UPDATE 1/28: Full text of Dr. Theon’s letter has been post on the Senate website and below.
This is something I thought I’d never see. This press release today is from the Senate EPW blog of Jame Inhofe. The scientist making the claims in the headline, Dr. John S. Theon, formerly of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Arlington, Virginia, has a paper here in the AMS BAMS that you may also find interesting. Other papers are available here in Google Scholar. He also worked on the report of the Space Shuttle Challenger accident report and according to that document was a significant contributor to weather forecasting improvements:
The Space Shuttle Weather Forecasting Advisory Panel, chaired by Dr. John Theon, was established by NASA Headquarters to review existing weather support capabilities and plans and to recommend a course of action to the NSTS Program. Included on the panel were representatives from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Air Force, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
For those just joining the climate discussion, Dr. James Hansen is the chief climate scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and is the man who originally raised the alarm on global warming in 1988 in an appearance before congress. He is also the keeper of the most often cited climate data.
EPW press release below – Anthony
Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.
“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote. [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warning, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews! – See: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom – Get the Facts on James Hansen – UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says ‘lock up the oil men’ – June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for ‘high crimes against humanity’ for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008 ]
Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.
“As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” Theon wrote of his career. “This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles,” Theon added. (LINK) Theon also co-authored the book “Advances in Remote Sensing Retrieval Methods.” [Note: Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes: Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7, Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Ames Research Center, Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA’s Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility]
Gore faces a much different scientific climate in 2009 than the one he faced in 2006 when his film “An Inconvenient Truth” was released. According to satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore’s film was released, Antarctic sea ice extent has grown to record levels, sea level rise has slowed, ocean temperatures have failed to warm, and more and more scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made climate fears as peer-reviewed studies continue to man-made counter warming fears. [See: Peer-Reviewed Study challenges ‘notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming’ & New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears ]
“Vice President Gore and the other promoters of man-made climate fears endless claims that the “debate is over” appear to be ignoring scientific reality,” Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee.
A U.S. Senate Minority Report released in December 2008 details over 650 international scientists who are dissenting from man-made global warming fears promoted by the UN and yourself. Many of the scientists profiled are former UN IPCC scientists and former believers in man-made climate change that have reversed their views in recent years. The report continues to grow almost daily. We have just received a request from an Italian scientist, and a Czech scientist to join the 650 dissenting scientists report. A chemist from the U.S. Naval Academy is about to be added, and more Japanese scientists are dissenting. Finally, many more meteorologists will be added and another former UN IPCC scientist is about to be included. These scientists are openly rebelling against the climate orthodoxy promoted by Gore and the UN IPCC.
The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. Reports from the conference found that Skeptical scientists overwhelmed the meeting, with ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ ( See full reports here & here ] In addition, a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” More evidence that the global warming fear machine is breaking down. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices.”
The scientists and peer-reviewed studies countering climate claims are the key reason that the U.S. public has grown ever more skeptical of man-made climate doom predictions. [See: Global warming ranks dead last, 20 out of 20 in new Pew survey. Pew Survey: & Survey finds majority of U.S. Voters – ‘51% – now believe that humans are not the predominant cause of climate change’ – January 20, 2009 – Rasmussen Reports ]
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the “science is settled” and there is a “consensus.”
On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick“; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.
# # #
ORIGINAL FULL TEXT LETTER SENT VIA EMAILS:
From: Jtheon [mailto:jtheon@XXXXXXX]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 10:05 PM
To: Morano, Marc (EPW)
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:50 PM
To: Morano, Marc (EPW)
Sponsored IT training links:
Best quality 640-553 dumps written by certified expert to help you pass 642-456 and 70-536 exam in easy and fast way.
Joel Shore (09:11:48) :
I hate to burst your bubble but there is a lot of utter garbage on the internet.
Agreed
You seem to have found a shining example! The 3% of CO2 claim is utter nonsense. The CO2 accounts for 9% of greenhouse gases is also a low estimate…although not as egregious of one. (In actual fact, since the effects of the greenhouse gases are not additive, it is hard to come up with a single number.)
Since you object to the numbers why don’t you provide us with what you consider to be the “right” numbers? And the source for those numbers.
It also refers to the entire natural greenhouse effect, without which the earth would be a whopping 33 C (nearly 60 F) colder.
I wonder if you can see the logical disconnect between this statement and the last one? 🙂
Simon Evans (07:35:34) :
Ron de Haan (06:37:33) :
You link to an article which asserts the following as fact (I could have picked plenty of its other statements, but let’s keep this simple):
“One volcanic eruption emits more greenhouse gas to our atmosphere than we can do collectively in 100 years. “
Do you think that’s true. Ron?
Simon,
It depends on the volcano or in detail the composition of the magma but to answer your question, Yes I think it is viable.
In general CO2 emissions due to volcanic activity, vents geysers and springs is hugely underestimated and as the following article reveals not included in the global CO2 estimates, see:
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1996/A/199600382.html
Lethal Italian Carbon Dioxide Springs Key To Atmospheric CO2 Levels
San Francisco, Calif. — The often lethal carbon dioxide springs that dot central and south-central Italy, may hold the key to understanding current and ancient levels of this greenhouse gas, according to Penn State geoscientists.
“Generally, when researchers compute total non-anthropogenic carbon dioxide flux, non-volcanic sources such as central and south-central Italy are ignored,” says Dr. Derrill Kerrick, professor of geoscience. “However, the contribution from areas like Italy can be quite sizable.”
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributes to greenhouse warming and climate change. Volcanoes have long been thought the major contributor of carbon dioxide, but there are large areas with vents expelling volcanic carbon dioxide in Italy, California and other places. While volcanoes produce the gas from magma, the carbon dioxide vents in Italy are expelling gas generated at depth from metamorphism of rocks that were formed by marine organisms and are composed of calcium carbonate.
The 200-mile area of Italy between Florence and Naples produces an enormous amount of carbon dioxide, yet no one has tried to measure the amount before, the researchers told attendees today (Dec. 17) at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. We don’t have a sense of how much is going into the atmosphere, they said.
“People have known about these springs for a long time,” says John D. Rogie, graduate student in geosciences. “At Acqua Terme, the boiling water and carbon dioxide geyser is encased in glass and is part of a spa resort.” In one location, the researchers note, a spring has been cased and tapped to supply carbon dioxide to a Coca Cola bottling plant.
“These sites are locally known, but not generally publicized outside of Italy,” says Kerrick. “Some produce virtually 100 percent carbon dioxide and are quite lethal. The area around such vents is typically littered with animal carcasses and people have died in these areas.”
One reason these places are so lethal is that carbon dioxide is invisible and heavier than air. The gas sits on the ground and flows to low areas. Animals and humans caught in these areas can be killed before they have time to leave.
Kerrick and Rogie are working with a team of Italian scientists including G. Chiodini and F. Frondini from the Dipartmento Scienza Della Terra, University of Perugia; Franceso Parello of the University of Palermo and Angelo Minissale of the University of Florence. The Italians already have a home-made device for measuring the flow of carbon dioxide from vents and the researchers have made a variety of devices to measure the diffuse degassing through the soil.
“We estimate that there are between 150 and 200 carbon dioxide vents in this area of Italy,” says Kerrick. “One vent east of Naples emits over 200 tons of carbon dioxide per day.”
The researchers note that emissions from some vents are equivalent to that of some volcanoes. The flux from the vent east of Naples is equivalent to the combined crater and diffuse flux from Vulcano, a volcanic island near Sicily.
When looking at diffuse degassing, the researchers found one area that measured less than a tenth of a square mile, yet emits 150 tons of carbon dioxide per day.
The researchers note that Mt. Etna, a volcano which produces 35,000 tons of carbon dioxide per day and is the largest single source of natural carbon dioxide in the world, is located in this area of Italy. Unlike many other volcanoes, Etna is not in an area where tectonic plates meet.
Assuming that most carbon dioxide in the past came from areas of subduction vulcanism may not be the way to model carbon dioxide production, according to the researchers. There is a great deal of gas coming from carbon dioxide vents and the area around these vents that must be taken into consideration.
**aem**
EDITORS: Dr. Kerrick may be reached at (814) 865-7574. Mr. Rogie may be reached at (814) 863-7265. Photos are available on request and after December 17 at http://www.psu.edu/ur/NEWS/SCIENCETECH.
contacts:
andrea vicki
OT but important: “Burning of Biomass contributes to 70% of brown cloud”
http://www.livemint.com/2009/01/22234959/Burning-biomass-contributes-70.html
Ron de Haan (11:40:34) :
Ron, the ‘consensus’ view is that CO2 from active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th annually of anthropogenic emissions. For the claim of the paper you’ve linked to to be true, that view would have to be in error by a factor of 15,000 – quite a serious error, then!
If it were true, that single volcanoes emitted the equivalent of 100 years anthropogenic, then how would such emissions not show up on the Manua Loa record of background CO2?
And even if this were true, then so what? Unless vulcanism has increased in correlation with the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, then it cannot account for that increase.
All the evidence that we have from specific eruptions suggest that your link’s claim is wildy untrue. Regarding your second link (the Italian one), well, perhaps that’s so, that there are areas of outgassing which have not been taken account of. Have these areas all popped up since industrialisation? Can they replace the known influence of anthropogenic emissions upon atmospheric concentration? This seems like a hypothesis in search of some evidence (and one that is not served by your first link’s ‘assertion of fact’ without any evidence whatsoever).
Simon Evans and Joel Shore,
There are people like Joseph D’Aleo who are able to explain temperature variations without mentioning CO2 a single time. How do you think this is possible?
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=167
Just for your understanding.
The AGW lobby plans to trade CO2 for apporx. € 60.0 per ton.
1 gigatone = 1000 million tons x € 60.0 = € 60.000.000.000
The bill is payed by the consumer.
I regard this big business, big enough to corrupt a few scientists and spread BS
(Bad Science) through the media. Small investment, big profits.
Do you get the idea what’s driving this AGW hoax?
IF YOU HAVEN’T GOT THESE LINKS YET, YOU MAY WANT TO
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/03/inconvenient-offset-quick-recap-records.html
UN IS, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, IN ON IT AS WELL
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/04/uns-ipcc-global-warming-bunko-scam-uns.html
Great article about Mt. Etna, Ron de Haan.
Some Etna pix: click1, click2, click3.
Unlike Mt. Pinatubo, Mt. Etna emits almost constantly.
Notice the copious amounts of ash and ‘greenhouse gases’ [and note the quote marks around ‘greenhouse gases’, which denotes sarcasm that was obviously overlooked in my post above].
Here is another great photo, of Etna blowing a smoke ring: click And another: click And another: click
Regarding human emissions, Joel Shore commented that your… “…3% of CO2 claim is utter nonsense. The CO2 accounts for 9% of greenhouse gases is also a low estimate…”
Unfortunately no citation was given for that opinion. But after reading your scienceblog link, it appears that natural emissions of CO2 are much higher than previously estimated. That, along with new information that there are hundreds of thousands of active undersea volcanoes, indicates that human emissions of CO2 are probably less than 3%.
Solution: ramp up our emissions of beneficial carbon dioxide, since the link between CO2 and rising temperatures has been repeatedly falsified, and it is a fact that CO2 promotes vigorous plant growth, which is needed for ‘green’ ethanol. <— [sarcasm alert!]
The “tipping point” AGW fantasy is on its last legs, with only a handful of desperate souls still holding on to it like drowning men clinging to a twig.
It’s time to admit the obvious: more CO2 is good, not bad. And it’s certainly not scary.
SPEAKING OF VOLCANIC GASES
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3215_volcanoc.html
“The satellite identifies the gas as sulfur dioxide, SO2, the primary cause of acid rain. And Nyiragongo is producing more than any place in the world, up to 50,000 tons per day. That’s more than the amount produced by all power plants, factories and cars in the United States.“
OUCH! (bet he wishes he’d never said that.)
And that is just ONE of the many volcanoes on the planet. I wouldn’t be surprised if CO2 emissions were higher than they are estimating, as well.
Smokey (12:55:10) :
Great article about Mt. Etna, Ron de Haan.
Some Etna pix: click1, click2.
Notice the copious amounts of ash and ‘greenhouse gases’
What on earth are you talking about? How are we to note the GHGs from your photos?
Ron de Haan (12:38:39) :
Simon Evans and Joel Shore,
There are people like Joseph D’Aleo who are able to explain temperature variations without mentioning CO2 a single time. How do you think this is possible?
There are people who explain the creation of earth and all its life in terms of divine creation a few thousand years ago, soI am not surprised by the possibility of such explanations.
Do you get the idea what’s driving this AGW hoax?
Ron, you come up with entirely unsustainable references to a volcanic eruption being equivalent to 100 years of anthropogenic CO2 emission and then talk about a ‘hoax’! The climate will do what it’s going to do and, in ther fulness of time, we’ll see who’s been allowing themselves to be deceived.
Simon, you’re being tedious and nitpicking. And why all the bold? Well, I’m a patient guy and I like to fill in the blanks for folks who don’t understand, so here’s your answer: read the article linked in Ron de Haan’s 11:40:34 post, and you will see that Mt. Etna produces 35,000 tons of carbon dioxide per day, and is the largest single source of natural carbon dioxide in the world.
Now maybe I don’t have a triple refereed, peer-reviewed 5-year study based on nineteen computer models proving that Mt. Etna’s CO2 emissions are still there, and maybe I can’t see the gigatons of CO2 pouring out of Etna every year, but I took a wild guess that, like, the CO2 is still being emitted. Do you disagree? Or are you just nitpicking? If you disagree, pray tell why the CO2 has suddenly stopped.
At some point I’ve got to get it through my head that I can’t discuss global warming with true believers. Some of them make radical Islamists look like slackers.
Smokey (13:44:30) :
Simon, you’re being tedious and nitpicking. But I’m a patient guy and I like to fill in the blanks for folks who don’t understand, so here’s your answer: read the article linked in Ron de Haan’s 11:40:34 post, and you will see that Mt. Etna produces 35,000 tons of carbon dioxide per day, and is the largest single source of natural carbon dioxide in the world.
Quite so. That is 35,000 x 365 = 12, 775,000.
Anthropogenic emissions per annum are about 28,000,000,000, or more than 2,000 Etnas which, as you say, is the “largest single source of natural carbon dioxide in the world.” So what, exactly, was your point?
At some point I’ve got to get it through my head that I can’t discuss global warming with true believers. Some of them make radical Islamists look like slackers.
At some point you ought to get it through your head that if you make self-congratulatory statements about the ‘courtesy’ of WUWT and your denigration of ad hominem comments people will think you are a craven hypocrite when you write stuff such as that above. But hey – I don’t suppose you can get such honest self-appraisal through your head, so don’t let it occupy you. “We call it life!” – just keep repeating the mantra.
Reply: Both of you bring it down a couple of notches–especially you Smokey ~ charles the moderator
Simon Evans (12:34:33) :
Ron de Haan (11:40:34) :
“Ron, the ‘consensus’ view is that CO2 from active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th annually of anthropogenic emissions. For the claim of the paper you’ve linked to to be true, that view would have to be in error by a factor of 15,000 – quite a serious error, then!”
Simon,
You should mistrust any climate related article that contains the word “consensus”.
Why don’t you have another look at the CO2 calculation at my previous posting.
You will see a total of approx. 3000 Gigatonnes in the Atmosphere.
You also see that human induced burning of fossil fuels is approx. 5,5 Gigatonnes.
So where does the rest 2994.5 Gigatonnes come from?
After spending over 50 billion dollars to proof the climate link between CO2 and Global Warming. NO PROOF HAS BEEN FOUND, only BS (Bad Science)
Go to http://www.icecap.us, WUWT, http://co2sceptics.com and start reading the archives.
Go to the Volcanism Blog http://volcanism.wordpress.com hot news about volcano’s and other links.
Smokey (13:44:30) :
Smokey,
Etna is one of the bigger emission sources in the Med area.
There is a source near Crete that is producing the equivelant of the complete European Industrial production.
I look for the link and post it asap.
At this moment 95% of the land volcanic systems is without permanent observatory and practically none of the undersea systems.
Have a look at this link to see an active undersea volcano that was found in 2003:
http://eruptions.wordpress.com/2009/02/06/ongoing-submarine-volcanism-in-the-mariana-islands/
The article I linked about Global Cooling and the Madness of Davos really is a good story.
Some people are unable to overcome twenty years of indoctrination.
Maybe they should take a look at http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com
Don’t you agree?
Ron de Haan (14:12:22) :
“Why don’t you have another look at the CO2 calculation at my previous posting.
You will see a total of approx. 3000 Gigatonnes in the Atmosphere.
You also see that human induced burning of fossil fuels is approx. 5,5 Gigatonnes.
So where does the rest 2994.5 Gigatonnes come from?”
Can you reference your figures please, Ron? They don’t appear to me to bear any relation to reality whatsoever, but I will stand corrected, of course, if you can reference reliable sources. I trust that you are not confusing the total carbon cycle with the concentration in the atmosphere? Even if so, there are only some 1,900 gigatonnes of carbon in the biosphere (not the atmosphere).
Go to http://www.icecap.us, WUWT, http://co2sceptics.com and start reading the archives.
No, that’s ok – I think I’ve read enough from there, and would prefer not to have any false figures put in my head. Please reference your figures reliably, if you can.
Ron de Haan says:
Actually, your numbers have gotten confused. I am not sure how…Perhaps you are mixing up gigatons of carbon vs gigatons of CO2. The correct numbers are that human emissions are ~5.5 GtC and there is approximately 750 GtC in the atmosphere. See, for example here: http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/earth_system/carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg (Not sure how up-to-date these numbers are, but they are close enough for our purposes. Actually, this one seems to have some more up-date-numbers: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle.jpg )
However, your question also makes no sense. You are comparing the amount added to the atmosphere in one year to the total amount there. Since the CO2 levels are rising at a rate of a little under 0.5% per year and the 5.5 GtC that we emit each year is more than 0.5% of the 750 GtC there, the relevant question is not where the rest is coming from but in fact where some of the CO2 that we emit is going, since only about half of it is staying in the atmosphere. And, as the diagram I linked to shows, some of what we emit is being absorbed by the oceans and by the biosphere.
As for your silly “humanity contributes 3% of the worlds C02” claim, that comes from looking at the vast exchanges that occur between the oceans and atmosphere and the biosphere and atmosphere and only counting one side of those exchanges (e.g., noting that the ocean emits 90 GtC into the atmosphere each year but failing to note that the ocean absorbs 92 GtC from the atmosphere each year).
This is the sort of sophistry that you see when you stick to the websites that you mistakenly seem to believe offer actual science. It is simply a way to obfuscate the important point, which is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere is currently over 35% above the pre-industrial levels (and at the highest levels in at least 750,000 years…and probably millions of years) and that we are responsible for all of that increase. In fact, the CO2 levels would have risen about twice as rapidly if the oceans and biosphere were not able to take up some of what we have emitted. (And, at some point, those sinks are likely to become less able to continue to keep up with our emissions.)
Joel Shore (15:52:50) :
I have provided you with the calculation of total CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere (est. 3000 Gigatonnes@ur momisugly 380 ppm) and the link to the scientific report stating the annual amounts of CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels, 5.5 Gigatonnes plus or minus 0.5 Gigatonnes.
I do not see what is difficult or questionable about these figures.
Joel Shore (15:52:50) :
Hmmm – – any reference that still uses Mann’s hockey stick and calls it “science” is more than suspect. The diagrams, BTW, are no more than “guesses” although I suppose you could call them “estimates”. But that doesn’t make them any more accurate. They match those in a 20 year old Earth Science book that I have still hanging around here somewhere.
Now – 3 questions – first, later this month NASA will be launching the OCO spacecraft. Why do you suppose they would do that if the science is settled and your references are so accurate?
Second – I asked for the numbers you believe to accurate with respect to human CO2 input and you presented dogma, not observed numbers. So – where are your sources?
Third – what is your source for the following statement?
(and at the highest levels in at least 750,000 years…and probably millions of years)
Simon Evans (12:34:33) :
“Ron, the ‘consensus’ view is that CO2 from active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th annually of anthropogenic emissions. For the claim of the paper you’ve linked to to be true, that view would have to be in error by a factor of 15,000 – quite a serious error, then!”
I seriously doubt the 1/150th – show me the beef. And you might want to consider this along the way:
“”Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
“Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”“
Having worked with, for and around scientists for over 40 years, my own view is that consensus is for bean counters. And that statement specifically defines the difference between scientists and bean counters.
Jim Owen (17:26:20) :
Joel Shore (15:52:50) :
The answer to the third question is this graph.
It shows much higher CO2 levels in the passed an NO link between Atmospheric CO2 and temperature:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
I am afraid that non of the arguments why CO2 is not a major climate driver will satisfy Joel?
Maybe a visual on CO2 brings some perspective:
Ron de Haan:
I suggest you re-read what I wrote as many times as it takes to understand. I can’t explain it any clearer. The only thing I will add is to verify that (within rounding errors), the difference between your number of 3000 Gigatonnes and the accepted value of 750 Gigatonnes is simply that your number refers to the mass of the CO2 and the accepted value is the mass of only the carbon in the CO2 molecule. Of course, either number is fine if you are consistent but since your 5.5 gigatonnes per year emitted by burning fossil fuels is a value for the amount of carbon, not the total amount of CO2, it is incorrect to compare the 3000 Gigatonnes to the 5.5 Gigatonnes.
And, of course, the partof my previous post regarding how you compare the two numbers (i.e., one being a total amount in the atmosphere and one being an amount added each year) still holds.
It is fascinating to me that you will refuse to believe multiple versions of the 20th century temperature record and multiple versions of temperature reconstructions over the past century, but if you can find one graph that you think supports your views, you don’t question for a moment how they arrived at the data for temperature and CO2 levels going back 600 million years! You guys have certainly elevated confirmation bias to a new art form!
As for that graph, I have no idea where it came from (although there are a few vague references on the graph that one could try to track down) and there is in fact considerable uncertainty, not surprisingly, in estimates for temperatures and CO2 levels over those sorts of time scales. Furthermore, nobody is claiming that CO2 is the only driver of climate change and over those sorts of times, there are other potential huge drivers including changes in solar luminosity, changes in the locations of continents and mountain ranges, etc., etc.
Joel,
Have a look at the youtube presentation of Prof. Bob Carter.
There are four short video’s that provide an entertaining presentation.
This is the first part with an introduction of Jennifer Morohasy, look at the links on WUWT.
Jim Owen says:
Who ever said that we know everything so accurately? The likely range for the climate sensitivity is in the range of 2 to 4.5 C for a doubling of CO2…That’s a pretty big range. And, we have only very fuzzy ideas of where climate “tipping points” might lie. That’s just to name just two things.
However, all because we don’t know everything does not mean we know nothing. And, all because we don’t know whether the likely effects of unchecked CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are going to be just very bad or truly catastrophic doesn’t mean that we don’t know enough to want to take action. Like all areas of science, there are puts of the whole climate science thing that are quite settled and parts that are still being debated, much like evolution by the way. And, like evolution, the fact that scientists are still quite uncertain about some things is distorted in a way as to make it appear that they are quite uncertain about things that there is quite broad agreement on by people with certain agendas.
This is all basic stuff that I gave you some links to. It is not up to me to waste my time providing you with links to stuff that is understood by every serious scientist in the field. If you want to find them, I am sure they won’t be too hard to track down.
The last 750,000 years is from ice core data. The “probably millions of years” is from the more uncertain estimates of CO2 concentrations that are available before that.
Ron,
I have already watched Carter’s entire presentation before. Perhaps it would be a useful exercise for yourself to engage in some REAL skepticism and actually find some of the holes in his presentation yourself.
By the way, I suppose it is Carter’s right to act as the “lawyer for the defense” of CO2 but it is extremely disingenuous of him to claim that he is somehow “agnostic” and is just presenting an unbiased look at the facts! But, hey, if you want to continue believing the junk science you find on the web over the real science available in scientific journals and respected reviews of that literature, there is very little that I can do to convince you otherwise.
REPLY: Joel I’m assuming you’ve never met Dr. Bob Carter. I have. So, I respectfully suggest that you not engage in putting opinions in the man’s mouth that are actually your own – between this and the creationist commentary above, you’ve earned yourself a time out – Anthony
[snip – no discussion of intelligent design or creationism here – Anthony]
Anthony Watts says:
Anthony, what opinions do you believe that I have put into his mouth? The only part where I quoted or paraphrased him, and thus the only possibility that I can see, is that part about being “agnostic” and just presenting an unbiased view of the facts. So, here is the exact quote from the video that Ron de Haan linked to. (It occurs at about the 1:40 mark if you want to listen to it yourself.):
Do you think my paraphrasing of this as his saying that “he is somehow ‘agnostic’ and is just presenting an unbiased look at the facts” distorted its meaning in any way? I’d be curious to know how.