Also Going Down: Carbon dioxide burial reaches a milestone

I cited (Vinnikov K. Y. Grody N. C., Science 2003) because I was looking for the new cloud facilitated cooling mechanism that you suggested that can be verified using Aqua Satellite, and that is the only paper I could find to have any relevance in recent times. Can you suggest me another more recent paper where they discuss the cooling mechanisms from low level clouds?
“But the CO2 effect has no water vapor feedback. Therefore it has much less effect. Relative humidity has decreased all but the very lowest altitudes. This is discussed in detail in a recent article on this blog.”
OK, but the effect cannot be larger than the cause in a stable system, so if heating causes cooling by whatever mechanism, the total cooling resulting from the warming cannot be greater than the warming itself, in which case we are going to reach newer and newer dynamic equilibrium states at higher and higher temperatures. If it is an unstable equilibrium with a bifurcation point, on the other hand, the effect can be larger than the cause – but now we are talking about a tipping point just like Hansen, only difference is that this one is in the other direction.
“Well, yeah. But the oceans have been cooling for five years and sea level has been dropping for the last three years.”
From what I cited from NPR, the sea level is rising, not falling. Can you please point me to a credible source that shows falling sea levels on an average sense? I have not seen one. (the NPR link is working fine when I clicked – here it is again)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
I couldn’t find a McKitrick and Michaels paper in 2008, I assume you are referring to his paper from 2007 on correlation between temperature trends and socio-economic variables. If so, I read it. I have not seen anyone referring that paper yet, so I cannot find what others in this area thought about it. But just for argument sake assume that they are correct. But the result I posted earlier (actually Watts posted) shows that such an assumption is incorrect.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/giss-had-uah-rss_global_anomaly_refto_1979-1990_v2.png
You said: “By showing that once one sorts out the spaghetti, it’s not so close, after all. (Notice for example, how much lower GISS starts out.)”
Here I disagree with you completely here. From what I see, they correlate very well. GISS does not start out lower, it went down after the first data point it looks like. But even if it started lower, it does not make any difference statistically. It is a plot of anomaly from an average value during a certain period of time. If the first number is lower, it only means that the anomaly for that year was lower, as far as I see, it does not have any effect later as the time span is large. Or take another starting point a year later, doesn’t change the pattern. I review between 20 and 50 papers a year for very good journals (and between 10 to 15 proposals) and if I see such a figure in any of them my conclusion will be very simple. They are statistically identical, they correlate extremely well.
Whether the temperature is slightly higher, or lower, or flat, in the past 10 years, I do not think it matters much, as I quoted last time, unless it lasts for a much longer. So, I will skip that part.
“”I used 1250 billion barrels as the reserves, more than the 400 billion you used.”
“At Bakken or overall?”
That is the overall reserve. I do not know where you are coming up with the 3.4 trillion bbls – I am assuming you are including heavy oil, tar sands, oil shale, etc. in it. From every source I can find, what I quoted is a realistic estimate:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html A comparison of different estimates (2007)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/crudeoilreserves.xls More recent estimate (2008) or the html form
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:zV1447U4l4MJ:www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/crudeoilreserves.xls+oil+reserve&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a
(somehow the first two takes a lot of time to download, don’t know why)
There are several write-ups about what is realistic about such estimates, I will just quote one:
http://www.runet.edu/~wkovarik/oil/3unconventional.html
About Bakken Reserve, recoverable oil range from 1 or 2 % to 45 %. USGA and North Dakota Reports (in 2008) pick the lower range considering available technology. I will certainly go with the USGA estimate (which says the recoverable oil is about 3 to 4 billion bbls).
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/bakken/newpostings/07272006_BakkenReserveEstimates.pdf
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911 or
Heavy crude (from tar sands etc) does not have the right molecular composition (like it does not contain much alkanes) for easily making plastics and medicines. Those non-conventional sources create more environmental problems, both in extraction and in usage (for example it takes lots of water to process shale).
So, yes I believe your assumptions are highly optimistic.
“It’s too simplistic. It’s not graduate level analysis. The data is just hanging out there for any undergraduate to note. It is so obvious to me that I cannot conceive that it could possibly amount to non-self evident, original work.”
Having data and putting them together for a complete story are two different things. Obviously you have to add a lot more supporting information to come to your conclusion, so it is not going to be that trivial as you said. If no one has published it, then it is original work. From what I understand, not many scientists agree with you, which makes your work all the more original. And no matter what you write, IPCC is not going to pay any attention if it is in some blogs. So, I encourage you to write it up and send it for a real publication. It is also a good way to see what kind of genuine criticisms you might get.
Smokey: I wasn’t ignoring your Gallup poll picture. I do not know where you got it, and I do not know whether it is the same 1991 poll. Just to make it simple, here is wiki version of it – does not give me much confidence in that picture when Gallup says “”Most scientists involved in research in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring now”
Here it is from wiki:
—–
In 1991, the Center for Science, Technology, and Media commissioned a Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society along with an analysis of reporting on global warming by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a report on which was issued in 1992.[66] Accounts of the results of that survey differ in their interpretation and even in the basic statistical percentages:
• Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting states that the report said that 67% of the scientists said that human-induced global warming was occurring, with 11% disagreeing and the rest undecided.[67]
• George Will reported “53 percent do not believe warming has occurred, and another 30 percent are uncertain.” (Washington Post, September 3, 1992). In a correction Gallup stated: “Most scientists involved in research in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring now.”[68]
• A 1993 publication by the Heartland Institute states: “A Gallup poll conducted on February 13, 1992 of members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society – the two professional societies whose members are most likely to be involved in climate research – found that 18 percent thought some global warming had occurred, 33 percent said insufficient information existed to tell, and 49 percent believed no warming had taken place.[69]
—-
I have similar problems with the Oregon petition also, I got one too with a genuine looking publication. Well, it is a well documented case, so I do not have to add anything. But I still hope someone out there could find a few Nobel Laureates or may be 20 or so National Academy Members with a skeptical view. In fact, I wrote my first post to get that information.

“But the CO2 effect has no water vapor feedback. Therefore it has much less effect. Relative humidity has decreased all but the very lowest altitudes. This is discussed in detail in a recent article on this blog.”
OK, but the effect cannot be larger than the cause in a stable system, so if heating causes cooling by whatever mechanism, the total cooling resulting from the warming cannot be greater than the warming itself, in which case we are going to reach newer and newer dynamic equilibrium states at higher and higher temperatures.
In order to make a statement like that you need to now ALL the inputs and ALL the feedbacks. It’s not a simple system. At least it’s not that simple.

Bruce Cobb
“Do you honestly believe anyone there who wants to keep their job is going to speak out against the positions of the governing bodies?”
Yes, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, etc are doing it. And Thanks for the link, I have seen that before though. I think “testing hypothesis” and “consensus” are two aspects of the same thing. Consensus is developed through verification.
Pofarmer:
“In order to make a statement like that you need to now ALL the inputs and ALL the feedbacks. It’s not a simple system. At least it’s not that simple.”
One good thing about not knowing all the details of a particular scientific field is that I can talk in generalities and abstracts! To do the real modeling we need to know all those things. But on an abstract sense we can group together all that is causing warming and all that causing cooling with whatever feedback, without knowing exactly what they are.
Smokey:
“My apologies to Mr. John McLondon for assuming he is a True Believer.”
Don’t worry about that.
“But it’s frustrating trying to understand where John is coming from when he makes statements such as: …”
No, no, it is simple. Assume the temperature went up by 10 deg F, then all the mechanisms that resist such a temperature rise are not sufficient to bring the temperature back by 10 or 15 degs, it might bring down by 4 or 6 deg. If it can bring more than 10 deg, then it will be a case of unstable equilibrium. Like you are pushing a stone to the top of a cliff (the stone was close to the top to begin with), then if it falls it is going to well beyond where it was originally. Here height is similar to temperature. In this case, being on the top of the cliff is an unstable equilibrium. Such unstable equilibriums happen in nature, growth of bacteria on surface , or any general growth of clusters,…but I doubt temperature behavior is one of them.
Sure I agree sea level has been rising, rapidly in the old times and more slowly recently. I was objecting to Evan Jones’ comment that sea level is falling. I think the main question is whether the rate of rise is becoming faster recently ?
Jeez:
Thanks.
I am so tired, if the above statements do not make sense, I will write differently again.

Yes, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, etc are doing it. And Thanks for the link, I have seen that before though. I think “testing hypothesis” and “consensus” are two aspects of the same thing. Consensus is developed through verification.

Yes they are. The ones you hear most are usually retired (which somehow means they’re irrelevant) or tenured or otherwise secure in their positions and not worried about what anyone else thinks. Those who aren’t in such positions have to watch what they say, else their funding dries up like an AGW drought.

Crosspatch: “I believe it has been pretty well established by now that the data provided by them is contaminated by poor station siting and significant land use changes around the station.”
Scientists have various ways of adjusting to make allowances for anomalies that might arise through siting etc. But it’s not so much the absolute figures that matter as the trend, and the trend has been consistently upwards. And the evidence of warming from surface measurement is supported by satellite measurement, which also shows a consistently upward warming trend.

Jeez: “Considering the climate has not “runaway” past a tipping point or bifurcation point for around a billion years is a solid argument against the concept of positive feedbacks or unstable equilibrium.”
Absolutely, I hope either you or Evan Jones or someone from your side could develop this into a scientific publication (if no one has published it already) – and that will go a long way in countering Hansen’s tipping point hypothesis than all the jokes about him in various blogs combined. I think it is fairly straight forward to show this: first only take the positive feedbacks and show that within a certain range there cannot be any instabilities. CO2 concentration vs. temperature rise is not a linear relationship (I would assume it is logarithmic or somewhere between logarithmic and linear- which in itself is a stabilizing effect – it takes more CO2 now to raise temperature by one degree compared to 50 years ago), to that add increase in water vapor and the resulting increase in temperature and the increase in CO2 released from sea, and the resulting rise in temperature, etc. and show that from what we know now, increase in CO2 will increase temperature but not to a bifurcation or tipping point (for temperature to go up). Then add all the complications – whether all those methane hydrates are going to come out due to temperature rise in the ocean (it might, but we do not have any evidence for that from what we know now), whether there is a critical temperature (due to rapid temperature changes) beyond which trees are not going to survive (like the altitude beyond which trees do not grow – again there is no evidence that it could happen), effect of more vegetation growth for a longer periods of time at higher latitudes, etc. Then put the historic perspectives that we wouldn’t be here if there was a run away greenhouse effect, to support the argument, and finally include temperature regulation through lower level clouds (as Evan claims, if that is true), to show that from all that we know now, there is no bifurcation point. Something like that should give the critics a much better standing against the more intense version of AGW.

Oops, my post above should have read “The point is, there shouldn’t be a need for adjustments if the siting standards were followed in the first place.

Jeff Alberts: “Oops, my post above should have read “The point is, there shouldn’t be a need for adjustments if the siting standards were followed in the first place.”
It is very difficult to do such things perfectly – there will always be problems, as a practical matter. I understand that the data from the Hubble Telescope is routinely corrected because of the problems with the mirror, even if you do a perfect surveying (humanly possible) for some large piece of land at the end they apply corrections to make everything fit well, we have to apply corrections to satellite data for reading correct temperatures, etc. The question is are we applying the correct type of corrections, or are we applying corrections to bias the results in a specific way. In Hansen’s case I am far from being convinced that he is making corrections to demonstrate AGW.