adaptation to whatever comes if item 2) is held as absolute truth.”

    Fine. Note that wealth and technology improve adaptation, so economic growth is win-win-win-win-win, whatever the climate.

    BTW, I guaran-damn-tee that China & India aren’t buying into this CO2 hysteria, so the question of mitigation is moot. We’re going to have a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere whatever the rest of the world does. I would prefer that “Western” civilization leads the way to wealth, but if not, I take comfort that at least some societies have their economic priorities straight.

  88. Carl Bussjaeger says, leaping into the troll fest, “Ah… You do realize that humans exhale CO2? Even ignoring that minor difficulty… Zero emissions would mean forsaking luxuries like cooking meat on a stick over a primitive fire, or agriculture (slash&burn would be all that was left, and those fires release CO2 as well).”

    That is all true and good, but there are a couple of things nobody much covers. One is that warm is good, Warmer is better. Throughout history, cold has been associated with misery and famine and despair. Warm, plenty and good and prosperous.

    The other is that not cooking food sounds pretty bad to some, but that is a secondary or tertiary problem, Primary is that it does not matter whether you consider vegetables to be food (I do, and in general prefer them un- or lightly-cooked) or food that food eats (I’m in that camp as well), without carbon dioxide, there is no food.

  89. otter17 says (October 22, 2011 at 3:20 pm): “Ah, thank you R. Gates. That is the type of analogy I was looking for.”

    Yes, because ink is just like CO2, and a cylinder of water is just like the earth’s atmosphere. You know, just like Al Gore’s heat lamp/cookie jar/toy globe demonstration is just like our planet’s climate system.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/

    Do I really need the /sarc?

  90. Say hypothetically that the CO2 emissions needed to be reduced down to zero by say 2050-2060 roughly. What would be the best policy, technology, and treaty measures to do so such that our livelihood, economy, etc remain productive/happy? Trying to do policy brainstorm, looking forward to suggestions.

    Well, lets try a hypothetical then, lets say you want to reduce CO2 down to zero in just one country, and lets say it is China, since as of now, China is by far the greatest emitter of CO2, and their emissions are growing. However they have admitted that they are not going to reduce their emissions, or even try to. So, exactly how are you going to get them to start? What would be the result if they did? Do you think China’s 1.5 billion people can even survive on zero emissions? The answer is, no. So, how many of them have to die? Do you think they will just voluntarily do so? Would you? They will do what any country would do if a foreign country shows up and asks them (however nicely) to just die, and I can explain it in just one word:

    WAR

    The simple fact is that no people can survive on zero emissions. There is simply no technological way to do it. If you ask any people to do it, or any country, you are asking them to die. They will resist that idea by any means necessary. Therefore even suggesting it is to ask for war.

    As far as ensuring globally binding CO2 emissions targets? That is also a tough question, for sure. Again, that is why I asked my question in the first place. I would imagine some form of treaty structure and atmospheric monitoring of CO2 would be able to determine if emission targets are being met. I would hope police wouldn’t have to go around.

    You would hope that, would you? You would hope that people would just impose abject poverty on themselves, and then starve to death in the cold and dark, would you? Would you do it? Would you allow anyone else to do it to you? What about to your family, friends, neighbors, city, state, country?

    Here is what you do if you really believe we need to reach zero CO2 emissions.
    Go kill yourself.
    That is what you are asking me to do.

    (Note, I do not suggest you actually try that)
    (This post is for educational purposes only)
    (These are veteran suicide squads, do not attempt)

  91. otter17,

    OK, you get a pass for this Saturday night.

    JohnB says:

    “…as the teemperature goes up, water vapour increases, which makes the temperature go up some more…”

    So what happens to the temperature when the moisture precipitates out? Sorry to deconstruct your alarmist belief system, but there it is.

  92. Smokey says:
    October 22, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    “So what happens to the temperature when the moisture precipitates out?”
    ____
    Temperature should not be the focus, but energy, as it is the energy balance that is altered with the alteration of the atmospheric greenhouse gas components. When moisture precipitates, no energy is lost of course, but rather, it is turned into the latent heat of condensation. The same thing happens of course when snow forms from liquid and we get the latent heat of freezing. Here’s a nice chart for you to remember this Smokey:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phase_change_-_en.svg

  93. @otter17

    “It has an example quote from the BBC at the top and some links to peer-reviewed papers scattered throughout the body text (from journals like Science, Journal of Climate, etc).
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

    SkS? Oh no… that fudging site?
    Sorry, looking only at the last 3 cycles does not visualize anything.

    There are good historical reconstructions, i.e. Solanki et al. (2004)

    Fig. 1 shows the TSI reconstruction, Fig. 2 the MUV <300nm part.

    Ask yourself:
    Doesn't that look more like Earth's temperature gradient, with all it's Minima (Maunder, Dalton, 1900, 1965)?

    Now ask yourself another question:
    How has the Sun imitated Earth's temperature?

    Doh!
    You see daylight now?

  94. Ok I’m a simpleton, if CO2 causes 1C in warming and 2C additional warming from water vapour than those 2C from water vapour should produce another 4C and those 4C another 8C another 16C another 32C.
    Is the warming produced by CO2 somehow different from the warming from water vapour?
    If there is a positive feedback how come it didn’t take effect in the last 4.5 billion years at times with much more CO2 in the air?
    Me thinks the positive water vapour feedback hypothesis doesn’t hold water.

  95. Climate change deniers thought they had an ally in Richard Muller, a popular physics professor at UC Berkeley.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/climate-change-deniers-abandon-befuddled-warmist-physicist-who-came-around-on-global-warming.php

    Richard Muller, a noted Berkeley physicist who’s been a strident critic of climate campaigners,

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/skeptic-talking-point-melts-away-as-an-inconvenient-physicist-confirms-warming/

    Back in 2010, Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist and self-proclaimed climate skeptic,

    http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/10/21/349860/clean-start-october-21-2011/

    A skeptical physicist ends up confirming climate data

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-skeptical-physicist-ends-up-confirming-climate-data/2011/10/20/gIQA6viC1L_blog.html

    . . .

    2006:
    Although Muller estimates 2 in 3 odds that humans are causing global warming,

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0623-03.htm

    The common dreams article also says:
    A more sardonic view was taken by prominent Bay Area physicist Richard Muller of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who served as a peer reviewer for the academy’s report. In 2004, he publicly criticized the Mann team’s work, calling it “an artifact of poor mathematics … when applied to the (temperature records of the) last millennium,” he recalled in an e-mail Thursday.

    If I’m reading the article right, it sounds like Mueller was critical of the hockey stick math.

  96. M.A.Vukcevic ou said on October 22, 2011 at 10:22 am
    QUOTE
    Here is the latest from ‘vukcevic graphs workshop’.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-SST.htm

    Article is being assembled currently.
    UNQUOTE

    I look forward to reading your article.
    Your chart is tantalising, but I can’t quite grasp your meaning.
    Regards

  97. Legatus says:
    October 22, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    [Nuke, as a method of “decarbonizing”]
    “”I think this would be a horrible idea – exposes our g-g-g-grandchildren to (gradually decreasing) risk for a LONG time after any benefits expire!””

    Hi Legatus,

    I’m not sure this is the right place to get into this, but since it’s an “open thread”…

    “”For an interesting read, go back to the first posts about Fukushima and watch the “experts” assure us it will all be over in 12 – 24 hours.””

    I should have made clear that this (Fukushima “experts” in the first day or two) is a slightly different topic than the generic “long term risk, short term benefit” that makes me oppose Nuclear power.

    “Excuse me, risk, Fukushima, what, exactly, are you talking about?? Number of people who were killed, or even injured, by Fukushima, still zero.”

    Number of people evicted from their homes: 80,000. Date when they may return: uncertain.

    “Fukushima was not even the only nuke plant in the area (for both earthquake and tsunami), danger from others, zero, and Fukushima was a 30 year old plant. This was with one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded, plus a tsunami, and the nuke plants were still completely safe.”

    Perhaps we have a different definition of “completely safe”…

    “I mean, just how much evidence do you need that these plants are safe???”

    Ummm… lack of evacuation? Workers allowed to work as near to the plants as they like, for as long as they like?

    You are correct, of course, that if the tragic event happened at a coal mine, it probably would have caved in. If it had been a hydro-power dam, it probably would have burst. Nothing is risk-free. My point is that the risk from nuclear goes on for an awfully long time.

    “And as for the press, where you know doubt “learned” of all this Fukushima “danger”, they are frankly guilty of bald faced lying.”

    Ah, okay. Correct number of evacuees is? And I would find the correct information where? My point in mentioning the “experts” on the early threads here was this: If you ask the typical schoolkid, they’ll tell you AGW is real and dangerous. That’s what they learned in school. If you ask a typical nuclear engineer, they’ll tell you nuclear power is safe. Same reason?


    “Why are they reporting as “news” something that has absolutely no effect on anyone anywhere?”

    Have you asked the evacuees about this?

    “When you can figure that one out, the light will dawn.”

    If you can show me where the “off” switch is on a nuke, I will be greatly enlightened. A coal-fired plant has many disadvantages, but when you stop shovelling coal into it, it stops.


    ” Yeah. Exactly. So shut up with the panic already”

    Sorry if I gave you the impression I was “panicing”. Otter17(?) asked how we could reduce CO2 emissions to zero. That’s how. I think it’s a terrible idea.


    “Yes, they really did set off a bunch of above-ground nuclear tests.”

    I know. We used to use them as a “reason” for “oddball” weather (which is actually quite common). Lot of rain? It’s those A-bomb tests! Been dry? It’s those A-bomb tests! Much like some people blame CO2 for extremes of weather these days.


    “How to get rid of that nuclear waste (that being the excuse to call nuke plants dangerous you will come up with next)?”

    Psychic too, are ye? :) That’s easy: put it someplace, build a fence around it to keep the kiddies out, and put armed guards around it to keep terrorists out. Then keep the fence and armed guards maintained for a really long time!


    “It was this nuclear waste, not the actual nuke plant, which was the source of most of the (too small to be harmful) radiation at Fukushima, or didn’t you know that?”

    Actually, no I didn’t know that. I was under the impression that radiation was escaping from several sources. How much is “too small to be harmful”, Legatus? A very large amount of radiation will kill you PDQ. (dispute?) A lesser amount will increase your risk of cancer by a measureable amount. (dispute?) There is some evidence that a very small amount (above background) is actually good for ya – Ann Coulter is not completely insane to observe this. (note: “completely” :) ) Since you seem to know a lot about this, perhaps you can tell us exactly where the dividing line is between “completely safe” and “some risk”?

    “Still afraid of nuclear power?”

    I’m not particularly “afraid” of nuclear power. I observe that the risks (small as you may think they are) go on for a long time. The indisputable benefits last a short time. I think such a “long term contract” is a bad deal. (I think that nuke power – fission – may well be our punishment for not thinking up anything better, actually. I still think it’s a bad idea!)

    “Wanna buy a bridge?”

    Nope. Wanna buy a nuclear waste repository? They’re looking for a site, I hear!

    Best,
    Frank

  98. Well, I think this is a reasonable thought, and it’s one of those “gotcha” kinds of things. I hope someone will think about this, and tell me what’s wrong with this simple idea.

    Let’s grant Michael Mann he was correct in his backcast. Let’s grant that C02 increases temperature exactly as stated (what is it, 3.0 degrees C per doubling, or so)? Given this, current temperatures should be 1.1 degrees C greater than they otherwise would have been. Looking at Mann’s seminal paper, the backcasts estimate that little ice age temperatures should be from .6 to 1.2 degrees C lower than they are today. That means if we give the modellers all their assumptions, today’s temperatures would be LIA temperatures, with all the implications.

  99. “10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change” at http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html claims to list 10 items of empirical evidence that supports AGW.

    Where may I find specific scientific refutations of the link between those ten items and AGW theory? (Not just a general blast at http://www.skepticalscience.com, please) Another way to put it is: Can anyone direct me to a scientific explanation of how a non-AGW theory explains those ten items as well or better than AGW?

    In particular, can anyone direct me to a scientific refutation of the claim that the Evans 2006 results (http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm) demonstrate that there is a direct connection between anthropogenic greenhouse gases and global warming?

  100. Smokey writes: “So what happens to the temperature when the moisture precipitates out?”

    What happens immediately is that the condensation releases heat into the atmosphere.

    Over the long term, as the atmosphere grows warmer (never mind the cause for the moment), the more moisture it can hold. The moisture (clouds, water vapor) are greenhouse gases.

    The effect of clouds of global temperature is still problematic, but most scientists seem to think that their albedo effect slightly outweighs their effect as greenhouse gas, and that thus they have a slight cooling effect overall. The effect of water vapor is far less problematic. It is a potent greenhouse gas that will lead to further warming, which will enable the atmosphere to hold more moisture which will lead to further warming . .. and so on.

  101. R. Gates says:
    October 22, 2011 at 7:21 pm
    As CO2 is mostly transparent to the wavelengths of sunlight, no matter how high the CO2 levels go, we would not be in danger of blocking out sunlight. The ink example simple shows visually what we can’t see in term of the effects of something at low ppm. I would of course expect certain skeptics to refuse to grasp this analogy.

    Doesn’t show that at all. All it shows is that certain liquids mix. Use a drop of oil instead, what do you get?

    So, it stands, the analogy is stupid for a variety of reasons and that is what sceptics grasp.

    Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air, it therefore displaces air and sinks unless work is done to move or mix it, it will not, as your analogy extrapolates to and which is the implied message in this junk analogy, mix thoroughly into the fluid gaseous ocean of air of our atmosphere as does the ink. What is the temperature of each in your analogy? Use a drop of something with the same relative weight to water as carbon dioxide to air. Tell us what happens.

  102. Say hypothetically that the CO2 emissions needed to be reduced down to zero by say 2050-2060 roughly. What would be the best policy, technology, and treaty measures to do so such that our livelihood, economy, etc remain productive/happy? Trying to do policy brainstorm, looking forward to suggestions.”

    An aggression space policy.
    But 2050-2060 is pretty tough target to meet. But by the 2050-2060 timeframe, you could the option to shade the sun or reflect more sunlight on earth [and wherever you wanted the extra sunlight. Therefore one could control global temperatures if there was any need.
    So purpose of the space policy would not be to build a sun shade. But rather the near term purpose of space policy is to develop a robust market for rocket fuel. And other markets in space.
    And after decades of such policy, the option of making a sun shade could have a fairly low cost.

  103. otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 10:19 am
    “Say hypothetically that the CO2 emissions needed to be reduced down to zero by say 2050-2060 roughly. What would be the best policy, technology, and treaty measures to do so such that our livelihood, economy, etc remain productive/happy? Trying to do policy brainstorm, looking forward to suggestions.”

    Trying to do a policy brainstorm for a solution to a non-existent problem? Why?

  104. “There is a lot of speculation about comets and meteors striking the earth. To some extent ( I consider substantially) the Earth has been protected by the Moon which has intercepted many such objects. This is evidenced by the cratering of the far side of the moon. Any of those impacts could have forestalled the development of life on Earth.”
    The Moon doesn’t intercept any significant amount comets and asteroids from hitting earth.
    The Moon has so many craters because it surface isn’t remade with plate tectonics as earth is.
    So the Moon is permanent record of it’s impact history.
    Earth has been hit with as impactors as the Moon- the earth has merely erased them by plate diving under plates. And it worn them down with erosion- wind, rain, glacial movement, etc. Plus vegetation can obscure them from sight and people can think an impact crater was caused by some other natural event.
    In addition the smaller impactor explode in our atmosphere rather hit the ground.

    “As a speculative thought, imagine an Earth-like planet where the moon orbits at a much lower distance and tidal ranges are 500 – 600 feet. Would life evolve quicker? How much evaporation would develop with huge beaches?”
    Few theories about the Moon suggest the Moon orbited much closer than it does today, and currently the Moon is getting further from Earth at 3 cm per year.

  105. Myrrh says:
    October 23, 2011 at 1:08 am

    Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air, it therefore displaces air and sinks unless work is done to move or mix it, it will not, as your analogy extrapolates to and which is the implied message in this junk analogy, mix thoroughly into the fluid gaseous ocean of air of our atmosphere as does the ink. What is the temperature of each in your analogy? Use a drop of something with the same relative weight to water as carbon dioxide to air. Tell us what happens.
    ——-
    All of this is wrong. Its true that CO2 is heavier than air and if you pour pure CO2 out into a room full of air it will sink immediately. But this is temporary.

    There is a process called diffusion that will distribute the CO2 throughout the entire volume of the room eventually. Bulk mixing of the gas via a fan simply hastens this process.

    There is some segregation of CO2 from the bottom to the top of the atmosphere, but the degree of this effect is dictated by the weight of CO2 relative to the atmospheric temperature. The effect is very small and is typically ignored.

    The same effect applies in water. The dye molecules are much heavier than water molecules, but as long as the dye molecules are soluble in water or otherwise dispersible they will spread evenly throughout the liquid.

    The same applies to suspensions of clay in water. In effect the thermal jiggling of the clay particles by water molecules prevents them from settling due to gravity. Therefore for settling to happen the partakes must be large enough for gravity to overcome thermal motions.

    Hope that’s clear.

    And Myrrh just because you don’t understand it does not mean that it’s stupid. A bit more humility will lead to less humiliation.

  106. Christian Bultmann says:
    October 22, 2011 at 9:22 pm
    Ok I’m a simpleton, if CO2 causes 1C in warming and 2C additional warming from water vapour than those 2C from water vapour should produce another 4C and those 4C another 8C another 16C another 32C.
    ——
    I suspect you are counting it wrong. Water has added 2C AFTER it’s gone around in circles a few times. Not BEFORE.

  107. Latitude says:
    October 22, 2011 at 2:20

    You can’t “acid” something until you run out of buffer…
    …C(arbon)O2
    ———
    True. But titration curves of buffers are not perfectly horizontal lines and the buffer capacity of sea water is small.

    Maybe to stop the hand waving we need to see the actual titration curve of actual seawater when titrated with actual CO2.

  108. Lucy Skywalker says
    But as you add more, you find that tiny additions quickly become completely unnoticeable, and quickly the water becomes opaque. When you’ve reached that level, which is still very dilute, then more ink produces no real increase in opacity.
    ——–
    This would be true if thermal IR was just one wavelength. It’s not.

    I have seen atmospheric CO2 absorption curves where 2/3 of the absorption band is saturated. Which of course means that 1/3 is not saturated.

    Which in turn means that if you increase CO2 you do increase the degree of absorption of CO2.

  109. Latitude says:
    October 22, 2011 at 4:04 pm
    You shouldn’t be…
    What CO2 levels are optimum for growing plants in a greenhouse? What should CO2 levels be in a phytoplankton culture? an algae culture, some Pseudomona culture, etc etc
    ———-
    I don’t believe that green house CO2 concentrations are a good indicator for what happens in the wild.

    For a start in a green house humidity is controlled allowing the stomata to fully open. .

    Second there are no mineral nutient limitations thus allowing the plant to maximize CO2 uptake.

  110. DirkH says

    Otter, CO2 does not only absorb IR but in equal measure re-emits it, see here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/

    So it works more like an IR redistributor.
    ————
    That’s true. But the increased absorption does mean that the atmosphere to space bottleneck for IR radiation is pushed to colder altitudes. Colder altitudes means less emission at the CO2 wavelengths.

    You can see this effect directly in the earth’s IR emission spectra as measured by satellite.

  111. LazyTeenager says:

    October 22, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    Don B says:
    October 22, 2011 at 10:27 am
    It truly astonishes me that as the rest of the world pulls back from carbon dioxide control, and while China and India always intended to increase their coal burning, Australia begins a carbon tax. Julia Gillard and her political friends are quite mad.
    ———-
    Not really. You simply don’t understand how international diplomatic negotiations work.

    If you do understand then it all becomes very logical and not mad at all.

    Is this the same sort of diplomacy we had in the 1980’s when al the western world’s socialists were telling us to give up our nuclear weapons because if we did, Russia would do the same? Reagan and Thatcher did the opposite and the world is a safer place as a result.

    Otter17: You seem to have stirred up a hornet’s nest with what I think is a sensible question.
    I don’t believe in AGW, but I do believe in preserving our environment to the extent that it does not compromise the world’s economy. The way forward is hydrogen fusion ultimately, and more fission currently, with the caveat that nuclear reactors are only sited in geologically and politically stable areas. Instead of pouring money into “the science is settled” projects, we should be spending it on fusion research.
    Don B, I fully agree with your comment above, what socialists have never learned, despite all evidence to the contrary, is that higher taxes stifle economic growth and that governments never spend money as efficiently as individuals. The fact that this tax is based on a fallacy must be even more galling for Australians as “green” taxes on fuel and flights are here in UK.

  112. Thanks for the couple of complementary comments for the graph:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-SST.htm

    There is a process specific to the North Atlantic shown in red colour which has exactly same trend (in this case negative) as the sea surface temperature.
    Important point here is that it precedes movements of the SST by 11 years (one solar cycle?), it is plotted inverted, by the faint red line in the bottom graph, and as it can be seen it does predict the SST movements 11 years in advance.
    If rise of the SST is caused by the rise in the CO2 concentration (IR radiative process) it should act immediately, not some years later; that should be of concern the AGW experts. Data used are available from NOAA or NCAR.

  113. Smokey says:
    October 22, 2011 at 5:52 pm
    I think this qualifies for an Open Thread. And this is related.

    The UN/IPCC is fabricating history, just like programmer Harry fabricated many years of temperature records, and like Hansen’s GISS routinely alters the past temperature record – always in a manner that is the most alarming to the public.
    ———-
    Sure Smokey. Let’s assume for the moment that your friend Harry was not simply confused by the principles behind a perfectly valid infilling procedure and as a result started making arrogant and cynical comments.

    What kind of fabrication did he do? Random values, values biassed to make trends look cooler, values biassed to make things warmer? I don’t think you can answer that question

    Considering that Harry’s output produced the temperature series with the lowest upward trend over the last 10 years, making it the darling dataset of many skeptics, maybe it is faked to favor your position. Just speculating wildly.

  114. Lazy T, only the credulous would believe that “Harry” was lying when he stated that he was fabricating many years of temperature data. And if you believe that political organizations like the UN/IPCC don’t “adjust” the temperature record for their own self-serving purposes, you are simply naive.

  115. @Smokey

    And you, sir, are a conspiracy theorist. The UN/IPCC don’t have the temperature data to themselves to adjust. And even if Harry did fabricate temperatures, to what effect? And even if it increased the apparent waming trend, how come other datasets agree?

    And what about BEST? The darling of the skeptics, until they produced results in line with the mainstream.

    There is no conspiracy, only reality. Accept it and join the real debate about what, if anything, should be done about it.

  116. Jesse Fell says:
    October 23, 2011 at 12:58 am
    “The effect of water vapor is far less problematic. It is a potent greenhouse gas that will lead to further warming, which will enable the atmosphere to hold more moisture which will lead to further warming . .. and so on.”

    Why hasn’t this happened in the past?

  117. lucy, I don’t get one of your points. In the past, the sun was colder than nowadays. The AGW “alarmists” explain that despite this, it was warm because the CO2 level were higher. In fact this is how the theory was started in the beginning of the XX century. How do you explain the earth temperatures in the past, without taking CO2 into the account?

  118. here is an article on modeling, but not as you know it.
    Does this ring any bells?
    “The confidence we experience as we make a judgment is not a reasoned evaluation of the probability that it is right. Confidence is a feeling, one determined mostly by the coherence of the story and by the ease with which it comes to mind, even when the evidence for the story is sparse and unreliable. The bias toward coherence favors overconfidence. An individual who expresses high confidence probably has a good story, which may or may not be true.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/magazine/dont-blink-the-hazards-of-confidence.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all

  119. Myrrh says:
    October 23, 2011 at 1:08 am
    R. Gates says:
    October 22, 2011 at 7:21 pm
    As CO2 is mostly transparent to the wavelengths of sunlight, no matter how high the CO2 levels go, we would not be in danger of blocking out sunlight. The ink example simple shows visually what we can’t see in term of the effects of something at low ppm. I would of course expect certain skeptics to refuse to grasp this analogy.

    Doesn’t show that at all. All it shows is that certain liquids mix. Use a drop of oil instead, what do you get?
    ——-
    CO2 is far more well mixed in the atmosphere than oil would be in water, and while it is true that CO2 is more dense than air and if there was absolutely no wind and constant churning of the atmosphere CO2 would separate out from air and settle to the ground, that’s not the planet we happen to live on…i..e. the container is constantly being stirred.

  120. R. Gates

    it seems 3C of warming is very reasonable with a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels

    or… it seems a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels is very reasonable with a 3C warming.

  121. Smokey says:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:42 am
    Lazy T, only the credulous would believe that “Harry” was lying
    ——–
    But I was not suggesting he was lying. I was suggesting that maybe he was mistaken in his understanding and therefore grossly inaccurate in his description of what was happening.

    Remember this is the guy who in the first few lines of his complaining file had a rant because someone was using IDL instead of fortran.

    As for the UN/IPCC conspiracy theory we now have BEST as a cross check on Harry’s work. It seems the results are nearly indistinguishable. That means that Harry either did nothing effective to visibly bias his results or else you have to suck BEST into your IPCC conspiracy theory.

    As the song says “you have to know when to hold them and know when to fold them”.

  122. Richard B. Woods says:
    October 23, 2011 at 12:16 am
    ““10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change” at http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html claims to list 10 items of empirical evidence that supports AGW.”

    “With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003). ”

    The tropospheric hot spot, that’s a critical one. Santer tricked around a lot to “find” that; Jo Nova has written a lot about that; see

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/this-is-90-certainty-really-yet-another-paper-shows-the-hot-spot-is-missing/comment-page-1/#comment-561555

    and see also this comment

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/12/our-sustainable-mirth/#comment-765890

    “when even Dr.Syukuro Manabe, the godfather of climate modeling, now agrees with Fred Singer that it’s
    not there (see Fu, 2011) and that climate models overstate the warming by 2 to 4 times.

  123. Interstellar Bill said “The Suicide Derby now has four contestants: California and Australia vying for first place, England close behind, and nuclear-abolishing Germany the latest entrant.”

    Actually there are now some encouraging signs, at least in England and the UK. It’s becoming blindingly obvious to all (even to “null points” Huhne) that UK feed-in tariffs are having the most appalling effect on UK energy price inflation and fuel poverty. This might at last give our crazed politicians pause for thought.

    See for example Christopher Booker’s article here in the Torygraph today.

  124. @Smokey says:
    October 22, 2011 at 7:51 pm
    Another Open Thread contribution.
    [Smokey linked to an interesting comment on the OWS, movement as juvenile behavior.]
    ===================================
    Very interesting, Smokey. That makes a lot of sense.

    I’ve been following the OWS escapades and so far, I thought their representative chant should be:

    “What do we want?”
    “WE DON”T KNOW!”

    “When do we want it?”
    “N-O-W!”

  125. Andrew Harding said
    Is this the same sort of diplomacy we had in the 1980′s when al the western world’s socialists were telling us to give up our nuclear weapons because if we did, Russia would do the same? Reagan and Thatcher did the opposite and the world is a safer place as a result.
    ———
    Your recollection seems to be different from mine. There was an escalation in research into defensive technologies. I don’t believe there was an escalation in the nuclear weapons stockpiles. There were likely existing nuclear nonproliferation treaties in place. Could be wrong maybe I should check the timeline.

  126. This is about the experiment on how ink has the potential of being a major pollutant. I tried putting 10 drops of Coke in a 2 liter bottle of Sprite. I didn’t get the same result as the ink in water experiment, so I tried 100 drops of Coke in a 2 liter bottle of Sprite. My results are not as dramatic as the ink in water solution. Is my math wrong, or should I try putting apple juice in orange juice for the comparison? How about putting 560 ppm of scotch in the coke, then add 40% more scotch? I wonder how many of those I need to drink before I feel my globe warming?

  127. Vukcevic

    Important point here is that it precedes movements of the SST by 11 years

    Any cyclic forcing will precede the SST by a little less than 1/4 of the cycle time (15 yrs in this case) so nothing strange about that, and it should not concern the AGW experts because they know the heat capacity of sea water.
    Your precursor will only be interesting after you have told us what it is.

  128. AAS anabolic steroid is delightful short term. Testosterone is allowed by Cholesterol.

    1959 The Clovers ‘Love Potion #9′. song describes a man seeking help finding love, so he talks to a Gypsy, who determines through palm reading that he needs “love potion number 9″. The potion causes him to fall in love with everything he sees, kissing whatever is in front of him, eventually kissing a cop on the corner, who breaks his bottle of love potion.

    If the King advocates the utopian steroid, because he is the king, a Judas Goat becomes the norm on the street. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Judasgoat.jpg

    The slumber of reality – 8th Air Force painted the lead Judas Bomber with individual psychedelic colors in stripes, checkers, or polka dots, enabling easy recognition. War is hell. Gore is that hell. Science must not enter such faith.

    Debt that has no-equal is far more lethal to humanity than any level of a natural product. Too much CO2 will by its chemistry solve any conceived problem in a single black plague. Before some level is reached, the weeding out of excess begins. If a combination of governments fail all at one time, the utilization of ICBMs will never happen as these mechanical devises require an extensive AAS cadre of technicians/maintenance. Now, testicle sized Nukes are a completely different game plan. Cities beware? Every two bit war lord that sequesters such, will at least once exhibit too much testosterone.

  129. lgl says:
    October 23, 2011 at 6:21 am
    R. Gates

    it seems 3C of warming is very reasonable with a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels

    or… it seems a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels is very reasonable with a 3C warming.
    ———
    Then you’d better have a forcing that can explain that warming. Either way, a 3C warmer Earth is a very different Earth than we have seen during the Holocene. Does that mean “catastrophically” different? I’m not convinced, but it would be prudent to at least consider the full range of potential changes and how we might need to adapt.

  130. R. Gates says:
    October 23, 2011 at 5:32 am

    CO2 is far more well mixed in the atmosphere than oil would be in water, and while it is true that CO2 is more dense than air and if there was absolutely no wind and constant churning of the atmosphere CO2 would separate out from air and settle to the ground, that’s not the planet we happen to live on…i..e. the container is constantly being stirred.

    ——————–

    RG, I think, for once, you are wrong. CO2 would not separate out, even without stirring. Gases behave as if other gases are not there, due to the molecules being so sparse. This is another reason the “390ppm can’t be significant” meme is rubbish. It is actually the partial pressure of CO2, i.e. the amount of CO2, that matters. The fact that there area lot of other, non-GH gases in the atmosphere is irrelevant.

    http://library.thinkquest.org/10429/low/gaslaws/gaslaws.htm

  131. Dirk H,
    Reasonable question.
    From what I’ve read, we haven’t seen this happen in the past ( i.e., a runaway feedback loop involving increasing atmospheric temperature and increasing water vapor in the atmosphere ) because of various negative feedbacks, and because a constant positive forcing of sufficient strength (such as increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2) were lacking. As the Earth warms because of increasing CO2, the increasing atmospheric water vapor will have a multiplier effect, causing extra warming. There will be other multipliers, too, such as the loss of albedo through the loss of glaciers and the shrinking of ice caps, and the release of methane from now frozen organic matter.
    But, I don’t think the basic physics is in dispute: water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and a warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapor.

  132. John B says: October 22, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    @Lucy, I clicked on your name. To answer Otter’s question, very little peer-reviewed support and what there is comes from the few, well-known contrarians. But it is an excellent, all-in-one-place resource for all the usual “skeptic” talking points. I certainly wouldn’t send anyone there for a science education :-)

    Well well well. Nice typical alarmist behaviour John B. Ruffians’ ploy. Gagging. Denial of Witness. “The Debate Is Over”. “I’ve looked and you don’t even need to look. Believe me.”

    The fact that there are few well-known peer-reviewed “contrarians”, is a horrible indication of the advanced state of corruption in Climate Science. It doesn’t necessarily take long for corruption to take hold – cast your memory back over history.

    And I can trump your argument. There are a lot of references to peer-reviewed material, unlike what you claim. But they are not stacked quite so in-your-face as at Skeptical Science. That’s because I refer to a higher authority than peer-review, I refer in effect to “Nullius In Verba” – the motto of the Royal Society – the foundation of all true science, and the missing element in “consensus” climate science. I’ve written primarily from my own internalized understanding of Climate Science as a whole, though the references and leads to peer-reviewed material are there too. It’s precisely this wholistic understanding that’s missing, that allows “divide and rule”.

    And, John B, you may not have read me carefully enough to realize that I too was once an ardent warmist, who got persuaded otherwise purely by the science. I would be perfectly happy to send people to you for part of their science education – in addition to sending people to my own pages. If you look more carefully at my stuff, you will see RealClimate and other warmist websites linked-to. OTOH, if you go to RealClimate, you will find NO links to skeptics websites. Zilch. Nada.

  133. Jesse Fell says:
    October 23, 2011 at 8:38 am
    “From what I’ve read, we haven’t seen this happen in the past ( i.e., a runaway feedback loop involving increasing atmospheric temperature and increasing water vapor in the atmosphere ) because of various negative feedbacks, and because a constant positive forcing of sufficient strength (such as increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2) were lacking. As the Earth warms because of increasing CO2, the increasing atmospheric water vapor will have a multiplier effect, causing extra warming.”

    Water vapour content is highly variable. Shouldn’t the conditions for this runaway feedback already be met at some places, some time of the year? Whether the temperature comes about due to CO2 or due to normal solar forcing doesn’t matter.

  134. DirkH says:
    October 23, 2011 at 6:27 am

    “The tropospheric hot spot, that’s a critical one. Santer tricked around a lot to ‘find’ that; Jo Nova has written a lot about that; see http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/this-is-90-certainty-really-yet-another-paper-shows-the-hot-spot-is-missing/comment-page-1/#comment-561555
    and see also this comment http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/12/our-sustainable-mirth/#comment-765890 ‘when even Dr.Syukuro Manabe, the godfather of climate modeling, now agrees with Fred Singer that it’s not there (see Fu, 2011) and that climate models overstate the warming by 2 to 4 times.
    ‘”

    No, item #9 on the list at http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html isn’t about the model-predicted equatorial hot spot that hasn’t been found; it’s about global measurements of tropopause height.

    Can you show me a refutation of what item 9 is actually about (measurements of tropopause height), or cite a comprehensive theory that explains items 1-10 better than AGW claims to do?

  135. @jesse, greenhouse gas is physical nonsense since real greenhouse and supposed scattered radiation are totally different things. It is like marking someone “enemy of the workers and peasants” in Soviet Russia. Second, there is no increase, rather decrease of water vapor in stratosphere, totally in contrary with models, so the real world is again more complicated than “high school physics”. Third, nobody yet proved that the back scattered radiation from molecules has some substantial effect on the surface temperature, since per each “anthropogenic” CO2 molecule there are ten thousand N2/O2 molecules radiating IR downwards as well, according to their temperature. IR is more sign that the atmosphere has some above zero temperature. Subtract the heat capacity of oceans and bulk atmosphere and you get Mars – with 6,000ppm of CO2 and theoretical and practical temperature is the same, 210K.

  136. Lucy Skywalker says:
    October 23, 2011 at 9:09 am
    “Well well well. Nice typical alarmist behaviour John B. Ruffians’ ploy. Gagging. Denial of Witness. “The Debate Is Over”. “I’ve looked and you don’t even need to look. Believe me.””
    ________________
    I’m sure John B isn’t saying that he is 100% sure that everything in your website is wrong or that he wants to gag, deny witness or otherwise stifle inquiry. What he is getting at is that peer-reviewed scientific results are an important part of the modern scientific process, and that having evidence that is based in the modern scientific process is important. He is skeptical of your website because of that. Slap me if I am wrong on any of this, John B.

    I think, what some would call for is an overhaul or an improvement of your argument in your website. Do an exhaustive search for all the peer-reviewed papers that you feel best represent the science; maybe put them in a list. Get rid of any accusations or statements that don’t have a good piece of evidence associated with them. This may be another task to do, but science does not reward inaction. Also, my comment would be to get rid of that picture with the “Daily Express” tabloid headline. Not too many people put faith in what tabloids say, haha.

  137. Not sure I buy these Las Vegas tail-gate parties where people watch the nuclear bombs going off from a safe distance. Or that these detonations explain the strange weather in Nevada.
    In the late 1980s a group of us were invited to the Nevada Test Site to see the area where the underground testing was taking place. They did have two detonations where the surface material was ejected during the explosion (even though these were both underground as well). We spent 20 minutes near the edge of one crater, enough for a year’s radiation exposure. The tests were attempted to demonstrate atomic bombs as a means for large excavations. Very effective with the exception of the radioactive material left behind which would preclude human use for several thousand years. Dang.
    Tail-gate parties watching above ground atomic detonations? This would explain most of the warming in the latter part of the past century. If it were only true.

    And now we are told that America, Australia, Britain and New Zealand are embracing the carbon tax or cap and trade, not because their elected leaders are smart like hammers, but because it is a concerted effort to address the uncontrolled growth of China and India. Apparently, if you don’t believe this then you don’t know much about international diplomatic negotiations. Just so I get this right, the US is giving up producing oil, mining minerals, manufacturing etc all to China as part of a carefully planned international diplomatic negotiations to get China to reduce its CO2 emissions? And Australia, an exporting juggernaut which sends massive quantities of coal and iron ore to Asian countries and has recently introduced a carbon tax on its own people, has done this because it is engaging in international diplomatic negotiations with the US and other countries in an attempt to convince the emerging countries including China and India to reduce their CO2 emissions?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…

  138. Richard B. Woods says:
    October 23, 2011 at 9:16 am
    “No, item #9 on the list at http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html isn’t about the model-predicted equatorial hot spot that hasn’t been found; it’s about global measurements of tropopause height.

    Can you show me a refutation of what item 9 is actually about (measurements of tropopause height), or cite a comprehensive theory that explains items 1-10 better than AGW claims to do?”

    Sorry, i misread it. But shouldn’t any warming, whether caused by antropogenic CO2 or by other causes, lead to an increase in the height of the tropopause?

  139. Andrew Harding says:
    October 23, 2011 at 3:51 am

    “Otter17: You seem to have stirred up a hornet’s nest with what I think is a sensible question.”
    ____________
    Hey, thanks Andrew. Sensible questions that get one’s intellect jostled a bit are excellent exercises once in a while. It was a bit hairy responding to so many, but I had time to kill with my sprained knee, haha.

  140. The Strong snake bite – will WUWT be the cure?
    I disliked history at school, but whether that was due to my indolence or that of the teacher is debateable. However, fast-forward half a century, and it is obvious to even this historically ignorant student, that history does play a very important role in any education. “Learn from your mistakes”, we have been told, and yet most of us ignore what has happened in the past, sometimes with dire consequences.
    Every major country on this planet appears to have an urgent need to rattle its sabre to others that are weaker, but although the morals of these more powerful nationalities may be offended, the dissipation of life and wealth is usually exhausted in a cloud of obnoxious smoke. This state of affairs has been happening for centuries, and it should be concluded that we pay little heed to our expensive mistakes, and, indeed, to our history.
    Most political upheavals are generated by a single person, and, given the right circumstances, time and finance, can lead to some horrific situations for many folks in the so-called third world.
    We are now faced with another despot, who is more worldly-wise than any before him, who has accrued wealth by devious means, and thus with some well-paid assistance from academia, managed to infiltrate the largely ignorant minds of the western world regarding anthropogenic global warming. This person’s name is Maurice Strong, whose obsession with control is possibly paranoiac.
    Strong’s success is underpinned by strategic use of propaganda, especially to younger people via a generation of teachers who have been indoctrinated via their various training colleges. This is considerable cause for concern, but more importantly, a world-wide block was made on main-stream media some years ago, which although a few brave-hearted editors, publishers and owners ignored, it was usually to their cost.
    The only means of communication that cannot be stymied with regard to this particular matter, or to any other come to that, is by the marvellous, international web, and it is for such efforts of WUWT, GWPF, JoNova, the Hill, et al that we must be truly thankful for, in order that hopefully, some sense will be discerned by one or more politicians, and that we can rid this blue planet of its green shackles. (Apologies, Vaclav.)
    Chris

  141. otter17 says:
    October 23, 2011 at 9:51 am

    Lucy Skywalker says:
    October 23, 2011 at 9:09 am
    “Well well well. Nice typical alarmist behaviour John B. Ruffians’ ploy. Gagging. Denial of Witness. “The Debate Is Over”. “I’ve looked and you don’t even need to look. Believe me.””
    ________________
    I’m sure John B isn’t saying that he is 100% sure that everything in your website is wrong or that he wants to gag, deny witness or otherwise stifle inquiry. What he is getting at is that peer-reviewed scientific results are an important part of the modern scientific process, and that having evidence that is based in the modern scientific process is important. He is skeptical of your website because of that. Slap me if I am wrong on any of this, John B.

    I think, what some would call for is an overhaul or an improvement of your argument in your website. Do an exhaustive search for all the peer-reviewed papers that you feel best represent the science; maybe put them in a list. Get rid of any accusations or statements that don’t have a good piece of evidence associated with them. This may be another task to do, but science does not reward inaction. Also, my comment would be to get rid of that picture with the “Daily Express” tabloid headline. Not too many people put faith in what tabloids say, haha.

    ————–

    That’s about right. But the reason you will never see a fully peer-review supported “skeptic” site is that the peer-reviewed literature overwhelmingly supports the mainstream view. Hence, “skeptics” invoke conspiracy theories and talk about “pal review”, except when applied to the handful of papers that support their personal views, in which case peer review is taken to mean that those papers are unassailable.

  142. Hi all —
    We just got back from our vacation in South Korea. Over there, they have gone green in a big way. All the restaurants have gone to CFLs — didn’t see on incandescent bulb in even the smallest restaurant. On one of the smaller bus tours (Namsan Park/Tower), at the end of the tour the bus drivers jump out and connect a giant electrical cord to an electrical charging station (the buses are electrically powered, but the route is only about 5 miles).
    Many of the neighborhood parks also have huge solar-cell arrays. The park near where we stayed also had a large LED display showing power output, and had some exercise equipment that would show how much electricity and CO2 you generated when you used it.
    How is this possible? Well, it appears the government taxes the daylights out of the populace. And our restaurant bills had a hefty 10% value-added tax added to the bill.
    Koreans also have socialized health care — $10,000 per family per year, but understand it’s pretty good.

    The people all seem pretty happy — seems the government minimally regulates business, so it is easy to make money. The biggest protest when I was over there — the small “chop-house” owners in downtown Seoul, who cater to the business crowd during lunch were protesting the fees charged by the credit-card companies — claim they are making it difficult to profit.

  143. From my past brief perusal, I think Lucy’s site is OK and a good effort to bring some general points to bear. Certainly, if we consider that the single solitary basis for good science is skepticism before acceptance – then the questioning/querying type presentation is entirely appropriate. It’s not right ’til it’s proven – and until that point everyone (who is a scientist) should be skeptical and keep questioning – science is not done by concensus.
    As for the r’equirement’ for peer reviewed references – I’d ask the doubters to comment on how many NON peer reviewed stuff was included in IPCC’s AR4 !!! But of course, Lucys site is just for casual observers and is Sooooo important that it must be above reproach! However, by contrast the IPCC machinations – which are purported to be ‘required’ reading for the ENTIRE fecking world are perfectly at liberty to use non peer reviewed and other NGO type references!! I’d suggest you start to look at the so called ‘settled science’ first!…..

  144. Urgent warning to the Canadians:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/23/us-warming-idUSTRE79M2L720111023?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&rpc=22&sp=true

    “Global temperature rise could exceed “safe” levels of two degrees Celsius in some parts of the world in many of our lifetimes if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, two research papers published in the journal Nature warned.”
    “”Large parts of Eurasia, North Africa and Canada could potentially experience individual five-year average temperatures that exceed the 2 degree Celsius threshold by 2030 — a timescale that is not so distant,” the paper said.”

    They don’t mention Minnesota but I fear the worst for them.

  145. Jurajv,

    I had never heard that the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere was part of the issue — I’ve always read that it is amount of water vapor in the troposphere that is significant.

    You write: “Nobody yet proved that the back scattered radiation from molecules has some substantial effect on the surface temperature.” I’ve read that the greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier (1763 – 1830), and that Fourier’s discovery was confirmed and elaborated by subsequent researchers, such as John Tyndall (1820 – 1893) , Svante Arrhenius (1858 -1927), G.N. Plass (1920 -2004), and a host of modern researchers. Their fundamental papers are reprinted in an anthology titled “The Warming Papers,”, ed. David Archer. If you know of publications that overturn the work of these scientists, I would be glad to hear about it.

    Fourier’s discovery was that CO2 absorbs (rather than blocks) IR, warming in the process; and that the more it warms, the more IR it emits itself, in all directions — one of those directions being down. This would necessarily warm the surface of the Earth; in fact, scientists believe that the surface of the Earth receives more heat energy from the atmosphere than from the sun directly.

    And, I was never read a refutation of what for decades has been called “the natural greenhouse effect” — the warming effect of the greenhouse gases that occur in the atmosphere naturally. The usual calculation is that without these naturally occurring gases, the surface temperature of the Earth would be around zero degrees fahrenheit — or something in that uncomfortable neighborhood.

  146. Lucy Skywalker,

    Don’t let the execrable troll John B get to you. He is invariably wrong, as you pointed out in your correction. You have an amazingly thorough and well documented site with loads of peer reviewed papers, charts and studies refuting the CAGW nonsense.

    The alarmist contingent argues incessantly, but the one true test of whether they are right or wrong is this.

    The planet itself falsifies their ridiculous CO2 conjecture, and there’s not a damn thing they can do about the fact that the real world is making fools of the True Believers and their non-existent “carbon” threat.

  147. otter17 says: —

    Otter you post the REALLY MISLEADING CO2 “abosorption experiment, which I’ve commented on before.

    If you check, you will find a pronounced CO2 absorption peak at 900 nanometers. This compares with the 6000 nanometer peaks and 12000 nanometer peaks which are the IMPORTANT RADIATIVE EXCHANGE PEAKS for atmospheric physics. THE FLAME in the demonstration you post generates a emission peak at 900 nanometers, because IT IS EXCITED CO2. Bully for you, you’ve intented an IR Spectrometer. The “infra red camera” is actually sensitive to only NEAR infra-red, NOT “far infra red”. What I would be fascinated by would be to find the RE-EMISSION (which happens!) in this system in the 6000 and 12000 nanometer range. (And the fact that, NO, not all of said far IR is contained in this system.)

    Now, since I’ve given you the PRECISE DETAILS TO SHOW THAT THIS DEMONSTRATION IS MEANINGLESS…what part of “intellectual dishonesty” do you file this under? Not QUITE as deliberately devious as Al Gore’s demo, but really on the same level.

    Better luck next time. FAIL.

    Max

  148. John B says:
    October 23, 2011 at 8:31 am
    R. Gates says:
    October 23, 2011 at 5:32 am

    CO2 is far more well mixed in the atmosphere than oil would be in water, and while it is true that CO2 is more dense than air and if there was absolutely no wind and constant churning of the atmosphere CO2 would separate out from air and settle to the ground, that’s not the planet we happen to live on…i..e. the container is constantly being stirred.

    ——————–

    RG, I think, for once, you are wrong. CO2 would not separate out, even without stirring. Gases behave as if other gases are not there, due to the molecules being so sparse. This is another reason the “390ppm can’t be significant” meme is rubbish. It is actually the partial pressure of CO2, i.e. the amount of CO2, that matters. The fact that there area lot of other, non-GH gases in the atmosphere is irrelevant.
    ———
    Thanks for the explanation. I certainly know that CO2 is well mixed, and the notion that is an insignificant trace gas is garbage, but now I can research a bit more about why

  149. Interesting post from Judy Curry’s site: (by me:)

    There is a common narrative in the breathless, orchestrated press accounts of the BEST results: Climate skeptics do not believe that the World has been warming. The BEST results confirm what everybody else (the smart people) already knew; the World has been warming. The Global Warming debate that was over, is over once again. The science that was settled, is settled again. The team has a new convert and hero, Dr. Richard Muller.

    But this media blitz is hyperventilating BS propaganda. Most climate skeptics know that the World has warmed in recent history. And most of those who agree that there has been warming believe that some of that warming is the result of radiative forcing from anthropogenic CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.

    Richard Muller, the orchestra leader/former skeptic, sets up the straw man:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html#printMode

    “The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism
    There were good reasons for doubt, until now.”

    Dr. Muller goes on to lay out the straw man version of the significant objections of the skeptics, which were the basis for their erroneous disbelief of the team’s story on AGW. Bad surface stations, and UHI effect. Well, he promptly lays those issues to rest with his as yet non-peer-reviewed study results. The problem is, those aren’t really the most significant objections of the skeptics, and he really did not lay them to rest. See Anthony Watts on the surface stations issue:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/best-what-i-agree-with-and-what-i-disagree-with-plus-a-call-for-additional-transparency-to-preven-pal-review/#more-49721

    See William Briggs reaction:

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/

    Briggs sums it up succinctly:

    “His conclusion is that “Global warming is real.” He hopes that “Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.”

    But this blog, and all of the scientists who are critics, have agreed with this conclusion since this beginning. There simply is no debate on this question. There are no tempers to cool.

    There has been, and still is, a vigorous disputation on the size of the warming and our confidence on this magnitude of warming. And Muller forgets that there has been a much more contentious argumentation about why the temperature has increased (in some places and cooled in others).

    Just one thing about the first point of contention. If you look, say, at the year 1945 and compare it to the year 2010, you find warming of a certain size. But if you begin at 1940, just five years earlier, you find much less warming. Temperature increases (or decreases) are always relative to something (this is a point of logic, not physics). The choice of the comparator is arbitrary and subjective. Because of this, it is possible, and it has oft occurred, that someone wanting to stress the size of the increase will choose a comparator that best makes his case. Muller doesn’t state in his editorial what his comparator is; or why he has chosen just one.

    However, we can afford to be as generous as Muller when he invited skepticism and allow that his statistical results are far more certain than any prior analysis. This merely brings us to the big question. As to that, Muller admits:

    How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.

    From that he insists, “you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.” Somebody has to remind Mr Muller that skeptics aren’t skeptical of that some warming (and some cooling) has occurred. We are skeptics about our ability to explain this warming (and cooling), and to predict skillfully future warming (and cooling).

    The fallacy—and it is a fallacy Mr Muller commits—is to suppose that because many climatologists have offered one theory for the observed warming (and cooling), and that, at least for the moment, they cannot think of one better, that therefore their theory is true. Thus, I remain skeptical.”

  150. Smokey says:
    October 23, 2011 at 11:29 am

    Lucy Skywalker,

    Don’t let the execrable troll John B get to you. He is invariably wrong, as you pointed out in your correction. You have an amazingly thorough and well documented site with loads of peer reviewed papers, charts and studies refuting the CAGW nonsense.

    The alarmist contingent argues incessantly, but the one true test of whether they are right or wrong is this.

    The planet itself falsifies their ridiculous CO2 conjecture, and there’s not a damn thing they can do about the fact that the real world is making fools of the True Believers and their non-existent “carbon” threat.

    —————

    Smokey, tell me this: how can 10 years or so of relatively flat temperatures be “refuting the CAGW nonsense” when 30+ years of declining Arctic sea ice is regularly cited here as being far too short a time span to be significant?

    And if/when the energy imbalance re-emerges as surface warming and your cherry picked charts become obviously nonsense, will you admit you were wrong?

  151. Over at Climate Etc. P.E. | October 19, 2011 at 2:46 pm | linked to this video. Many here will accept that acceleration & deceleration alter perception in that context. Earth samples temporally nonstationary solar cycles quasi-discretely via summers of opposite poles & hemispheres. Are participants willing to recognize aliasing in the latter context [ http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn4.png ]? The spatial aggregation kernel in that context is asymmetric (distribution of continents) & nonlinear [T(K)^4, ocean-continent contrast, thermal wind] and thus subject to differential leverage (spatiotemporal version of Simpson’s Paradox). Rough sketch volunteered here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/15/shifting-sun-earth-moon-harmonies-beats-biases/ . Acceleration & deceleration of the solar drive-wheel is modulating the fractal dimension of northern hemisphere westerly flow (& thus diurnal venting). This multidecadal variation rides on top of global climate changes manifested as latitudinal jet shifts that I speculate relate to the integral of solar activity (one clue being 30S-90S SST, which falls in the band where fractal dimension is much closer to 1 due to the circumpolar Southern Ocean, which is relatively free of deflecting obstacles & zonally differentially-leveraging physical contrasts). Please take some time to think about this carefully.

  152. “The tests were attempted to demonstrate atomic bombs as a means for large excavations. Very effective with the exception of the radioactive material left behind which would preclude human use for several thousand years. Dang.”

    It’s called advance planning. You should see the skyscrapers they’re going to build in those holes … er, in 50,000 years.

    “Just so I get this right, the US is giving up producing oil, mining minerals, manufacturing etc all to China as part of a carefully planned international diplomatic negotiations to get China to reduce its CO2 emissions?”

    Yes, ’cause if they have all of those fossil fuels, they won’t use them (???) so their CO2 emissions will go down. And in case the implications to national security of our appearing to surrender oil and mineral extraction to other countries including China have occurred to you, don’t worry: it’s all part of an elaborate plot to lull our enemies into a false sense of security …

  153. John B
    Since Arctic is just as “warm” as it was 70 years ago, Arctic ice was probably the same.

    Wanking on that trivial post-1990 trend will change nothing on facts that the allegedly most sensitive (polar) areas show just cyclic ups and downs related to AMO (Arctic) or nothing at all, even cooling (Antarctic).

  154. Just wondering if you were quoted correctly relating to the BEST results?

    At least one of those skeptics, Anthony Watts, had written in March on his climate-themed blog, Watts Up With That, “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.”

  155. Lucy Skywalker: “I’ve written primarily from my own internalized understanding of Climate Science as a whole, though the references and leads to peer-reviewed material are there too.”

    Well, we all have our own “internalized understanding” of climate science, or any other items of knowledge for that matter. The issue, Lucy, is the justification for one’s knowledge.

    By implication, you are claiming that your own understanding of climate is superior to that of the scientists who have spent their working lives studying the subject, and you claim a “higher authority”: “Nullius in verba”, “take nobody’s word for it”.

    But of course the motto also applies to you, in which case your higher authority is moot.

    In that case, you still need to supply a justification that supports your claim that you have discovered a “wholistic understanding that’s missing” from climate science. What is your justification for your claimed superior understanding?

  156. RGates
    ‘We need to go back to the mid-Pliocence for this, about 3.3 Million years ago. Looking at this era, we see that global temps were around 3C to 4.5C warmer…which correlates closely with what global climate models are saying. ‘
    ________________________________________
    Ah, yes, the Pliocene Canard.
    Do your precious ‘global climate models’ include the Strait of Panama?
    When it closed off world temperatures plummeted,
    with CO2 levels dropping thereafter
    (plants have been in mourning until now).
    If CO2 was the almighty warming-engine of alarmist delusions,
    then the mountains of Panama wouldn’t have changed a thing.

    Also, you forgot negative feedbacks, the bane of alarmists.
    The world will probably only warm a nearly unmeasurable 0.5 C,
    mostly on cold winter nights.

  157. LazyTeenager says:

    October 23, 2011 at 6:37 am

    Andrew Harding said
    Is this the same sort of diplomacy we had in the 1980′s when al the western world’s socialists were telling us to give up our nuclear weapons because if we did, Russia would do the same? Reagan and Thatcher did the opposite and the world is a safer place as a result.
    ———
    Your recollection seems to be different from mine. There was an escalation in research into defensive technologies. I don’t believe there was an escalation in the nuclear weapons stockpiles. There were likely existing nuclear nonproliferation treaties in place. Could be wrong maybe I should check the timeline
    Here in UK in the early 80’s we had Michael Foot as leader of the Labour Party, the policy was to scrap all nuclear weapons. Reagan in the US was looking at Star Wars technology, using satellites with lasers to track and destroy USSR missiles. Maragret Thatcher came to power in 1979 and strengthened our armed forces and bought Poseidon from the US to replace the ageing Polaris submarine fleet. The USSR whose defence budget was huge could not afford to compete and the Russian empire collapsed, culminating in the reunion of East & West Germany with the destruction of the Berlin Wall.
    This is my recollection of events but I too could be wrong.

    Otter17 hope your knee gets better but at least your typing skills have!!

  158. John B has his usual baseless opinion, while I provide literally hundreds of charts and graphs showing CO2=CAGW to be utter nonsense, and Lucy Skywalker maintains a huge site resource that completely debunks the false alarmists’ ridiculous narrative.

    Who should we believe, alarmists lying for money, or the planet itself? Planet Earth doesn’t lie, while the alarmist crowd constantly does.

    Wake me when the climate null hypothesis is falsified. Until then, CAGW is all smoke and mirrors.

  159. @jesse, my fault – troposphere is correct.
    If there is the same physics on Mars, we would see the pure greenhouse effect caused by 6,000 ppm of CO2 in its atmosphere warming the surface. There is nothing.
    If CO2 is the reason of warming here, we would see its pronounced effect in Antarctic, where cold air holds almost no water vapor and CO2 creates relative portion of so called “greenhouse effect”. There is nothing observed like this.

    If CO2 has warmed Arctic, temperature could not be on the 1940s level, never.

    Arctic is governed by North Atlantic oscillations, which is finally admitted even in BEST – “err the human fingerprint in recent warming somewhat overstated”.
    Incorrectly assigning wrongly calculated 33K effect to only back-radiation is just nonsense. Simple heat retention of atmosphere and oceans can not be ignored. This is a main mistake of the whole radiative pseudoscience and does not matter how thick arrow has Trenberth painted in his funkey school diagrams.

  160. Max Hugoson says:
    October 23, 2011 at 11:32 am

    “…. (And the fact that, NO, not all of said far IR is contained in this system.)

    Now, since I’ve given you the PRECISE DETAILS TO SHOW THAT THIS DEMONSTRATION IS MEANINGLESS…what part of “intellectual dishonesty” do you file this under? Not QUITE as deliberately devious as Al Gore’s demo, but really on the same level.

    Better luck next time. FAIL.”
    __________________

    First off, you could be far more cordial to me in your correspondence and point me towards your potential corrections. I presented that video as a demonstration, in line with the discussion I was having with Latitude and others on a CO2 analogy. I realize that it is a visualization of the greenhouse effect and not necessarily an experiment to prove every detail of the greenhouse effect. If you think it is intellectually dishonest, take that up with Iain Stewart or the BBC, those who published “Earth: A Biography”.

    Aside from all that, Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius laid the groundwork for the greenhouse effect in the 1800’s. Yes, re-radiation is something that has been known to physics for some time, and not all that is re-radiated comes back to Earth (though of course some does). Check out this peer-reviewed paper (abstract) from “Geophysical Research Letters”. It shows that these Swiss scientists were able to measure an increased amount of radiation coming back to Earth, corroborating the greenhouse effect.

  161. TimC says:
    October 23, 2011 at 6:33 am

    Actually there are now some encouraging signs, at least in England and the UK. It’s becoming blindingly obvious to all (even to “null points” Huhne) that UK feed-in tariffs are having the most appalling effect on UK energy price inflation and fuel poverty. This might at last give our crazed politicians pause for thought.

    The BBC said today Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is not all that far from being in fuel poverty!

  162. @Frank Kotler
    Wanna buy a nuclear waste repository?

    Actually I don’t want the repository, I want to buy what you would refer to as ‘waste’.

  163. Kev-in-Uk says:
    October 23, 2011 at 10:54 am
    “As for the r’equirement’ for peer reviewed references – I’d ask the doubters to comment on how many NON peer reviewed stuff was included in IPCC’s AR4 !!! ”

    Yes, many understand that the IPCC AR4 has some non peer reviewed material in it. Nevertheless, the majority of the information is peer reviewed and that material which is not peer reviewed is generally mulled over carefully by a team of expert authors. Were there a few bad references in AR4? Yes. I believe many were rightly identified and are to be kept out of the next report. Working Group One, the section of AR4 that covered the science behind climate change I believe had a quite high percentage of peer reviewed material.

    One must realize that the IPCC AR4 represents probably the most comprehensive “cream of the crop” collection of scientific knowledge on climate change compiled in one place. Here, for fun, take a look at the references for the scientific basis section of AR4. Click on any one of those chapters (1 through 11) and then click on the References. There are a LOT of good peer reviewed papers and results.

    http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

    I am not saying that the IPCC AR4 is infallible, but it represents a culmination of sorts in the scientific process.

  164. For those who’d like to read a very interesting scientific paper on ice sheets, Milankovitch cycles, CO2, and feedbacks versus forcings, I’d highly recommend this:

    http://www.clim-past.net/2/43/2006/cp-2-43-2006.pdf

    Really gets into the nitty-gritty as to why CO2, glacial, and interglacial cycles are so closely (though not precisely) in sync. There is something here for skeptic and warmist alike. Get a big bowl of popcorn for this one, and there’s lots to chew on here…

  165. John B says:
    October 23, 2011 at 10:31 am

    “That’s about right. But the reason you will never see a fully peer-review supported “skeptic” site is that the peer-reviewed literature overwhelmingly supports the mainstream view. Hence, “skeptics” invoke conspiracy theories and talk about “pal review”, except when applied to the handful of papers that support their personal views, in which case peer review is taken to mean that those papers are unassailable.”
    =======
    Ya coulda just said this.

    “The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy. ”
    —H.L. Mencken

    And been just as mistaken.

  166. Jesse Fell says:
    October 23, 2011 at 12:58 am

    “The effect of water vapor is far less problematic. It is a potent greenhouse gas that will lead to further warming, which will enable the atmosphere to hold more moisture which will lead to further warming . .. and so on.”

    More moisture equals more rain equals more snow on mountains equals advancing glaciers – little ice age? – big ice age?

  167. Smokey says:
    October 23, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    John B has his usual baseless opinion, while I provide literally hundreds of charts and graphs showing CO2=CAGW to be utter nonsense, and Lucy Skywalker maintains a huge site resource that completely debunks the false alarmists’ ridiculous narrative.

    Who should we believe, alarmists lying for money, or the planet itself? Planet Earth doesn’t lie, while the alarmist crowd constantly does.

    Wake me when the climate null hypothesis is falsified. Until then, CAGW is all smoke and mirrors.

    —————-

    Yes Smokey, you do indeed have a very large bowl of cherries, but cherries they remain. If you think you’ve really got something, do some real work and write a paper. I don’t need to do likewise because I am happy that the scientists who have devoted their lives to working on this stuff have done and continue to do a fine job. And those scientists largely agree that the null hypothesis has been falsified, as summarised in IPCC AR4, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations”. Does that make me a “true believer”? No, just not a conspiracy theorist.

    Politicians, I’m not so sure about…

  168. Billy Liar,
    I some places where it is still cold enough to snow, increased moisture will in fact lead to more snowfall. Snowfall is accumulating in the interior of Greenland, for example. But, at the same time, Greenland is losing ice around its edges.

    jurajV, I would imagine that even though the atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2, there isn’t much greenhouse effect because there isn’t much atmosphere. The surface pressure of the Martian atmosphere is about 1% of what it is on Earth.

  169. Just to drive a stake through the heart of the believe in an ever ongoing increase in downwelling LWIR radiation, and the resulting, inevitable positive water vapour feedback –

    Measurements of Long wave infrared backradiation show a decline over 12 years in the Great Plains.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/04/another-blow-to-warmist-theory.html

    The problem is, you see, that cloudiness is not unaffected by the increase in water vapour content. Or in other words, matters get slightly more complicated when you consider that water does change its state while in the atmosphere.

    See also

    http://204.38.191.104/robinson/9cl1.htm

    “Sequential water vapor images viewed in rapid succession to detect motion show water vapor transported horizontally as huge swirling plumes, often originating in the tropics and moving into higher latitudes.
    A typical water vapor plume is thousands of kilometers long and several hundred kilometers wide.
    Plumes supply moisture to hurricanes, clusters of thunderstorms, and winter storms.
    In spring and summer, such water vapor plumes have been associated with exceptionally heavy rain and flash floods.”

  170. I’ve seen a number of blogs that have shown how data adjustments have resulted in higher temperatures at some locations. Has Mueller addressed these instances?

  171. This morning,BBC World Report[?] covered Italian plans to place a reflective sheet on the Marmolada glacier, during the warm season. This geo-engineering effort will retard Global Warming-induced melting, protecting and preserving ski-tourism income.

    I have been unable to find other coverage; is it a useful idea?

  172. You’re simply the BEST – cobbled from all the rest
    Better than GISS – or even the British Met
    I’m stuck on your heat, I hang on every word you say
    Urban heat island, no baby, no f**kin way!

    (With apologies to Tina Turner)

  173. otter17 says:
    October 23, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    I trust you understood the point I was trying to make however?
    here’s another couple to consider…
    consider F1 racing (of which I am a follower) – why are there no women F1 drivers? could it be that the vast majority of motorsport participants are male? and as they progress up the motorsport ladder, the likelihood of ‘seeing’ a female in an F1 driving seat decreases exponentially!
    Now compare that analogy to peer review in climate science – especially starting from a grass roots funding level. how many research projects are funded to ‘disprove’ AGW? compare then to the number that are funded to ‘prove’ this or that effect from ‘modeled’ CO2 /AGW changes? In other words, the title or intent of the research ‘tags’ along with the supposed concensus to gain funding. Ergo, more positive AGW research is thus undertaken, which thus gets through peer review and the amount of such research is inversely proportional to the anti-AGW type research! The majority of skeptic scientists are working quietly, often without funding, in the background – not necessarily because they are simply belligerent buggers, but because they correctly question the theory and because they are stumped for anwers from the warmista – they go and look for it themselves!

    then again, real scientists are always questioning and asking deliberately tricky questions and should be trying to prove their theories wrong ALL the time. That way, they can feel they have attacked the theory from every side themselves.

    as for the semantics about warming and CO2 – unless a quantitative, demonstrable proof is shown – it’s all just political hot air IMO. I don’t believe it because I bothered to look at the available facts – NOT just the concensus interpretation! Sure, we can observe that we have had some warming, but hey, that’s potentially entirely natural! there is no causal proof of CO2 and temps. Taking the last ten years is a classic example – previously, we were told that it was all AGW- now, the team tell us its because of natural variation that the warming has been reduced. Ok, that’s fine – but then if you say to them that the prior warming could have been natural too – it’s the d-word for you! Crazy, one sided, twisted, pseudoscience abounds in this field and until someone shows me (with replicated REAL experimentation and observations) otherwise, I’ll stick with being skeptical. THAT, is the true scientific way1

  174. John R T says:
    October 23, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    Hmm – I wouldn’t have thought so!
    1) whats the area compared to the total surface area of the earth. (Unless its the size of a continent -i really wouldn’t bother!) I can’t see it affecting global temps on such a small scale.
    2) what happens to the re-radiated sunlight/radiation? I’d suspect that it will simply cause warmer air temps?
    3) the latent heat absorbed in melting and subliming the glacial surface is ‘taken’ up by the water so produced – whereas reflected energy is gonna end up at least partly in the atmosphere and could cause localised weather changes?
    I will try and find something about it see what the logical reasons are though!

  175. John B says:
    October 23, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    how can 10 years or so of relatively flat temperatures be “refuting the CAGW nonsense” when 30+ years of declining Arctic sea ice is regularly cited here as being far too short a time span to be significant?

    Easy. It’s the AGW crowd that claim our CO2 emissions are the dominant factor in global temperature change. This has to be true in every instance to come close to validating the theory. It only takes one piece of contradictory evidence to falsify it.

    30 years of averaged ARCTIC sea ice decline doesn’t verify AGW.

    Does a similar period of averaged ANTARCTIC sea ice INcrease validate AGW?
    Does the lack of an upper tropospheric hotspot validate AGW?
    Does a lack of warming for half of a ‘standard’ climate base period validate AGW?
    Does a slowing of sea level rise validate AGW?
    Does an r-squared correlation value between CO2 and global temperatures of WAAAAAY below 0.5 validate AGW?

  176. John R T says:
    October 23, 2011 at 3:15 pm
    “This morning,BBC World Report[?] covered Italian plans to place a reflective sheet on the Marmolada glacier, during the warm season. This geo-engineering effort will retard Global Warming-induced melting, protecting and preserving ski-tourism income.

    I have been unable to find other coverage; is it a useful idea?”

    Only when they do it entirely by sustainable technology; i.e. muscle power.

  177. John B says:
    October 23, 2011 at 2:16 pm
    I don’t need to do likewise because I am happy that the scientists who have devoted their lives to working on this stuff have done and continue to do a fine job. And those scientists largely agree that the null hypothesis has been falsified, as summarised in IPCC AR4,

    ___________________________________

    You really need to see the review by Judith Carry of the great IPCC. She was a member of this most “impressive group”. I cant even type that with a straight face.. http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/19/laframboise-on-the-ipcc/

    If the review isn’t enough let me know i will send you the $5 for the book she reviews explaining these scientists who have devoted their lives. Just a guess, but you watched and believed Big Al’s last movie ?

  178. Kev-in-Uk says:
    October 23, 2011 at 3:32 pm

    “I trust you understood the point I was trying to make however?
    here’s another couple to consider…
    consider F1 racing (of which I am a follower) – why are there no women F1 drivers?
    …… ”
    ___________________

    The claim of biased funding is a common claim among [snip], and could potentially be a valid one. Nevertheless, a skeptical person would not lend credence to such a claim without evidence (I for one am skeptical of your claim). One cannot accuse the scientific process of bias unless some evidence is provided. I challenge you to find me information that compares the funding for scientists side by side. I want names and yearly funding figures. Funding from all sources is encouraged, if possible. You don’t have to have all the evidence at once. I’m patient. Now go nuts finding evidence.

  179. John B says:
    October 23, 2011 at 12:13 pm
    “how can 10 years or so of relatively flat temperatures be “refuting the CAGW nonsense” when 30+ years of declining Arctic sea ice is regularly cited here as being far too short a time span to be significant?”

    The decline in Arctic Sea Ice is not seen as insignificant but as a cyclical occurence that regularly leads to media panicking. This is well documented.

    http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/

    Heatwave melts North Pole, 1958

    http://www.real-science.com/arctic-temperatures-1958

  180. otter17 says:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:14 pm
    I challenge you to find me information that compares the funding for scientists side by side.

    I will reverse the challenge for you and make it easier. Find me 20 studies just 20 in the last 6 months that refutes agw and I will find you 80 that says its real or here is the catastrophe it will cause. Think hard, think you can find me 20?

  181. Wait, I know that the term “denier” (not calling anyone that) was prohibited, but I said the word “contrarian” (not calling anyone that in this post either) in my post just above. Is that word not ok either? If so, then ok the snip is alright I’ll use “skeptic” as the term of choice from here on out.

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

  182. @Keith:

    Does a similar period of averaged ANTARCTIC sea ice INcrease validate AGW?
    Antarctic not predicted to show significant loss of ice, yet, as it is currently too cold.

    Does the lack of an upper tropospheric hotspot validate AGW?
    This is a fingerprint of any warming (even Spencer agrees on that), and probably due to measurement deficiencies.

    Does a lack of warming for half of a ‘standard’ climate base period validate AGW?
    Not strictly true, but if it continues to not warm for another decade, it will invalidate AGW. (If warming resumes, do you think that will validate AGW)

    Does a slowing of sea level rise validate AGW?
    Ditto

    Does an r-squared correlation value between CO2 and global temperatures of WAAAAAY below 0.5 validate AGW?
    Nobody ever said it would be linear.

    But really, you can’t do science by one-liners. If these things really bother you, look a bit deeper.

  183. otter17,

    By your own definition, the “contrarians” are the Believers in CAGW.

    The OISM Petition lists well over 30,000 profesionals with degrees in the hard sciences, including over 9,000 PhD’s, who have co-signed this statement:

    The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

    Alarmists have tried several times to get as many signers for their various counter-petitions, but they haven’t come close, even if you total all their various petitions [and the same signers are on all the different petitions].

    So you see, the alarmist crowd is much smaller than you think it is. Thus they [and you] are the contrarians. The majority of scientists know that CAGW is bogus, and the 30 thousand+ signers on the OISM Petition proves it.

  184. A comment in a thread earlier this week got me thinking. The ‘skeptical’ position is a bit incoherent. Contradictory even. Some say the globe hasn’t warmed in the modern era (not so many lately), some say it has. Some say the greenhouse effect is rubbish (the infamous G&T paper and the many people who back/ed it), others that it is real. Some say that the temperature record is unreliable, others that it is pretty good if not perfect. One person may argue that climate sensitivity is low, but then say that climate changes a great deal, which strongly implies a higher sensitivity than is normally argued for in the skpetical canon. Some say we’re headed for global cooling, others that it will warm but not much.

    A neutral visitor to WUWT and the skeptiverse in general comes across these varying positions if they delve into the comments, or even if they read enough articles. One strength of the mainstream view is that it is coherent. The messages don’t change with the predilections of the blogger or poster, and there is little in the way of inner contradiction (I know some may have an issue with that, but bear with me).

    On the premise that an incoherent POV is a weak one, and that there is not a great deal of scientific unity in the skeptical viewpoint/s, I wondered if it would be worth conducting a poll to get a consensus position from skeptics on various basic concepts. In my mind the questions are something like:

    The world has warmed over the 20th century – strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree

    There is experimental evidence that increased CO2 in a volume of air will increase the warmth of that volume – s a/a/d/s d

    It is reasonable to expect that increasing CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause some warming at the Earth’s surface – s a/a/d/s d

    The instrumental surface temperature records are completely unreliable – s a/a/d/s d

    Published studies corroborating the IPCC view of AGW are almost certainly constructed by biased scientists – s a/a/d/s d

    It is impossible, or illegitimate, to derive a global average temperature – s a/a/d/s d

    It is more likely than not that the Earth is heading for an extended period of global cooling – s a/a/d/s d

    etc.

    Those off the top of my head, based on what I read fairly regularly in the skeptical blogosphere. A real poll would require more care on phrasing etc to make the questions as neutral as possible.

    I guess that some people may think some of the questions patronising, but these are honestly the concepts that I see argued by skeptics with some frequency. I would try not to put my own stamp on the questions. I consider myself a neutral observer who tends to go along with the mainstream view because I’m not qualified enough to make a judgement against it. It would be interesting to see how skeptics would phrase the questions – in the best of all worlds the questions would be arrived at by collaboration.

    Obviously, a poll isn’t science. But personally I’d like some clarity on what the skeptical position actually is (the science, not the political stance), and also what it isn’t, or if there is even a general consensus on various concepts. I guess I hope that a simple poll might, indirectly, encourage reflection and ultimately a firming up around core ‘rebuttals’ to the mainstream view that aren’t contradictory. A cynical person might say that the skeptics’ cause is best promoted by an all-out attack – that an overarching, coherent position would be more vulnerable to dismantling. But I believe skeptics care as much about promoting a logically coherent rebuttal to the mainstream view as they do about winning the political battle. That’s kind of why I’d like to see a poll like this.

  185. Wasting time dreaming up ways to control CO2 emissions is entirely stupid.
    1) CO2 does not and cannot drive climate. It’s a trace gas which has been much higher than now several times over the last 200 years, as lately as the 1940 when it was 440-550 ppm (only 390 ppm currently).
    2) Even if CO2 could warm the climate, it would be only 0.002 deg C due to our emissions. There is solid science out here that CO2 would actually lead to a bit of cooling by ramping up the global water vapor convection heat engine.
    3) CO2 has been rising steadily while the limate has done nothing and even cooled since 1996. The two are clearly not linked.
    4) CO2 emissions have gone up drastically while CO2 rise has been linear, if not slightly decreasing in rate of growth. This clearly indicates that the atmospheric CO2 rise is not due to or controlled by or caused by human activity.
    4) CO2 is plant food and there is no down side to greening the planet and having plenty of food.

    Of course, if you are anti-human, none of this is good news and you will be against the truth.

  186. Jeff D says:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    “I will reverse the challenge for you and make it easier. Find me 20 studies just 20 in the last 6 months that refutes agw and I will find you 80 that says its real or here is the catastrophe it will cause. Think hard, think you can find me 20?”
    ______________________

    Forgive me if I don’t understand, what is this particular challenge supposed to prove?

    Anyway, here is a LARGE list of references to get you started. Click on the link below. Then click on any one of those chapters (1 through 11) and then click on the References. There are a LOT of peer reviewed papers.

    http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

    As far as papers that fit your position, I can think of a few off the top of my head. Some of these had some flaws and had rebuttals written against them.
    Spencer, Braswell, 2010 (Remote Sensing)
    Lindzen, Choi, 2009 (Geophysical Research Letters)
    Soon, Baliunas, 2003 (Energy & Environment)

  187. Smokey says:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    “The OISM Petition lists well over 30,000 profesionals with degrees in the hard sciences, including over 9,000 PhD’s, who have co-signed this statement:”
    __________________________

    I don’t think I mentioned anything about outnumbering anybody, did I? Anyway, Smokey, could you verify how many of those 9000 PhD’s are practicing climate scientists, such that there is an apples to apples comparison? I am skeptical that all of those 9000 PhD’s you mention are practicing climate scientists. I would prefer if that could be verified through a statement from the petition owners or some link to evidence, a website link.

  188. Smokey, if you could subdue your tone a bit, I and others would likely appreciate it. The way you are antagonizing people doesn’t make for as healthy of a thread discussion.

  189. R. Gates says:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    Some of you who favor solar and ocean cycles as causes of past climate changes may enjoy this rather interesting article that combines both rather convincingly:

    http://www.clim-past.net/2/79/2006/cp-2-79-2006.html

    Hmmm. By only using TSI it’s overlooking EUV and magnetic flux for starters, both of may have greater than zero impact. It’s therefore probably overstating the impact of TSI and/or atmospheric GHGs on temperatures. Not convinced I’m afraid.

  190. otter17 says:
    October 23, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    Thanks you proved my point.

    You can give me 3, and i can give you 80. Seems a bit one sided to me.

  191. Here is the breakdown of signatories of the Oregon Petition:

    http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

    Of the 30,000 signatories, 39 are climatologists. How many of those are among the 9,000 with a PhD is not published, but if it is proportional it would be about 12.

    By far the biggest numbers are mechanical and electrical engineers.

    Ironically, this petition agrees with Naomi Orekses’ study that shows that the closer people are to being active climate researchers, the more likely they are to accept the reality of AGW. Oh, but of course that just means they have sold their souls to… I don’t know, whatever is supposed to be running the scam

  192. Jeff D says:
    October 23, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    otter17 says:
    October 23, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    Thanks you proved my point.

    You can give me 3, and i can give you 80. Seems a bit one sided to me.

    —————–

    Jeff, what exactly is your point? There are way more papers published that support the reality of AGW than not. What are you getting at?

  193. I once saw a TV show featuring an interview with the cosmologist Paul Steinhardt. For those who don’t follow cosmology, Dr. Steindardt is one of the developers of a radical new theory in his discipline. In the interview Steinhardt said, in a remarkably matter- of-fact manner, that there was a new NASA experiment that could deliver the verdict on his theory. If the results of this experiment went one direction, it would bolster the theory, and if they went the other direction they would rule it out. It suddenly struck me how courageous this is: This man has been working on this theory as his full-time occupation for years, and if the evidence delivered by nature says it’s wrong, he’s prepared to abandon it in a heartbeat. How’s that for objectivity?

    The lesson here is that physicists don’t really value their theories. They value the process that leads to their theories’ acceptance or rejection. They believe that process will eventually discover, and subsequently accept, a theory accurately representing the truth.
    I was again struck, this time by the contrast with climatology. A certain clique of climatologists certainly do value their theory. Their actions reveal that. They are quick to rally to its defense when it’s threatened. They are proactive in attempts to discredit people who may threaten it. And recently, they have even begun to use the courts in an attempt to prevent people speaking out against it (behavior I wouldn’t expect to see in physics anytime soon).

    Another reason to be suspicious of the “standard model” of climatology: It’s too precious to be true.

  194. @John B:

    Antarctic SEA ice was predicted to decline, although land ice was not due to greater snowfall from a more moisture-laden atmosphere. While temperatures in the Antarctic interior will always be too low to cause much melting, the flux in sea ice at the margins is at least partly driven by sea and air temperatures fluctuating around the freezing point. Raising air and sea temperatures would therefore limit the extent of sea ice. We’ve not seen this in the south.

    A rising tropopoause is a fingerprint of any (tropospheric) warming, but a clear upper-tropospheric hotspot would be expected if GHGs were causing additional heat to be absorbed and reflected downward. Repeated measurements, by satellite and weather ballons, have shown this to not be the case to any significant degree, and it’s really not that difficult to measure.

    Nobody said it would be linear (nobody??). But by saying it’s the dominant factor in warming, it was very strongly implied that all other factors combined could not reverse the direction of temperature change. With accelerating CO2 growth this should be even more so, implying continuous temperature increase, if not at a constant rate (to allow for the subordinate effect of natural variations). A prolonged period of static or falling temperatures would not exactly be consistent with AGW.

    I could live without the patronising bit about science by one-liners, thanks. In this case and at this hour, it does make for a concise way to demonstrate how the AGW hypothesis isn’t being verified by observations. Indeed, some observations go beyond just not verifying AGW.

  195. Jeff D says:
    October 23, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    “Thanks you proved my point.

    You can give me 3, and i can give you 80. Seems a bit one sided to me.”
    ___________________

    What was your point? You didn’t give me a chance to find anymore papers that agreed with your position. I could find more if I tried. Where are your 80 papers? Did you find them for me?

    I feel like I am in a Monty Python skit.

  196. @otter17:

    Over 9000 PhDs in the hard sciences suggests a lot of people who know enough about physics, chemistry and biology to be able to make a contribution to the field of climate. Being a ‘practising climate scientist’ or not is irrelevant in terms of being able to demonstrate an understanding of the processes that could conceivably play a part; in fact, you could say that not being a practising climate scientist is equivalent to being a non-executive director, able to bring some independent thought to the field.

    The main point, though, is that there is not a consensus on AGW, which the main battering ram used in the PR campaign behind it.

  197. Keith says:
    October 23, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    @John B:

    Antarctic SEA ice was predicted to decline, although land ice was not due to greater snowfall from a more moisture-laden atmosphere. While temperatures in the Antarctic interior will always be too low to cause much melting, the flux in sea ice at the margins is at least partly driven by sea and air temperatures fluctuating around the freezing point. Raising air and sea temperatures would therefore limit the extent of sea ice. We’ve not seen this in the south.

    A rising tropopoause is a fingerprint of any (tropospheric) warming, but a clear upper-tropospheric hotspot would be expected if GHGs were causing additional heat to be absorbed and reflected downward. Repeated measurements, by satellite and weather ballons, have shown this to not be the case to any significant degree, and it’s really not that difficult to measure.

    Nobody said it would be linear (nobody??). But by saying it’s the dominant factor in warming, it was very strongly implied that all other factors combined could not reverse the direction of temperature change. With accelerating CO2 growth this should be even more so, implying continuous temperature increase, if not at a constant rate (to allow for the subordinate effect of natural variations). A prolonged period of static or falling temperatures would not exactly be consistent with AGW.

    ——————-

    1. NP and SP are very different:

    http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

    2. Tropospheric hotspot is not a fingerprint of GHG warming:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/10/hotspots-and-fingerprints/

    3. Think of it like the tide coming in on a beach. Over a short timescale of seconds, you see waves coming in and going out, but over a longer timescale of minutes to hours, you can see the tide coming in. That doesn’t mean the waves are “dominant”, they just act over a different timescale. Regarding the climate, the science tells us that the tide is coming in. Claiming that “it hasn’t warmed since 1998″ (which isn’t actually true, incidentally) is like looking at each wave as it recedes on the beach and yelling “look, the tide has turned”.

  198. Keith says:
    October 23, 2011 at 5:49 pm

    The main point, though, is that there is not a consensus on AGW, which the main battering ram used in the PR campaign behind it.

    —————

    Keith, a scientific consensus is a different beast to a political consensus. A scientific consensus is what happens when scientists stop having to defend a theroy and start accepting it as a basis for further work. Doctor’s accept germ theory, that’s a consensus, physicists accept relativity, and so on. Climate scientists accept the reality of GHG-driven warming. It’s not about PR, it’s not done by petition.

  199. Oops, can’t believe I put an apostrophe in doctors. It must be late. (spelling mistakes I can deal with)

  200. barry says:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:59 pm
    A comment in a thread earlier this week got me thinking. The ‘skeptical’ position is a bit incoherent. Contradictory even. Some say the globe hasn’t warmed in the modern era (not so many lately), some say it has. Some say the greenhouse effect is rubbish (the infamous G&T paper and the many people who back/ed it), others that it is real. Some say that the temperature record is unreliable, others that it is pretty good if not perfect. One person may argue that climate sensitivity is low, but then say that climate changes a great deal, which strongly implies a higher sensitivity than is normally argued for in the skpetical canon. Some say we’re headed for global cooling, others that it will warm but not much.

    Fair question.

    I find that one has to be careful, because very often it is a “warmist/alarmist” who is defining or describing the skeptical position. You’ll note that this is one of the objections to Dr. Muller’s characterization when he discussed the BEST study.

    From what I’ve gathered, this:

    “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

    is a general starting point describing what both skeptics and “lukewarmers” believe.

    Unfortunately, the science is far from being settled, which is why you’ll find some folks who say we will continue to warm causing catastrophic climate events to other folks who say we are in a gradual long-term cooling phase and it will get much worse than the recent “Little Ice Age”.

    You are correct – there is not solid agreement among scientists that there is a “green house effect”, or that we have a reliable temperature record, etc.

    But overall, I believe you’ll find that the skeptical/lukewarker position is clear on the one main issue as stated above.

    I know that there are much more knowledgeable folks here than I who can show you that the “Warmist/Alarmist” position is also not solidly coherent on all aspects.

    In any event, if you want to understand the skeptical position, I would strongly suggest that you attempt to discern it from the skeptics and not from the warmist/alarmists.

  201. The appropriate qualifications absolutely matter. Your GP is not fit to diagnose and treat lymphatic cancer. For this you go to a specialist. A poll of 10 000 engineers on questions of quantum physics has zero credibility. A poll of 10 000 botanists on the effectiveness of photosynthesis by phytoplankton is also meaningless.

    Consider the signing statement

    “We urge the United States Government to reject….”

    This is a political petition. It is impossible to separate political views from the science because they are bound together in the statement with no mechanism for signatories to make distinctions. Therefore, the OISM petition is an illegitimate reference for any consensus that is purely about the science.

  202. JohnWho

    In any event, if you want to understand the skeptical position, I would strongly suggest that you attempt to discern it from the skeptics and not from the warmist/alarmists.

    My impression of skeptics’ views comes entirely from skeptics.

    THE most deplorable thing about this debate is the tribalism.

    Based on your comments, then, could we phrase a question for the poll thus?

    There is little doubt that increased CO2 will warm the world, but this effect will be negligible – strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree

    I think you are dead right that a majority of skeptics will strongly agree with that particular statement.

    My own preference for the poll would be that no language that can be construed towards a political end be admitted. ‘Catastrophic’ is a qualitative judgement. It’s too vague and carries political baggage from the debate in general. Perhaps there is a call for a poll with a more political angle, but I’d like to keep these contexts separate (as I do in the general debate).

    In fact, it would be good to save tertiary questions for a different poll. If the basics are so controversial, there can be little hope for progressive discussion or understanding further along. Eg, you say:

    You are correct – there is not solid agreement among scientists that there is a “green house effect

    Among scientists is there is extremely solid agreement that certain gases in the atmosphere inhibit the flow of radiation from the surface of the planet to outer space, thereby making the Earth warmer than it would be without them (the ‘greenhouse effect’ – as far as I know, maybe 4 scientists in the world have written anything formal rejecting it). Rejection of the greenhouse effect has far more traction among non-scientists in the skeptical milieu. A poll would help discover whether that was an issue of significance to the skeptical understanding, or whether only a handful of people endorse it. Such are the kinds of determinations that might streamline the skeptical argument and the wider debate. As it is, it’s a mess of often contradictory ideas rather than a coherent formulation.

  203. Otter 17 –
    At 1500ppm of CO2, plants grow 2-3 times faster than at ambient concentrations.
    (refs: personal experience, thousands of peer-reviewed studies, a 60 year history of CO2-enrichment in the greenhouse industry, Gardening Indoors Van Patten)

    That is why I encouraged R.Gates to refrain from 2nd and 3rd hand accounts, and instead try performing a simple experiment in the real world by growing plants in a CO2-enriched environment. In response to my suggestion, R Gates produced a desultory confabulation about “tree shrew” like ancestors living in a a “steamy jungle” inappropriate for producing the grains required to sustain a modern civilization.

    Grains, of course, like most plants, benefit significantly from CO2-enrichment:

    https://www.crops.org/publications/cs/abstracts/20/6/CS0200060687

    Like R.Gates, you should try the experiment at home.

  204. Khwarizmi says:
    October 23, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    Otter 17 –
    At 1500ppm of CO2, plants grow 2-3 times faster than at ambient concentrations.
    (refs: personal experience, thousands of peer-reviewed studies, a 60 year history of CO2-enrichment in the greenhouse industry, Gardening Indoors Van Patten)

    That is why I encouraged R.Gates to refrain from 2nd and 3rd hand accounts, and instead try performing a simple experiment in the real world by growing plants in a CO2-enriched environment. In response to my suggestion, R Gates produced a desultory confabulation about “tree shrew” like ancestors living in a a “steamy jungle” inappropriate for producing the grains required to sustain a modern civilization.

    Grains, of course, like most plants, benefit significantly from CO2-enrichment:

    https://www.crops.org/publications/cs/abstracts/20/6/CS0200060687

    Like R.Gates, you should try the experiment at home.
    _____
    Suggestions that we should embrace a return to a time of CO2 levels when human ancestors were tree-shrews and the crops of wheat, rice, barley, and corn did not exist (which of course, allowed for the development of human civilization) is a bit of a gamble. The Holocene has been very kind to humanity (and the grain crops). Leaving it behind to boldly go where CO2 levels have not been for millions of years probably has some risks….

  205. Keith says:
    October 23, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    R. Gates says:
    October 23, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    Some of you who favor solar and ocean cycles as causes of past climate changes may enjoy this rather interesting article that combines both rather convincingly:

    http://www.clim-past.net/2/79/2006/cp-2-79-2006.html

    Hmmm. By only using TSI it’s overlooking EUV and magnetic flux for starters, both of may have greater than zero impact. It’s therefore probably overstating the impact of TSI and/or atmospheric GHGs on temperatures. Not convinced I’m afraid.
    _____
    Actually, if one included the EUV effects on the stratosphere and resultant effects on global circulation of atmosphere and oceans (which aren’t in this paper) ,it would probably make the connection between solar and ocean cycles even stronger, not weaker, and thus renders the conclusions of this paper even more convincing.

  206. Lucy Skywalker @ here

    if you go to RealClimate, you will find NO links to skeptics websites. Zilch. Nada.

    Not quite. They link to Roger Pielke Senior’s climate blog.

  207. Well, the Open Thread it is then.
    Bering Sea cold pool keeps fish from moving north

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — As scientists observed climate warming in the Bering Sea, they suspected valuable commercial fish species such as Pacific cod and walleye pollock would move north toward the Bering Strait and into the Arctic Ocean.
    But that’s likely decades off, according to one surprising result from a study of the sea north of the Aleutian Islands.
    Scientists say a pool of cold water in the northern Bering Sea has been a locked door to the northward migration of pollock and cod, the fish harvested for America’s fish sticks and fast food sandwiches.
    “Our original hypothesis was wrong, and we think they won’t have habitat to occupy northward in the northern Bering Sea,” said Mike Sigler of Juneau, a marine biologist with the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    Water along the ocean floor where pollock live has been kept cold by the layer of sea ice that forms every winter on the surface of the northern Bering Sea. That ice is expected to persist even with climate warming. Cold water sets up below the ice layer and remains cold throughout the summer.
    “What it looks like at the moment is that the northern Bering Sea — and north to us is north of St. Matthew Island — looks like it is going to stay cold,” said physical oceanographer Phyllis Stabeno of NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle.

    Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Bering-Sea-cold-pool-keeps-fish-from-moving-north-2232301.php#ixzz1bg0ZXrcp

  208. Jesse you are exactly correct. You need dense enough atmosphere and then you get warmer surface. Thin atmosphere – cold Mars; 1 bar atmosphere – liveable Earth; 90 bar atmosphere – hot Venus. Simple heat retention of the bulk mass is totally ignored.

  209. #
    harrywr2 says:
    October 23, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    @Frank Kotler
    Wanna buy a nuclear waste repository?

    Actually I don’t want the repository, I want to buy what you would refer to as ‘waste’.
    #

    Okay. None of my business what you want it for!

    Seriously, you raise a good question (what is “waste”?)… but I’m not sure this is the proper place to get into it. I’m sorry I brought it up. It was only intended as an answer to Otter’s “How would we reduce CO2 emissions to zero?”

    Best (I’m not going to let Mueller own that word),
    Frank

  210. Seems to be strange, that at the same time some are arguing that changes in CO2 concentration are so small, that they can’t be significant, and at the same time they arguing that changing CO2 level concentration has huge positive effects on plants growth.

  211. frusto,

    You’re conflating CO2’s effect on temperature with CO2’s effect on agricultural production and the biosphere. The former is insignificant; the latter is pronounced.

  212. Regarding R. Gates’ posting of ink @ 0, 280, and 560 parts per million: Analogies are seldom perfect, but even if less than perfect, some might be useful. After thinking through the illustration, I believe that the ink analogy is not useful. Several points to consider:
    1. It is a strawman argument. Reasonable skeptics who point out that a 50% in the low CO2 concentration is still low are NOT arguing that small quantities in everything are meaningless. A miniscule amount of plutonium is not meaningless. Yeast is not meaningless. However, the urine from a moose urine in a mountain stream is meaningless, and the urine from two moose is still meaningless. The key is to understand what situation we are discussing. To point out that ink colors water is quite a strawman.
    2. The analogy works against the arguments of CAGW in considering marginal impacts. Even with only three examples, one can see that increasing ppm has a decreasing marginal impact. The first 280 increase has a great impact on opacity, the next 280 has less.
    3. Ink is not a natural part of water; CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere. Of course, polluting water with ink will have a impact. Doubling a small natural part of a system may not be expected to have a large impact.
    4. What if that which constitutes a small portion has positive contribution? Perhaps a better analogy than ink-in-water would be Vitamin A in one’s diet. Vitamin A composes a miniscule portion of my volume intake of food. If I double it, I probably will have positive health benefits from doing so. If I increased Vitamin A intake by 100 times, then I may have negative health benefits. Likewise, if we increase CO2 by 50%, the increase in crop production is remarkable. At least 17% of the current crop production is due to increased CO2 concentrations from pre-industrial times. No doubt, the actual # is in the twenties. Also, you lose credibility amongst analysts if you assert that we will double the CO2 concentration.
    5. Water does not have a feedback loop. In Scenario A of Hansen’s 1988 work, he assumed that we would have 1.5% growth rate in CO2 emissions, reaching 394 ppm by now. In reality, we have exceeded the 1.5% growth rate, but the ppms have lagged behind – why? – because there is a feedback loop as the CO2 has promoted plant growth which has absorbed CO2.

  213. R. Gates says:
    October 23, 2011 at 5:32 am
    Myrrh says:
    October 23, 2011 at 1:08 am
    R. Gates says:
    October 22, 2011 at 7:21 pm
    As CO2 is mostly transparent to the wavelengths of sunlight, no matter how high the CO2 levels go, we would not be in danger of blocking out sunlight. The ink example simple shows visually what we can’t see in term of the effects of something at low ppm. I would of course expect certain skeptics to refuse to grasp this analogy.

    Doesn’t show that at all. All it shows is that certain liquids mix. Use a drop of oil instead, what do you get?
    ——-
    CO2 is far more well mixed in the atmosphere than oil would be in water, and while it is true that CO2 is more dense than air and if there was absolutely no wind and constant churning of the atmosphere CO2 would separate out from air and settle to the ground, that’s not the planet we happen to live on…i..e. the container is constantly being stirred.

    ……………………

    In your world the atmosphere is in a permanent spin cycle..

  214. LazyTeenager says:
    October 23, 2011 at 2:33 am
    Myrrh says:
    October 23, 2011 at 1:08 am

    Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air, it therefore displaces air and sinks unless work is done to move or mix it, it will not, as your analogy extrapolates to and which is the implied message in this junk analogy, mix thoroughly into the fluid gaseous ocean of air of our atmosphere as does the ink. What is the temperature of each in your analogy? Use a drop of something with the same relative weight to water as carbon dioxide to air. Tell us what happens.
    ——-
    All of this is wrong. Its true that CO2 is heavier than air and if you pour pure CO2 out into a room full of air it will sink immediately. But this is temporary.

    There is a process called diffusion that will distribute the CO2 throughout the entire volume of the room eventually. Bulk mixing of the gas via a fan simply hastens this process.

    Go on then, explain to us exactly what you mean by diffusion.

    There is some segregation of CO2 from the bottom to the top of the atmosphere, but the degree of this effect is dictated by the weight of CO2 relative to the atmospheric temperature. The effect is very small and is typically ignored.

    The same effect applies in water. The dye molecules are much heavier than water molecules, but as long as the dye molecules are soluble in water or otherwise dispersible they will spread evenly throughout the liquid.

    How do they spread?

    The same applies to suspensions of clay in water. In effect the thermal jiggling of the clay particles by water molecules prevents them from settling due to gravity. Therefore for settling to happen the partakes must be large enough for gravity to overcome thermal motions.

    ? what clay particle experiment is this? New one on me.

    Hope that’s clear.

    As mud, please expand.

    And Myrrh just because you don’t understand it does not mean that it’s stupid. A bit more humility will lead to less humiliation.

    Hmm, are you showing humility by assuming that I don’t understand it when it could be you who are wrong?

    The example of ink in water was stupid. I didn’t extrapolate to those who thought it was such clever science that we must all immediately suspend our critical faculties. As An Inquirer says, a strawman argument. One of several reasons it was a stupid analogy.

    An Inquirer says:
    October 24, 2011 at 12:41 pm

  215. mkurbo says:
    October 22, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    10 Steps to turning the American economic engine back on…
    _____________________
    I love it!

    I would add spend the next fifty year repealing laws not passing laws.
    Overturn the Supreme Court’s decision on Wickard v. Filburn (The Commerce Clause)
    Get rid of the USDA.
    Get rid of Fractional reserve banking and the FED. Or at least make the fraction 90% instead of 0%

    • I am not on board for calls to chastise the FED or eliminate USDA. However, I will agree that Wickard v. Filburn is one of the most outrageous decisions of the Supreme Court — probably only the Dred Scott decision rivals it. For the U.S. government to fine a small farmer for growing a couple hundred bushels of wheat to feed his cattle — rather the government implied that he should buy wheat from others — that is simply outrageous.

  216. otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    …..No, the argument isn’t that the AGW hypothesis is true necessarily, only to find what back pocket plan to have if contrarians happen to be wrong and the NAS…..
    ______________________________________
    Simple
    Support Nuclear power. specifically Thorium.

    http://news.change.org/stories/thorium-nuclear-energys-clean-little-secret

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=448&terms=thorium

    http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8746sci2.html

    http://www.physorg.com/news145561984.html

    http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php

    http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/10/minifuji-thorium-reactor-group-talks-to.html

  217. otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    ……. I SHOULD be skeptical of a 1000ppm target claim. If you know of some scientist or scientific results that show we ought to shoot for 1000ppm, please show some evidence. Sorry, but I won’t necessarily take your word for it.
    ________________________________________

    It is based on the practical. “For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1000 ppm….. “

    Just google – greenhouse 1000ppm CO2 – you will find a lot of references.

  218. Gail Combs says:
    October 24, 2011 at 9:37 pm

    “It is based on the practical. “For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1000 ppm….. “”
    _______________

    What is good in the greenhouse is not necessarily good in the entire Earth’s atmosphere. I have not seen any scientist or any peer reviewed publication that indicates such a high CO2 concentration should be made a target.

  219. Brendan H says: October 23, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Lucy Skywalker: “I’ve written primarily from my own internalized understanding of Climate Science as a whole, though the references and leads to peer-reviewed material are there too.”

    …The issue, Lucy, is the justification for one’s knowledge. By implication, you are claiming that your own understanding of climate is superior to that of the scientists who have spent their working lives studying the subject, and you claim a “higher authority”: “Nullius in verba”, “take nobody’s word for it”. But of course the motto also applies to you, in which case your higher authority is moot.

    If I’m not too late to respond. Good points.
    But please don’t put words in my mouth. For all of us, not just me, the real primary justification is to our higher selves, God by whatever name; justification to others is secondary though integral. And if I’ve asked more pertinent questions than someone who’s been a lifelong climate scientist, is that a reason to stay quiet? I think that what matters is to check the relevance – and get feedback from others.

    What concerns me is that warmists are treating “peer review” as if it has a higher authority than “nullius in verba” and are thereby doing untold harm to science and are failing to stand up to the corruption of the peer-review process, as is being seen here constantly – it did not stop with Climategate. Peer review has authority, but its authority is less than “nullius in verba”, in other words, a routine part of the work of every true scientist is to check evidence afresh, at all levels. This should breathe into one’s whole work, so that wherever you cut my work, you find me applying Scientific Method somewhere relevant – including applying it to the understanding of Scientific Method itself.

    Of course that includes myself. “Point one finger at someone else, and three fingers point back to myself”. I have to be prepared to note, and apologize or retract, when someone else shows I am mistaken. I hope I do that. Your challenge inspires me to look at myself and that’s good. I hope I inspire you likewise.

  220. Sorry but the peer review process is broken. As Lucy said previousely, ” When McIntyre has a problem with a paper WHAT is the resounding plea: “write a paper, mr Fraudit. do your own science steve.”
    When Ross writes a paper what do they say: “we can redefine peer review”
    And Trenberth calls skeptics the lazy ones.
    Throughout the emails one consistent pattern of behavior emerges. Dodge.
    “we can say they are lazy” “we can have an independent bucnh of boys from CRU say the work is solid”, ”we can redefine the peer review” “delete the mails” “we can pass on everyth tenth line of code” “you should show your FIOA officer their web site.” “we should collect a file on the editor.”
    “we should boycott the journal.” “we can say keith never got anything.”
    The list goes on and on and on. This is not evidence of Naivete. It is evidence of obstruction, of gaming the system. You see the same behavior in the inquiries.

  221. Found an interesting article on psychology, and thought it was relevant to science in general, and climate science in particular.

    Exerpt:
    I coined the term “illusion of validity” because the confidence we had in judgments about individual soldiers was not affected by a statistical fact we knew to be true — that our predictions were unrelated to the truth. This is not an isolated observation. When a compelling impression of a particular event clashes with general knowledge, the impression commonly prevails.

    Artile:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/magazine/dont-blink-the-hazards-of-confidence.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

Comments are closed.