Guest Post by Steven Goddard
Steve McIntyre points out that NOAA’s Susan Solomon saw fit to exclude a statement of measurements from IPCC WG1. With such certainty then, it’s no wonder she’s certain that our current situation is “irreversible”. Well then, let’s not worry about it if one of NOAA’s lead scientists says the effects are well nigh irreversible. What she’s serving up is pure alarmism.
NOAA has issued a warning to the occupants of (some) planet :
Global warming has reached the point of no return, a study published in the Tuesday edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by a joint team of the U.S., French and Swiss researchers concludes. Even if the world reduces emissions of CO2 to the level before the industrial revolution, it will take at least 1,000 years to reverse the climate change effect that have already taken hold, AP on Sunday quoted the team as saying. Dr. Susan Solomon of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research laboratory led the study. “People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years; that’s not true,” she said, adding the effects are well nigh irreversible.
That got me wondering what she meant by “back to normal.” Perhaps it means sea ice at normal levels? No that can’t be it, because sea ice area has already recovered to “normal.”
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
Perhaps she means violent weather, like strong tornadoes? Longing for a return to the 1970s, when there were lots more of them?
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg
In 1908, a hurricane formed on March 6, the earliest on record. Ah, for the good old days of early spring hurricanes…..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1908_Atlantic_hurricane_season_map.png
In 1954, Hurricane Alice formed on December 30, the latest on record. Nothing like a New Year’s hurricane to brighten up the holidays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1954_Atlantic_hurricane_season_map.png
In 1961, Hurricane Carla made landfall in Texas. It was the most intense hurricane to ever hit the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Carla
In 1900, a hurricane killed 8.000 people in Galveston, Texas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galveston_Hurricane
In 1780, a hurricane killed more than 27,500 people in the Carribean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780
In 1960, 60% of the farmland in China received no rain. Somewhere between 20 and 43 million people died due to extreme weather and mismanagement by the socialist government.
In the 1930s, the US suffered extreme heat and drought, resulting in the dust bowl. It was the warmest decade on record in the US (at least before USHCN cleverly adjusted it downwards.)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_bowl
DirkH (13:26:47) :
Dirk, I get the Stefan Boltzman Law..in fact I have had several college classes on the subject, thanks. What was your point anyway?
“”” Jeff Brown (16:01:07) :
George E. Smith (14:43:51) :
It is Shishmaref that I was referring to. Their entire village needs to be moved because it IS falling into the ocean. “””
Well the details either way are only important to those who are at the scene.
We have an apartment building that is trying like heck to fall into the ocean south of San Francisco; it is poised righ on the edge of a collapsing cliff, so what you drop out a window falls into the ocean. They have already spent enough money trying to stop it from doing that; to buy outright a luxury home anywhere in California for each and every family who lives in that apartment building. So why haven’t they just pushed it over the edge yet; and moved those people elsewhere. Calamities occur all over the place all the time, and that sin’t going to change; and it is only significant to the people it happens to. Most sentient beings gladly move out of the way of obviously impending doom. King Canute was of a different mind.
“”” Jeff Brown (16:03:40) :
George E. Smith (14:53:43) :
I’m not responsible for the debate, I simply heard about it. I think what would be good for everyone on both sides is a real debate between the experts on both sides w/o name calling, putt-downs, etc. A real debate on the facts and let each side question each other’s conclusions from those facts. In fact I haven’t seen anything here yet that shows facts that oppose the GHG theory. I am very interested in those, so please if anyone has any, or links to any, please post them! thanQ
14
04
2010
Jeff Brown (16:10:39) :
George E. Smith (15:09:44) :
Sorry George, I find it hard to follow your logic here. Why did you get into units? I’m an engineer in my education and we only use the metric system. But more importantly what does that have to do with the issue?
The earth’s orbit has not changed substantially from 1850 to today to cause the observed warming. Where did you read that? These orbital variations take 10,000 to 100,000 to 1,00,000 years to occur, so they are not responsible for the last 150 years.
I’m sure you understand the concept of forcing. But here’s a definition for you:
The Earth’s climate changes when the amount of energy stored by the climate system is varied. The most significant changes occur when the global energy balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth is upset. There are a number of natural mechanisms that can upset this balance, for example fluctuations in the Earth’s orbit, variations in ocean circulation and changes in the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere.”
We do see today that there are changes in the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere and would you argue that we haven’t put a bunch of gases into the atmosphere during the industrial revolution? These gases do alter the
Iglobal energy balance, and this mechanism “forces” the climate to change. “””
Well as I have posted somewhere around here; there actually will be an opportunity for such a dialog next month in Chicago; it’s no secret; anyone can sign up and go and join in the debate; they did it last year and the year before at least (in other cities; maybe New York) and I do know that all of the prominent AGW promoters were invited to participate.
As to “shows facts that oppose the GHG theory. ” ; well that might be because almost nobody; and certainly nobody I know, actually opposes the GHG theory. I certainly believe it; even though “real greenhouses” don’t work that way; we all know what those letters mean, and how GHGs work.
But some of us don’t see the point in limiting the discussion of GHGs and how they work to just CO2; or even to CO2 plus methane; or plus Ozone; or plus nitrogen oxides. Why not include ALL GHGs; well the ones we know of that are prominent and permanent in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Like H2O for example; specially H2O, because humans put more of that into the atmospehre than we do CO2; so it probably is an important one to include. H2O is a bit more complicated than CO2 of course; for one thing theres megatonnes more of it; on average about 1% of the total molecules in the atmosphere; which is 25 times how much CO2 there is.
And scientists don’t disagree on how much energy H2O captures either from the sun or from the earth; and it is very much more than CO2 captures.
In some locations H2O captures perhaps as much as 20% of the energy coming in there from the sun; and CO2 certainly doesn’t do anything like that. And when it comes to capturing energy emitted fromt he earth; well H2O does far more of that than CO2 does too; and people don’t argue too much about those figures; they are all just green house gases anyway; so we know how that happens. Another complication of H2O vis-a-vis CO2 is that only H2O exists in the atmosphere permanently in all three phases of normal matter (absent plasma). Those three phases of atmospheric H2O behave quite differently; since two of them create optically blocking clouds.
Perhaps you as an engineer have observed it to warm up when a cloud passes between you and the sun; and then cool down again after the cloud moves out of the way. If you have; you may be the only person on the planet who ever has. I actually heard from a scientist who said that happened to him ; or maybe it was somebody he knew and trusted. But actually it turned out it never happened. It was in the high arctic; so the sun was down on the horizon. the cloud in question did not actually move in between him and the sun and warm him up; it actually moved in over his head; and was nowhere near the sun or in the optical path to the sun. He never did mention the large mass of warm air that moved in over him along with the cloud; that was what wrmed him up, and not a cloud moving between him and the sun. So if you have experienced such warming; then you are the first.
Well you see, that CO2 and ozone, and methane don’t form clouds on earth, and don’t visually block the sun; and the H2O clouds that do, make the earth surface colder; always; because they stop a lot of solar energy from reaching the ground.
Now this of course has nothing whatsoever to do with GHG theory; which most of us do believe in; but unfortunately, a lot of people who do beleive in GHG theroy like we do; don’t believe in anything else like clouds blocking the sun.
Why don’t you; as an engineer, contemplate what would happen here on earth; if somehow you suddenly removed every single last molecule of H2O from earth’s atmosphere. Just drop them down from where they are either as more ice and snow, if that is below, or more ocean water, or just soak the ground. Now think about what will happen next.
And then just for contrast, instead of getting rid of all the atmospheric H2O molecules; why not imagine suddenly putting H2O clouds everywhere from Pole to pole, and from the ground up to 50,000 feet; well lets make it up to 20 Km since you say you use the metric system. To make these more realistic, you can in the first case assume that the entire surface of the earth suddenly has a Temperature of zero deg C; unless it is already below that; in which case leave it where it is; and in the second case, you can have every place on or above the surface suddenly have a temperature of +50 deg c, unless it is already higher than that; then leave it alone.
So there you have it Jeff; two easily described thoroughly tipped climate situations. So what do you think; as an engineer will happen next in each of those two situations. since these are just hypothetical descriptions of what in both cases might be a quite uninhabitable planet; we will just not worry about what if anything might happen to life forms; lets just think about what happens to the climate; and see where that leads us.
Should be quite easy for an engineer to figure out; I didn’t have any problem as a scientist, in figuring out what happens.
And as to those units; I was merely musing as to why it is that climatologists; or climate scientists; which ever they prefer; seem to invent their own units like forcings and anomalies and climate sensitivities, and other trappings; when the normal language of physics and chemistry even biology should be adequate as they are in most other sciences. That’s the only reason why I mentioned units.
When one is trying to obfuscate; inventing gobbledegook terms is a standard of the play book.
“”” Jeff Brown (16:10:39) :
George E. Smith (15:09:44) “””
As to the earth orbit changing since 1850; where did YOU read that it hasn’t. We know it has; some people such as Leif could probably tell you exactly how much; and yes I’m sure it isn’t much; but then earth’s temperature hasn’t changed much either; but there we don’t really have a good idea how much; since we have no possible method of measuring the surface temperature of the earth; no matter how we choose to define that temperature; such as the surface boundary between atmosphere and non-atmosphere; of 60 cm altitude abobe that surface in the atmospehre or however you want to define it; we have no method of knowing what it was in 1850 or at zero hours GMT July-4th 2000, or even today; so how could we possibly know how much it has changed out of a possible known temperature range of 150 deg C from coldest to hottest (at different places; with perhaps that whole range simultaneously present ( most of it anyway).
Your defintition of Forcing was very illuminating; certainly the most elaborate definition of any physical quantity I have ever encountered.
Of course earth is; and has never been, in equilibrium or even any state remotely approaching equilibrium; neither a static nor a dynamic equilibrium or even a steady state. Such conditions never have occurred on earth; so the “energy balance” you described; never exists; even for a moment; which renders the concept of “Forcings” somewhat academic.
Ibrahim (14:02:45):
“explain please”
I’ve been out for a few hours, and I’m just catching up on these comments. Yours first:
To begin, skeptics have nothing to “explain.” The null hypothesis of natural climate variability has never been falsified.
But to help Jeff learn something from the “Best Science” site, here is why I’m skeptical of the data that GISS [and NOAA] massages, and then feeds to the public:
click1 [blink gifs take a while to load]
click2
click3
click4
click5
Notice on these blink gifs that GISS alters the raw data. Note especially “click5.” You can plainly see the “raw” historical data changes from one month to another.
If anyone can’t figure out what’s going on, it’s this: GISS is altering the raw data to show higher temperatures, or a steeper and more alarming warming trend, or both.
In other words, James Hansen, head of GISS, is deliberately misrepresenting the U.S. temperature record.
George, with all due respect, how are anomalies a new language? It is simply a deviation from the mean. And why is forcings a new unit? It is something that causes a system to change, it has no units. It’s like when a body of motion stays in that trajectory until a force causes it to change. And how is climate sensitivity a unit? It’s not a unit, except if you want to measure a climate sensitivity in terms of W m-2 or deg C. So units are not the same thing as these “climate” terms. Climate science is actually based in physics, the laws of thermodynamic, the laws of radiative transfer, the laws of electromagnetic theory, the laws of conversation of mass. These are the physics laws that govern climate science. I suppose if you wanted to you could also add the laws of human responses, since that will complicate the climate as well.
I’m glad you don’t dispute that GHGs are warming the planet. So we agree on one point. And I don’t think scientists disagree with the importance of water vapor. In fact a recent Science paper by Solomon showed how the last decade decrease in stratospheric water vapor actually helped to cool the planet. Of course I’m sure you understand that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, which could enhance the warming through its absorption of infrared radiation. It could also affect the formation of clouds, which can be a cooling or a warming influence depending on their height in the atmosphere, their composition (water or ice) and over what surfaces they exist (bright, high albedo or dark, low albedo). Now you’re actually getting at where the debate currently lies, the real uncertainties in climate science. For a nice discussion on this, why don’t you read: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/463284a.html.
jeff brown (17:52:23) :
You should really listen to George E. Smith, who knows what he’s talking about. George makes a valid point about units of forcings. A forcing should be quantified.
The problem now is that anyone can assign a vague amount of forcing to the climate. The IPCC routinely assigns a higher forcing to CO2 than the planet itself exhibits. If the IPCC was correct, we would see significantly higher temperatures than what we observe.
I’m not trying to start an argument over this, I’m simply pointing out that climate “science” is not very scientific, like meteorology, geology, chemistry, etc. It is more akin to economics or sociology at this point. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a degree in “climate studies” offered.
Nine out of the last 12 posts above are yours. If you want to get up to speed, I would suggest reading the WUWT archives instead of arguing incessantly, because everything you mention in this thread has been hashed over and answered before.
In your studying, you should keep in mind what Climatologist Roy Spencer says: “No one has falsified the theory that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”
Dr Spencer is stating the null hypothesis: climate variability fully explains the current climate. If you can credibly falsify that, your name will be in the history books.
But while trying, keep in mind Occam’s Razor: Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
~ William of Ockham [1285-1349]
Unnecessarily adding an entity like CO2 to the explanation of natural climate variability enriches certain people and organizations at the expense of the rest of us. But it doesn’t make any difference to the climate, which is very benign currently, and well within its normal historical parameters. If CO2 has any effect, it is too small to measure, and thus inconsequential.
Smokey (18:36:41)
have you seen the figure here that shows the contribution of components in the radiative forcing (which does have a units of W m-2).
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/climate-change-ar4/figtableboxes/figure-2.htm
It shows the radiative impacts of CO2 (and the uncertainty) and the other GHGs as well as aerosols and black carbon.
And when you add them all together you get the range of forcing which is less than that of CO2 alone, especially if you consider the range of uncertainties in that final estimate.
I still haven’t seen you show any evidence that natural variability is responsible for the warming seen today. And the null hypothesis has been rejected in countless studies. I have read many of these scientific studies, I don’t base my education of the issues on the blogs, but actual readings of the scientific papers. Climate science is a physical science based on laws of physics. Any study that states linkages based on statistical correlations misses the point, because correlation does not prove cause and effect. Physics does, and those are the science papers worth reading and they have shown GHGs to be warming the planet. And in fact you have folks here like Steve Goddard who say in this blog that temperature responds linearly to CO2. So if you believe that, then you can imagine how much more this planet will warm under future increases in GHGs. But that neglects all the feedback processes such as Arctic amplification, terrestrial carbon feedbacks, ocean and atmospheric circulation feedbacks, cloud feedbacks, etc.
The real truth is that we don’t know what is going to happen (except that GHGs are going to continue to increase). Scientists can use models to try to model various components and their feedbacks, but they are still imperfect. I suggest you read the Nature article on the REAL HOLES IN CLIMATE SCIENCE.
jeff brown (20:23:05),
Well, I tried to guide you in the general direction of knowledge, rather than back to the RealClimate echo chamber run by Hansen acolytes — who would not even allow comments like yours to be posted, if the tables were turned. But here at the Best Science site, we try to help educate. You say:
“I still haven’t seen you show any evidence that natural variability is responsible for the warming seen today.”
The evidence is in the historical climate record: click.
It is up to you to falsify the null hypothesis. So far, you and every other alarmist has failed. There has been no unusual climate change, despite your arm-waving. The climate is well within its long-term parameters: click
So who should we believe? You? Or planet Earth?
But since you claim to have read countless papers on the subject, and therefore no doubt qualify as an expert, please provide testable, reproducible, empirical evidence showing that the apparently normal and natural fluctuations in the climate are instead the result of human emissions of a minor trace gas, and not from numerous other factors such as the AMO, the PDO, orbital changes, solar influence, changes in cloud cover, etc.
Remember, it is your duty, as a skeptic of the null hypothesis, to falsify it – just as the skeptics [and the planet itself] of the CO2=CAGW hypothesis have repeatedly falsified that particular hypothesis: as CO2 has increased, the planet has failed to get unusually hot as predicted: click
Be sure and include all the raw temperature data and the methodologies that were used in your response.
Otherwise, it is just chin music.
Smokey (21:05:14) :
the last decade saw stratospheric water vapor decrease which led to a cooling (see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/327/5970/1219).
and like I said before, the climate forcing that caused the planet to be warmer in the past was due to orbital variations. that is NOT the factor today. Please…read some of the studies.
Since you asked. here are some papers for you to read:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/453296a.html
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123310513/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo338.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a706m430k8h35g26/
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=91
As for temperature data, lets see, air temperatures (from stations and satellites), land surface temperatures, ocean surface temperatures, ocean deep water temperatures all show increases since their measurement period began. But if you don’t want to believe all these independent sources, then you can go to the fact that glaciers are retreating worldwide, permafrost temperatures are thawing, ice sheets are showing more melt, sea ice in the Arctic is retreating, the tree line is moving further north. Hmmm…these all suggest warming as well. Are you now disputing that the earth has been warming these last 150 years?
Do you imagine we’re unaware of it? Here are WUWT threads critiquing Steig’s article, in date order. Asterisked threads are the most important ones:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming-an-evolution-of-viewpoint/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/22/antarctic-warming-part-2-a-letter-from-a-meteorologist-on-the-ground-in-antarctica/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/04/snow-job-in-antarctica-digging-out-the-data-source/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/15/redoing-steig-et-al-with-simple-data-regrouping-gives-half-the-warming-result-in-antarctica/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/28/steigs-antarctic-heartburn/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/12/a-challenge-to-steig-et-al-on-antarctic-warming/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/18/what-happens-when-you-divide-antarctica-into-two-distinct-climate-zones/
* http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/20/steig-et-al-antarctica-warming-paper-process-is-finally-replicated-and-dealt-a-blow-to-robustness/
(“A central prerequisite point to this is that Steig flatly refused to provide all of the code needed to fully replicate his work in MatLab and RegEM, and has so far refused requests for it.”
Say, I wonder if the recent statements by scientific societies re the Jones case that such data withholding can’t be justified can be used to shake the code loose from Steig?)
** http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/29/steig-et-al-falsified/
* http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/07/steigs-antarctic-peninsula-pac-mann/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/06/the-climate-science-credit-crunch/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/04/dmi-arctic-temperature-data-animation-doesnt-support-claims-of-recent-arctic-warming/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/20/antarctica-warming-ice-melting-not/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/13/frigid-folly-uhi-siting-issues-and-adjustments-in-antarctic-ghcn-data/
But that assumes the earth isn’t a “chaotic” system with a built-in unpredictable thermostat that can regulate its temperature independent of forcings. Here’s a quote, one of several I’ve seen on this site, that makes this point:
@Jeff Brown:
Graph of ice-core data:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
Look at the last 10,000 years Jeff. That graph is going up and down by as much as 4Celsius. And remember that these ice-cores are in segments 500years wide, so the climate change they measure is smoothed out over a 500 year period. This means that the real climate variation is much greater than this smoothing would suggest.
So who caused that Jeff? Your blessed orbital variations? I think not.
@Steven goddard:
“It is just a technology problem. Sooner or later it will get solved.”
Fine. So think of it this way. JET is the most successful fusion project to date. So far it has produce 70% less energy than it needs to run its plasma. Its follow-on ITER will be a lot bigger and more expensive. It is estimated it will produce 50% more energy than it uses to run its plasma – however, it still won’t produce net energy because the Q factor doesn’t include all the energy needed to run the torus. So it will actually use 10% more energy than it produces, even when running at full power. But this is where we will be at in 2020. So after 70 years of fusion research we will have a torus capable of 10 times less efficeint than would be sufficient for commerically viable fusion (although a close friend of mine that worked on JET claims that the scientists working on ITER know full well it will never lead to viable fusion technology and it is yet another scheme to get their hands on public research money).
So you are right steven, sooner or later it might get solved (and if you believe that you will believe that mankind will one day visit distant galaxies too – as if all science problems could be solved with time). But I wouldn’t want to bet my future on it in my lifetime, or my kids lifetime.
jeff brown (21:53:17),
You constantly misrepresent my statements and similar statements of many others here.
No one is saying, nor am I aware that anyone has said, that there is no global warming. The planet has been naturally warming, in fits and starts, since the LIA, and the last great Ice Age before that.
The warming is normal, natural, and well within the historical parameters of the climate on all time scales. Further, the natural warming has nothing measurable to do with CO2, which rises following warming, and thus can not be the cause of global warming. The alarmist claim that CO2 is the climate’s primary driver has been repeatedly falsified. Any tiny effect from CO2 is so negligible that it can be completely disregarded.
The climate naturally fluctuates. That is the null hypothesis. In order to falsify that hypothesis, you must provide empirical evidence showing that the climate is not within its historical parameters.
You have failed to do so; the climate is acting according to natural variability, not as a result of human CO2 emissions — which are anyway only one molecule out of every 34+ emitted naturally.
If the only way to score points is to misrepresent what has been repeatedly told to you here, it is no wonder that you’re getting no traction with your alarmist arguments.
Ryan (03:32:25) :
FYI Ryan, here are the Milankovitch orbital variations which operate on time-scale shown in Vosktok ice core record.
Milankovitch Theory describes the collective effects of changes in the Earth’s movements upon its climate, named after Serbian civil engineer and mathematician Milutin Milanković. Milanković mathematically theorised that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth’s orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth.
The Earth’s axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time, the elliptical orbit rotates, more slowly, leading to a 23,000-year cycle between the seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth’s rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit moves from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees and back again on a 41,000-year cycle; currently, this angle is 23.44 degrees and is decreasing.
Smokey (06:19:04) :
Smokey are you now saying that humans have not increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Let’s talk about that.
Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm. I assume you agree on this point?
Human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon “sinks” in order for the CO2 levels to have gone up.
The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.
Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much – and are now soaking up slightly more.
Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s. Disturbances to the land – through deforestation and agriculture, for instance – also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.
About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.
Fossil fuels also contain less carbon-13 than carbon-12, compared with the atmosphere, because the fuels derive from plants, which preferentially take up the more common carbon-12. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters is steadily falling, showing that more carbon-12 is entering the atmosphere.
Finally, claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true. In the very distant past, there have been volcanic eruptions so massive that they covered vast areas in lava more than a kilometre thick and appear to have released enough CO2 to warm the planet after the initial cooling caused by the dust. But even with such gigantic eruptions, most of subsequent warming may have been due to methane released when lava heated coal deposits, rather than from CO2 from the volcanoes. Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year – about a hundredth of human emissions.
Of course, like you said the human CO2 emissions are small relative to the natural ones, the issue comes to where that extra CO2 is being absorbed (which it doesn’t appear to be as CO2 continues to rise and measurements are not showing more natural emissions). I do not see where I have said one alarmist comment in my post. I simply want to debate the facts, and get down to the basis for disagreement.
As for the null hypothesis, how about you try to prove the null hypothesis that humans are not in part responsible for the warming observed today. Can you do that?
And that gets to a more fundamental question I’ve always had, do you not think going from 1 billion to nearly 7 billion people on this planet in 150 years has not had some sort of environmental impact? Look at how much the surface of the planet has changed. What if you went from 1 to 7 billion elephants, do you think you would see an environmental impact? To think humans are not affecting this planet is very naiive.
Smokey, I don’t believe I have read a single science paper that states CO2 is primarily responsible for the changes being observed today.
Can you provide evidence of the natural variability that is causing the warming you believe IS happening today? I know how much the sun contributes (10%) (many studies have been written on this). What are the other sources of natural variability responsible for the last 150 years? I am genuinely interested, so please point me in the right direction.
jeff brown (06:56:22),
My current hypothesis is that you live in your mom’s basement, since you seem to post here around the clock, 24/7. Falsify that, if you can.
You asked to be pointed in the right direction. I think you just want to argue, but if not, start here: click
Once again, you have the scientific method exactly backwards. It is the alarming hypothesis that human emitted CO2 will lead to climate catastrophe that must withstand falsification. For the umpteenth time: skeptics have nothing to prove. Yet you constantly demand it from scientific skeptics of the CAGW hypothesis. Instead, why don’t you use your energy demanding that Phil Jones, Michael Mann and the motley CRU produce the data and methods they used to concoct their CAGW hypothesis?
The null hypothesis, which states that the climate is acting normally and naturally within defined parameters, as it always has, is the default scientific skeptics’ position. It is the long held theory of natural climate variability. Falsify it, if you can. Keep in mind that Michael Mann’s Hokey Stick has been repeatedly debunked, and that there is voluminous evidence of the MWP and the LIA, despite Mann claiming that they didn’t happen: click
The new CO2=CAGW hypothesis has now been reduced to a conjecture, due to the fact that the raw data upon which it is purportedly based has been “lost,” or has been so “adjusted” and re-adjusted that the original data is unrecoverable, or in the flagrant case of Wei-Chyung Wang, the data he used is in the head of someone residing deep in mainland China, who he says remembers the specific data from dozens of weather stations taken nineteen years ago.
The promoters of the AGW scheme willfully refuse to share their raw data and their computer codes, algorithms and methods with skeptics, therefore CAGW cannot be tested, replicated or falsified. That is why it is now a baseless conjecture. Yet those same climate connivers share their data with their pals who are in on the scam, making their ad hoc excuses for not opening their methods to scrutiny nothing but lies.
When the preposterous claim is made that the minuscule amount of CO2 emitted by humans will lead to runaway global warming, it does no good to parrot what those who stand to gain by their claims say. What matters is whether the scientific method was used to advance those claims. The answer is obvious: the scientific method is either ignored, or it is turned on its head and the questioning skeptics are made the ones who must prove something.
That being the case, what is claimed is not science, but pseudo-science; science fiction. It cannot be proved without testing and validation, which requires transparency. Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies:
That which is true is provable.
That which is not provable is false.
All unprovable assertions are self contradictory.
Without the raw data and methods, CO2=CAGW is unprovable either way. So you can arm-wave about “huge” gigatons of CO2 [when we know that ‘huge’ amounts to only a tiny fraction of 0.00039 of the atmosphere], and you can get as wild-eyed like any Malthusian about the population, and you can insist that scientific skeptics prove a negative by demanding they must explain all sources of natural variability, and argue about with like sophism about what constitutes the alarmist argument. But it is meaningless regarding science, because it does not follow the scientific method.
The promoters of CO2=CAGW refuse to disclose their raw data, methods and code because they know their hypothesis would be promptly falsified, and that the enormous funding they have already received has been wasted due to their negligent record keeping. So they take the only path open to them, and like Al Gore running from questions, they run from having to provide the methods required to replicate their claimed results.
You can get away with turning the scientific method on its head at alarmist blogs like realclimate, climate progress, tamino and the rest of the AGW propaganda blogs, which, BTW, would not allow me to point out the problems that I’ve pointed out here. Because censorship of posts questioning AGW is policy at alarmist blogs. I know from personal experience. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
Here on the internet’s “Best Science” site, you don’t get censored. But when you deviate from the scientific method, you’re going to be called on it.
Provide all the information required to test your pet conjecture as a starting point, if you can. Include the raw data and code; the algorithms and methodologies of the secretive scientists who refuse to follow the scientific method. Then we can scrutinize how it was arrived at, and determine whether it is valid.
In the mean time, the great thing about your mom’s basement is you don’t have to pay rent. Does she still do your laundry?
Smokey, why resort to personal attacks? Is that because you fear you are losing the debate and you don’t know what else to do?
I am simply asking you to prove your point, and you have failed to do that. Lindzen’s scientific results have been disproven in many papers, perhaps you should read the latest by Trenberth.
I thought from your previous statements that you believe the Earth is warming, yet you continue to want to bring up the temperature records. Why? You easily believe the ice core records yet you don’t want to believe modern thermometers? And have you closely looked at the ice core record in relation to orbital variations and CO2 and have you noticed the Earth has already done the warming it “normally” does between ice ages, and that it is now warming on top of that?
Honestly, since you cannot help but resort to personal attacks as your line of defense, there is no point to continue to debate you until you are willing to have a rational debate w/o getting emotional.
jeff brown (10:19:08),
Well, if it stops your incessant posting and misrepresenting the situation, then do you think your mom might be willing to do an extra load of laundry for me?
“”” jeff brown (06:50:38) :
Smokey (06:19:04) :
Smokey are you now saying that humans have not increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Let’s talk about that.
……
How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.
Fossil fuels also contain less carbon-13 than carbon-12, compared with the atmosphere, because the fuels derive from plants, which preferentially take up the more common carbon-12. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters is steadily falling, showing that more carbon-12 is entering the atmosphere. “””
Lots of interesting conclusions there Jeff. Also a lot of interesting numbers; thanks for posting those; a lot of these numbers are a nuisance to dig out.
But back to those conclusions. The Carbon 14 signature for example. So what was so special about 1850 that makes it a year to start this down trend in 14C. It was in the middle of a short respite in the cold period that was launched by the Dalton Minimum in solar activity. There were three out of four sunspot peaks that were in the 130 range, but the rest of them from about 1803 to 1930 were decidedly low, and then commenced the climb up to the highest ever sunspot peak of the 1957/8 IGY, which was timed to conincide with that solar peak. (nobody knew it was going to turn out the historical all time high, and higher than normal numbers would persist right up to the cycle 22 peak. And that as you know was a period of “global warming”.
But if the low sunspot peaks of that period from 1800 to 1930 which was a cold period; were indicative of lower Cosmic Ray flux on earth; as would be postulated by the Svensmark mechanism, of cloud modulation; then that would also explain a falling 14C production rate in earth atmosphere.
So even without the atom bomb pollution 14C is not necessarily a good proxy for fossil fuel burning.
As to the 13C/12C ratio; I would expect to see the same atmospheric CO2 release from burning wood as from burning fossil fuels specially coal. Is there actually any isotopic proof, that petroleum is actually a fossil fuel; rather than simply a liquid rock.
But let’s accept your statement that burning fossil fuels; principally coal, results in emission to the atmosphere of CO2 depleted in 13C. Even I can accept that.
Now consider what would happen, if somebody discovered a “Noble” Coal deposit; Noble in the sense, that for some unexplained reason, this coal deposit, was found to contain a significant amount of entrapped Argon gas, in nano pockets in the coal; fancy that !
So now we start to mine and burn this Noble coal, and it’s too expensive to try crushing it, enough to recover the Argon; so we simply burn the coal for energy, and let the Argon escape to the atmosphere.
So now we would expect that the fraction of Argon in the atmosphere, would suddenly start to increase, over normal levels; not because we are suddenly burning more coal; we might actually be burning less; but we are now burning a coal that is rich in Argon.
The increase in atmospheric Argon would not be a signature of burning more coal; simply that we are now burning a type of coal that is different composition.
Well the same thing is true of the 13C/12C ratio. The increase in 12C; or the relative decrease in 13C, is certainly an indicator that we are burning a source of carbon that is 13C depleted; like wood for example of evn fossil fuels. It isn’t necessarily evidence that the increase in total atmospheric 12C is evidence that the source is fossil fuels; just as an increase in Argonm, would not be evidence of burning more coal; just of burning “Noble” coal.
And I would point out once again, that we are just 800 years delayed from the mediaeval warm period, when earth’s temperatures were hotter than they are now. (see the story now posted above); so it certainly is time for increased CO2 to be showing up from the natural variability.
But in any case; all of this is somewhat academic; because there isn’t any evidence that it is the atmospheric CO2 that was responsible for the recent period of warmer temperatures that ended 15 years ago. Water has far more influence on earth temperatures than CO2 ever has had or could.
“”” jeff brown (06:56:22) :
Smokey, I don’t believe I have read a single science paper that states CO2 is primarily responsible for the changes being observed today.
Can you provide evidence of the natural variability that is causing the warming you believe IS happening today? I know how much the sun contributes (10%) (many studies have been written on this). What are the other sources of natural variability responsible for the last 150 years? I am genuinely interested, so please point me in the right direction. “””
That is a very detailed piece of scientific information Jeff; specially compared to your usual posts that lack any detail:- “”” I know how much the sun contributes (10%) “””
Let’s disect that mine of information point by point. Satellite studies over about three full 11 year sunspot cycles show that TSI which averages about 1366 W/m^2 varies cyclically by about 0.1% p-p. Purely on Black Body radiation theory, that would mean a 0.025% change in earth’s temperature; and 0.025% of 288 K is about 0.072 deg C. So if that is 10% of the warming which had occurred; but has now stopped; that would mean a warming of 0.72 deg C. Well so your 10% is not a bad result; but so far that is only the TSI effect of the sun; and you have already used up your 10%. But you said you know the sun contributes only 10% of the warming (yes I know those weren’t your exact words); so I infer from that, that you don’t think the sun affects earth climate in any other way, than simply TSI and black body theory.
Wow, I find all sorts of literature about other earth climate- solar links; I would have thought you must have seen some of them.
Well of course there’s Svensmark; widely publicised today; with a not insignificant sympathetic following.
I could recommend to you the book; “The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection.” authored by Dr Willie Wei-Hock Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for AstroPhysics (the sun IS a star), and his (presumably) ghost writer Steven H. Yaskell, Published by World Scientific in Singapore. Dr Soon goes into great detail about other sun/earth interraction besides mere TSI, which is why I was amazed that your list of solar effects doesn’t extend beyong TSI; unless you want to raise that 10% estimate of the total solar effect to allow room for other solar contributions to warming.
Jeff Brown,
Critically read my presentation http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf and tell me how the data has misled me. You can find my e-mail on the website.
Fred H. Haynie (11:11:58),
I’ve read your excellent presentation several times, and posted it too. Highly recommended.
I would prefer to see jeff brown give his response here, where we can all see it.