New book from Dr. Roy Spencer

I have been remiss at posting reviews on several books that people have sent me. I hope to get some of them up in the next week. Dr. Spencer’s announcement below is a start, though his is the one book I don’t have. – Anthony

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

The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists

By Dr. Roy Spencer

click for previews at Amazon.com

Today (April 20) is the official release date of my new book entitled: “The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists“, published by Encounter Books.

About one-half of Blunder is a non-technical description of our new peer reviewed and soon-to-be-published research which supports the opinion that a majority of Americans already hold: that warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system — not to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.

Believe it or not, this potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously researched by climate scientists. The main reason they have ignored this possibility is that they cannot think of what might have caused it.

You see, climate researchers are rather myopic. They think that the only way for global-average temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced ‘externally’…by a change in the output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption. These are events which occur external to the normal, internal operation of the climate system.

But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change. Climate change is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.

As I travel around the country, I find that the public instinctively understands the possibility that there are natural climate cycles. Unfortunately, it is the climate “experts” who have difficulty grasping the concept. This is why I am taking my case to the public in this book. The climate research community long ago took the wrong fork in the road, and I am afraid that it might be too late for them to turn back.

NATURE’S SUNSHADE: CLOUDS

The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.

How could the experts have missed such a simple explanation? Because they have convinced themselves that only a temperature change can cause a cloud cover change, and not the other way around. The issue is one of causation. They have not accounted for cloud changes causing temperature changes.

The experts have simply mixed up cause and effect when observing how clouds and temperature vary. The book reveals a simple way to determine the direction of causation from satellite observations of global average temperature and cloud variations. And that new tool should fundamentally change how we view the climate system.

Blunder also addresses a second major mistake that results from ignoring the effect of natural cloud variations on temperature: it results in the illusion that the climate system is very sensitive. The experts claim that, since our climate system is very sensitive, then our carbon dioxide emissions are all that is needed to explain global warming. There is no need to look for alternative explanations.

But I show that the experts have merely reasoned themselves in a circle on this subject. When properly interpreted, our satellite observations actually reveal that the system is quite IN-sensitive. And an insensitive climate system means that nature does not really care whether you travel by jet, or how many hamburgers or steaks you eat.

CARBON DIOXIDE: FRIEND OR FOE?

The supposed explanation that global warming is due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide from our burning of fossil fuels turns out to be based upon little more than circumstantial evidence. It is partly a symptom of our rather primitive understanding of how the climate system works.

And I predict that the proposed cure for global warming – reducing greenhouse gas emissions – will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that scientific knowledge is continually changing, it is increasingly apparent that the politicians are not going to let little things like facts get in their way. For instance, a new draft climate change report was released by the U.S. yesterday (April 19) which, in part, says: “Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced … Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.”

You see, the legislative train left the station many years ago, and no amount of new science will slow it down as it accelerates toward its final destination: forcibly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

But in Blunder I address what other scientists should have the courage to admit: that maybe putting more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. Given that it is necessary for life on Earth, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surprisingly small. We already know that nature is gobbling up 50% of what humanity produces, no matter how fast we produce it. So, it is only logical to address the possibility that nature — that life on Earth — has actually been starved for carbon dioxide.

This should give you some idea of the major themes of my new book. I am under no illusion that the book will settle the scientific debate over global warming.

To the contrary — I am hoping the debate will finally begin.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
GregO

I just finished reading Dr Roy Spencer’s book “The Great Global Warming Blunder” and I highly recommend it to warmistas and skeptics alike because it is clearly written, short and to the point. I enjoyed it and it has given me a lot to think about.

Henry chance

I see it is selling very well. #78 a few minutes ago.
I will buy one and send it to Michael Mann. I may have to ‘splain it to him.

RockyRoad

So the warmers grabbed the term “Climate Change” not knowing that’s earth’s modus operandi? And these guys are being taken seriously as “scientists”?? I recommend they go back to their alma mater and ask for their tuition back.

I just finished Pat Michaels’ and Robert Balling’s Climate of Extremes and I was trying to decide what to read next… Looks like a trip to Barnes & Noble this weekend is in order.

geo

No Kindle version as of yet. 🙁

The inability to model clouds accurately is the Achilles Heel of GCMs.

Harry Chance,
Mann might turn the book on its side and confuse the pages with tree rings.

Dave In CA

“You see, the legislative train left the station many years ago, and no amount of new science will slow it down as it accelerates toward its final destination: forcibly reducing greenhouse gas emissions”
you could substitute “forcibly increasing taxes”.

björn

I think we have a bestseller here, on climatology.
Imagine that.

Ted Dooley

“that life on Earth — has actually been starved for carbon dioxide.”
If the politicians looked down at the old growth wood found in their multi-thousand dollar desks and asked why the tree rings were so close together 200 hundred years ago…. alas

Richard111

Read up on how “radiation fog” occurs. A fascinating example of how water vapour in the atmosphere interacts with changing surface temperature.

It seems this book covers everything that I have discovered in the past 8 months or so after I decided to see for myself what evidence there are is about CO2 causing global warming…

Stephan

I wonder if Dr R Spencer could clear this is up (he may have already). Is the current high trend UHA temp data based mainly on one extreme hot spot over Canada/NH?
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
because the rest of the world is not showing any warming at all!
See COLA. analysis of current conditions etc… climate. One would presume that if this is the case the data would be pretty useless (That is ONE very hotspot responsible for all the average world temps)

really?
jakers

“the climate system to cause its own climate change. Climate change is simply what the system does”
This is the best explanation I’ve yet seen to explain everything!

Henry chance

pgosselin (11:13:31) :
Harry Chance,
Mann might turn the book on its side and confuse the pages with tree rings

Very good. At least he can be proud of the humble title of conservationist. It only took killing one tree for his proxies.
Did he pay the tree for using it in his picture?
Joe Romm also has a new book out. When I first checked, it ranked 39,499 on Amazon. If he has purchased the obligatory 2 dozen for friends and family, he may spike at a rank as high as 2,000th.

Dear Dr. Spencer, I have not read your book yet, but followed your reasoning about clouds as cause of temperature changes.
Cloud cover is the biggest problem of current models (together with the effect of aerosols) and that is what makes the wide range in output, including the non-prediction of any natural cycle between 1 and 100 years.
I will buy the book anyway!

rbateman

“that life on Earth — has actually been starved for carbon dioxide.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/elabund.html
Plenty of oxygen atoms, but so little Carbon. Humans and animals and plants use so much of it. Why Carbon? Why does life on Earth base itself around this scarce element?
Competition, I suppose, amongst the species for who controls the Carbon.
So, why the rush to bury all the Carbon, thereby extinguishing as much life on Earth as possible?
Tough questions.

CRS, Dr.P.H.

Spencer says “The climate research community long ago took the wrong fork in the road, and I am afraid that it might be too late for them to turn back.”
These folks didn’t just wake up one morning and decide that (a) this approach would be fun, (b) they could shill some good research dollars, or (c) both.
These are true believers who actually buy into the end-of-the-world stuff that we lampoon, and who also see this as a great way to re-engineer society away from dreaded fossil fuels & onwards to something else, all the while instituting new government controls.
They won’t go into the night quietly, I can guarantee that much. I’m in and amongst these types in my chosen field of public health, and even a glacier plopping down on top of the Sahara would be due to “climate change.”
Check out the presentation slides from Dr. John Holdren’s talk at the Chicago Grand Challenges Summit, I can’t recommend them enough for you folks to see where the Obama administration is taking this (nowhere that you want to go, believe me):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/22/ostp-director-holdren-keynotes-engineering-academy-summit

You see, climate researchers are rather myopic. They think that the only way for global-average temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced ‘externally’…by a change in the output of the sun, or by a large volcanic eruption. These are events which occur external to the normal, internal operation of the climate system.

The counterpart to this myopia, is the myopic use of Lyell’s uniformitarianism… “The present is key to the past.”
It always seems to be assumed that since greenhouse gases are driving modern climate changes, they must have driven past changes. Yet, it’s plainly obvious in the geologic record that CO2 and GHG’s have never driven climate change at time during the Phanerozoic Eon… Yet it’s assumed that they did, because it “fits the narrative.”
The assumed modern GHG driver is evidence for a paleo GHG driver.
The assumed paleo GHG driver is then used as evidence for a modern GHG driver. It’s a circular calculation error.

MattN

Excellent. I will put this on my reading list.

jaypan

After watching “Not evil just wrong” last night, this book will be next.
Here’s a quote from Hansen in that movie:
“I’m not going to use McIntyre’s name, I don’t think he deserves the publicity but I can make some statement … Unfortunately the public does not have the scientific background to interpret whether or not it’s important and the same thing happened recently with the fellow from Canada who found a flaw in our data record of temperature stations.”
You may have to read it twice. What it basically says is:
1. The public, me, you, all of us, except the warmists, are simply to stupid to understand.
2. Errors found have no significance at all, but the finders are nothing but confusing ordinary people, distract them from the real thread.
And then compare the other persons contributing on both sides. Great movie.

jakers

RE Ted Dooley (11:18:17) :
“If the politicians looked down at the old growth wood found in their multi-thousand dollar desks and asked why the tree rings were so close together 200 hundred years ago…. alas”
Well, that might be a problem, because they use tropical hardwoods in that furniture.

Layne Blanchard

The AGW movement isn’t even about reducing C02. It’s a swirling vortex of Marxist/Communist Ideologues, Religious zealots, anti Capitalist/ Anti American /Anti Industrial Nutballs, Rent seekers and idiots. Did I forget anyone?

Paul Vaughan

Bravo Dr. Spencer:
“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling. […] they have convinced themselves that only a temperature change can cause a cloud cover change, and not the other way around. […] They have not accounted for cloud changes causing temperature changes. […] ignoring the effect of natural cloud variations on temperature […] results in the illusion that the climate system is very sensitive.”
I would advise them to show:
a) more respect for nature.
b) less obsession with anthropogenic computer fantasies.

higley7

Dr Spencer is being generous in presenting that the scientists were fooled by their thinking, ignorance, or circular logic.
The basics of their aberrant science is a collage of junk science that arrives at the conclusion that they want – climate change is our fault – and produces the political clout to impose radical economic, wealth, and social changes in the name of saving the planet.
This is a political effort and a specific agenda, not a group of scientists that went astray. They were purposely sent astray by the mandate (a la Maurice Strong) to show that global warming is manmade (a la Trofim D Lysenko). They knew the answer, and just needed to fabricate the science.
The more that the real science can be nailed down and demonstrated and the jun science revealed and debunked, the greater the chance of shooting down this agenda as word spreads of the supportable science and the planet continues to do its own thing.
It is quite convenient, I must say that they used the latest warming period to begin to sell manmade global warming. It took them so long to get going that by the time they were ready to close the deal/scam (Gore released his movie, Copenhagen), the planet had already begun to cool.
I cringe at the idea that, if the natural cycle was longer or happened to skip a cycle, the reality of the planet would not have been realized until it was too late and the idiots had taken over. Of course, that does not mean that they will not continue to try.

mbabbitt

People here would do well to google and read up on the work of (Russian Breathing researcher) Dr Konstantin Buteyko’s (1923-2003) Breath Retraining methodology. He once worked on the Russian Space program and argued that much of human illness is supported by our trained overbreathing (over-emphasis on O2 intake), which lowers our internal C02. Dr. Buteyko’s decades long research and treatment of asthma and hypertension worked off the radical idea that it is the lack of adequate supplies of CO2 in our bodily tissues (a vasodilator and smooth muscle relaxant) that prevents our bodies from being able to access the O2 that is held by our hemoglobin. This cause all sorts of spasms and mal-reactions in our bodies that appear as the chronic diseases we end up wrestling with.
See also the “Bohr Effect” (1904 – named after Niels Bohr’s father, Christian Bohr) — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_effect –which states that breathing more actually reduces our abilty to utilized O2 and you will understand the starting point for Buteyko’s perspective. Increasing blood levels of CO2 is the emphasis of the therapy: From the Wikipedia Bohr Effect page on the effects of increased amounts of C02: “This causes the pH of the tissue to decrease, and so promotes the dissociation of oxygen from hemoglobin to the tissue, allowing the tissue to obtain enough oxygen to meet its demands.”
For Buteyko, the paucity of atmospheric C02 is a problem that humans had to adapt to and thus his therapeutic emphasis is on nose breathing and less volumes of air so as to minimize C02 escape from the body.
We have more than enought O2, but without adequate CO2, the body lacks the chemical flag that weakens the affinity of 02 to hemoglobin and thus you suffer from lack of 02.
Buteyko today is endorsed as a non-medicinal asthma treatement in Britain and in Russian and is relatively well known in Australia.
This is quite a different take from the common mistake of seeing C02 purlely as a metabolic waste product. The emphasis on the dangers of atmospheric CO2 is supported by this misconception of C02’s role in our own bodies. See also http://members.westnet.com.au/pkolb/but_bov.htm

Enneagram

Dr.Spencer says:
You see, the legislative train left the station many years ago, and no amount of new science will slow it down as it accelerates toward its final destination: forcibly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
However VAT will surpass any Cap&Trade tax, so it will wipe away any arguments at all about Global Warming or whatsoever…

R. de Haan

Great, let’s send a book to all members of Congress and the Senate because they are preparing to vote on their Energy Bill, obviously using “stealth tactics’ in order to prevent blockage of the phone lines!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2498983/posts

Bruckner8

Mother Nature had nothing to with the hockey stick nor hide the decline nor bad temp data nor useless tree ring data nor…

Phil M.

Indulge me in setting the global warming discussion aside for a moment:
“And an insensitive climate system means that nature does not really care whether you travel by jet, or how many hamburgers or steaks you eat.”
Is a corallary to the skeptical viewpoint one that condones boundless consumption of natural resources? Judging by the impairment of air and watersheds in this country, I would hazard a guess that Nature does indeed care how many steaks we eat or how many jets we fly.
Let’s go a step further and set aside all environmental consequences of jets and hamburgers. Does a disregard for consumptive limits make sense yet? Should we be telling our children that eating five pounds of corn-fed, hormone-laced beef everyday is just fine by us, and Nature? Has anyone here been paying attention to the statistics on obesity in the USA?
Wise though he may be, Dr. Spencer is clearly not an ecologist. To say that the Earth has historically been CO2 limited and, therefore, an increase in CO2 is a beneficial thing is ridiculous. If this were true, shouldn’t excess N and P in terrestrial waterbodies also be beneficial to humans? Instead, we get algal blooms, which have all sorts of negative impacts on human systems.
As usual, what ruffles my feathers is not the fact that skeptics feel the way they do about AGW. It’s everything else they have to say.

Johnny D

CRS, Dr.P.H. (11:38:32):
” … in my chosen field of public health …”
What if the air quality co-benefits (reduced ozone, PM, and air toxics concentrations) for public health of a GHG reduction policy outweighed some/all of the costs? How would you feel then?
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/1/014007

rbateman

Charles Higley (11:58:21) :
Precisely, that is the danger of Anthropogenics Agenda. By the time the Alarmists have gained enough momemtum to actually put a Climate Forcing Operation into motion, the climage will have reversed itself.
We have run this in another thread (probably more than once).
Plans were close to reality in the late 1970’s to force emergency warming.
Now, plans are close to reality to force emergency suicide cooling.
There are fingers on buttons that are very twitchy.

George E. Smith

Well I hate to say it; but how many times have I said it here already ?
“IT’S THE WATER; DUMMIES!”
It is at least five years now since I first posted on that Tech Central Station web site my suggestion for two mental exercise experiments.
I came to call them the BIRDSEYYE EXPERIMENT, and the VENUS EXPERIMENT.
The first was named whimsically for that chap Birdseye; who invented flash freezing of food to preserve it; without destroying the cells.
The aim of the Birdseye experiment is to rid the atmosphere of every last molecule of H2O, while leaving all othe components including GHGs unchanged. To assist in the removal process, it is assumed that the entire earth surface; defined here as the boundary between the Atmosphere, and the Non-Atmosphere is flash frozen; well actually it is only frozen in the sense that the temperature is instantly reduced to zero deg C at that boundary, and above UNLESS the place is already colder than zero deg C, in which case it retains its present temperature. Note that this does NOT freeze the oceans; only the surface temperature is zero which is above freezing for sea water. All water in the atmosphere simply drops to the surface where it is; either as rain or snow depending on what the pre-existing surface temperature was. This zero C or less atmosphere then has a much lower saturated vapor pressure for water; and finally we use tweezers or what have you to remove the last remaining H2O molecules, and drop them on the surface.
So that is the starting condition. The atmosphere is zero or less, with no water molecules but otherwise same as normal, the surface is zero or less, and below the surface is what it was previously.
So now we restart the movie and watch what happens.
Without any water vapor, there is of course no H2O GH effect; only CO2 and the rest; so the night side of the earth should start to cool; BUT ! remember that this is not too dissimilar to the Gobi Desert night condition; so the cooling is not catastrophic.
The cloud cover is now zero; so suddenly the earth albedo is reduced dramatically, with only the surface ice and land giving very much reflectance.
Without any water vapor; the total solar absorptance of the atmosphere goes down significantly as normal water vapor absorbs as much as 20% or more of the incoming solar spectrum from about 750 nm on.
DO YOU GET THE PICTURE ! we have the Mother of all climate forcings going on, with the peak ground level insolation suddenly going from about 1000 W/m^2 up to perhaps 1250W/m^2; and the cloud contribution to albedo has completely vanished; so the albedo probably has dropped from about 0.35 with 60% of global cloud cover to something less than 0.1 with zero cloud cover.
Is this a big enough global warming FORCING for you AGW fans ? How long do you think it takes for the very first H2O molecule to break free of the surface, and contaminate the atmosphere with H2O ?
1st question: Do you think this is a big enough forcing to combat the night time cooling on the dark side of the earth.
Now the tropical oceans were maybe at 25 to 30 deg C; except for the surface which is at zero; and the daytime surface irradiance is about 1250 W/m^2. Is this enough forcing to raise the surface temperature of the ocean from zero, and get some more water molecules into the atmosphere ?
Well if that happens, I would expect (please note I have never actually done this experiment; so I am postulating what might happen), that the presence of some H2O molecules in the atmosphere, will immediately start to block some of the incoming sunlight; and also warm the atmosphere on the day side of the earth, so the surface insolation will start to fall, as more H2O absorption of the 760nm + spectrum occurs. But even with this reduced insolation we still have a gynormous positive forcing, that is going to cause a veritable stream of H2O molecules to leave the surface, and enter the atmosphere; and all the while the surface of the ground is going to increase from its starting zero value, given the up to 1250 W/m^2 insolation; and the fact that below the surface some of it was already warmer than zero so will heat the surface by conduction.
As the water pollution of the lower atmosphere increases; along with the enforced warming; the lower moist air is going to start to rise, since everything above it was at zero deg C, so is denser.
Eventually some of that moisture contaminated air is going to reach the saturation vapor pressure at zero deg C, and with all the dust blown up from the non-wet ground, some water droplets are going to form and clouds will start to appear. This will bring on a new phase, since the clouds will now reflect some of the sunlight back out into space; despite all the CO2 in the air above; and they will also block additional sunlight from the ground; thus lowering the warming rate.
Since the earth is rotating, this super blow torch is going to scan the surface, and all the previous phenomena will start to occur on the previously dark side of the planet.
Well I’ll let you think the rest out for yourselves; where on earth is this phenomenon going to end up; and what will planet earth look like; say in 30 years time or so ?
I have to go to lunch now; so I’ll have to describe the Venus Experiment later.
Enjoy !

kernels

Aren’t clouds primarily water vapor? Seems to me that I’ve heard something about water vapor having an influence on climate (or was that just weather?). Unfortunately for Dr. Spencer, warm-mongers likely won’t buy his cloud shade argument because it is too simplistic and rational to possibly be true.

kwik

Bravo Dr. Spencer!
I will buy your book, and recommend it to my friends.
One problem in non-english-speaking countries is that the majority only read books in their native language.
And guess who makes sure they control which books should be translated?

Ian E

Now if only we could force all MPs to read this (plus The Hockey Stick Illusion of course)! Trouble is of course they prefer telling us pygmies what to think.

No, David Middleton. The present is the key to understanding the past. It is not myopia but ignorance that you are talking about. It is hubris combined with ignorance that drives ideology.

Pascvaks

Ref – Dave In CA (11:16:01) :
“You see, the legislative train left the station many years ago, and no amount of new science will slow it down as it accelerates toward its final destination: forcibly reducing greenhouse gas emissions”
you could substitute “forcibly increasing taxes”.
____________________________________
You’re right, new science will not do anything; we’re going to have to revert to that oldest trick in the book of human evolution. Its on page 3, immediately after the introduction and opening statements: “How to Tar and Feather Chiefs, Senators, Representatives, & Medicine Men”.
I haven’t read it in years. It was buried under a bunch of old copies of National Geographic (pre-1969 copies, before they ruined it with all the Eco-friendly junk).

Epistemic Closure

You see, geophysicists are rather myopic. They think that the only way for angular momentum to change is for the planet to be forced ‘externally’…by a change in the incoming flux of stuff. These are events which occur external to the normal, internal operation of the globe .
But what they have ignored is the potential for angular momentum to cause its own change. Violating the first law of thermodynamics is simply what the system does, owing to its complex, dynamic, chaotic internal behavior.
I’ve been trying to get this sentiment across in peer reviewed print ever since hearing Roy voice what he repeats here today at the first Heartland conference in 2007, where he assured us it was about to appear in JGR.
Roy’s published another whole un-peer reviewed book since then, but we’re still waiting for the paper, so maybe I should hold off on submitting my own just-so story until Rupert Murdoch buys JGR and puts this blog’s sainted editor in charge.
[snip]

wws

In other Global Warming news today, there are heavy snowstorms across Colorado.
Must be because this is the warmest month EVAH or something.

John from CA

Looking forward to the read.
“…, a new draft climate change report was released by the U.S. yesterday…”
Everyone needs to read the article referenced in the post; http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63I6HD20100419
If this is accurate, there are some wins and some serious problems. The language has dramatically changed from CO2 to Carbon Pollution which is great as long as it doesn’t include CO2, the EPA has been stripped from regulating carbon dioxide emissions, but the rest appears to cloak the carbon pollution permit scheme and transfers power from the states to the Fed.
Anthony, please consider posting an article related to the Bill when its released on Monday.

DocMartyn

” rbateman (11:30:59) :
“that life on Earth — has actually been starved for carbon dioxide.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/elabund.html
Plenty of oxygen atoms, but so little Carbon. Humans and animals and plants use so much of it. Why Carbon? Why does life on Earth base itself around this scarce element?
Competition, I suppose, amongst the species for who controls the Carbon.
So, why the rush to bury all the Carbon, thereby extinguishing as much life on Earth as possible?
Tough questions.”
Think about it logically. The biosphere generates a large number of mineralization sinks, mainly in the form of calcium/magnesium carbonates, coal, oil and methane.
Plants will fix carbon until a steady state is reached whereby the rate of carbon mineralization is equal to the rate of geological (non-biotic) carbon influx; basically vulcanism.
Plants, photosynthetic and chemolithotropic bacteria use a hung amount of energy in fixing carbon, CO2 is essentially limiting to the overall biosphere, at least on land. This opportunity cost limits the size of the biosphere; more CO2, more plants, more animals and more niches open up.
When CO2 has high, places like the Great Dismal Swamp of North Carolina/Virginia and the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia fix CO2, grow and then die in anaerobic water. No oxygen, no oxygenases can break down the lignin, peat formation, then brown coal formation and finally bituminous coal formation.

Dennis Nikols (12:41:39) :
No, David Middleton. The present is the key to understanding the past. It is not myopia but ignorance that you are talking about. It is hubris combined with ignorance that drives ideology.

The actual Lyell quote is, “the present is the key to the past.” However, geology is an extremely interpretive science… So it’s all about understanding the past through interpretation of the rock record in the context of modern Earth processes.
I don’t think that the scientists who comprise the so called “scientific consensus” are ignorant; nor do I think that most of them are driven by ideology.
I think that they are blinder-ed by ruling theories (paradigms). This is a form of self-inflicted myopia. It’s unfortunate that they did not employ Chamberlain’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses.

Dr T G Watkins

A copy must be sent to all political parties in the UK before the election, although, on second thoughts, not one ‘leader’ nor their supposed scientific advisors will understand what they are reading!
Well done Dr Spencer. Along with most regular readers here, I follow your writings with interest. I will certainly buy your book.
Interesting to note some people confusing atmospheric and land/water pollution with CO2. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially if you are not aware that your knowledge is ‘little’.

Enneagram

It is hubris combined with ignorance that drives ideology
No, I don’t think so, that could be if you refer to the servants (like charlatan Al) but not to the masters, for them it is just cold blooded calculated agenda.

DocMartyn

George E. Smith. You water free atmosphere would be easy to do, take a couple of soda bottles and purge them with nitrogen. In one add dried silica gel and the other 5 ml of water. Add tops, but have a pressure/temperature gauge in the two tops.
Now just place them out doors and wait. I suspect that one will see a huge difference in the temperature of the one with water, compared to the one without.
You could then compare Air/N2 +/- silica gel. My guess is that the CO2 in normal air isn’t worth a bucket of spit.

R. Craigen

Bravo for your last paragraphs about the planet being starved for CO2. I have contended this for a while; stating it publicly is a good way to make yourself a magnet for criticism, but I think we must boldly state the truth regardless of how much ridicule it draws. In the end vindication will come; the weight of research is on this side. The biosphere would absolutely love us to stabilize the CO2 content around 800-1000 PPM, between 2 and 3 times what we have now. It is unlikely we can get it up this high, even with all the fossil fuels we’re burning in the next century, but we can try. Problem is, like climate, while we may have a “significant effect”, it is not as big as the natural influences, and increased biomass (for one) is a powerful negative feedback mechanism for CO2, so it’s not at all clear that we can find a new point of stability much higher than 400 or 450 PPM, which is where I expect to see things level out.
Guys like me (my PhD is in mathematics) are easily dismissed as crackpots for such assertions, but Dr. Spencer is not so easily mocked.

wayne

CRS, Dr.P.H. (11:38:32) :
Spencer says “The climate research community long ago took the wrong fork in the road, and I am afraid that it might be too late for them to turn back.”
These folks didn’t just wake up one morning and decide that (a) this approach would be fun, (b) they could shill some good research dollars, or (c) both.
These are true believers who actually buy into the end-of-the-world stuff that we lampoon, and who also see this as a great way to re-engineer society away from dreaded fossil fuels & onwards to something else, all the while instituting new government controls.
They won’t go into the night quietly, I can guarantee that much. I’m in and amongst these types in my chosen field of public health, and even a glacier plopping down on top of the Sahara would be due to “climate change.”
Check out the presentation slides from Dr. John Holdren’s talk at the Chicago Grand Challenges Summit, I can’t recommend them enough for you folks to see where the Obama administration is taking this (nowhere that you want to go, believe me):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/22/ostp-director-holdren-keynotes-engineering-academy-summit

I am afraid CRS is exactly correct above. If you are not close enough to a nest of AGW alarmists to actually know what they believe, you better wake yourself up!
If every person reading and enjoying this site do not take a few moments every day to talk and/or e-mail those persons and friends for who you care, what CRS describes will all happen in spite of what we discover or say here on WUWT. Please, wake up your families and friends to the fact a freight train is heading for us right now on this track called life, it’s coming and only you can help derail it in time.

Enneagram

wayne (13:42:09) :
Please, wake up your families and friends to the fact a freight train is heading for us right now on this track called life, it’s coming and only you can help derail it in time
This looks like an omen: That train is the one J.Hansen et al. was preparing for us, filled up with coal….that’s a black and bleak future.