[note, footnote links will only work if you go to original article ~ ctm]
The following is Patrick Frank’s controversial article challenging data and climate models on global warming. Patrick Frank is a Ph.D. chemist with more than 50 peer-reviewed articles. He has previously published in Skeptic on the noble savage myth, as well as in Theology and Science on the designer universe myth and in Free Inquiry, with Thomas H. Ray, on the science is philosophy myth.A Climate of Belief
The claim that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the current warming of Earth climate is scientifically insupportable because climate models are unreliable
by Patrick Frank
“He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.”
— John McCarthy1
“The latest scientific data confirm that the earth’s climate is rapidly changing. … The cause? A thickening layer of carbon dioxide pollution, mostly from power plants and automobiles, that traps heat in the atmosphere. … [A]verage U.S. temperatures could rise another 3 to 9 degrees by the end of the century … Sea levels will rise, [and h]eat waves will be more frequent and more intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often. Disease-carrying mosquitoes will expand their range. And species will be pushed to extinction.”
So says the National Resources Defense Council,2 with agreement by the Sierra Club,3 Greenpeace,4 National Geographic,5 the US National Academy of Sciences,6 and the US Congressional House leadership.7 Concurrent views are widespread,8 as a visit to the internet or any good bookstore will verify.
Since at least the 1995 Second Assessment Report, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been making increasingly assured statements that human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2) is influencing the climate, and is the chief cause of the global warming trend in evidence since about 1900. The current level of atmospheric CO2 is about 390 parts per million by volume (ppmv), or 0.039% by volume of the atmosphere, and in 1900 was about 295 ppmv. If the 20th century trend continues unabated, by about 2050 atmospheric CO2 will have doubled to about 600 ppmv. This is the basis for the usual “doubled CO2” scenario.
Doubled CO2 is a bench-mark for climate scientists in evaluating greenhouse warming. Earth receives about 342 watts per square meter (W/m2) of incoming solar energy, and all of this energy eventually finds its way back out into space. However, CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, most notably water vapor, absorb some of the outgoing energy and warm the atmosphere. This is the greenhouse effect. Without it Earth’s average surface temperature would be a frigid -19°C (-2.2 F). With it, the surface warms to about +14°C (57 F) overall, making Earth habitable.9
With more CO2, more outgoing radiant energy is absorbed, changing the thermal dynamics of the atmosphere. All the extra greenhouse gasses that have entered the atmosphere since 1900, including CO2, equate to an extra 2.7 W/m2 of energy absorption by the atmosphere.10 This is the worrisome greenhouse effect.
On February 2, 2007, the IPCC released the Working Group I (WGI) “Summary for Policymakers” (SPM) report on Earth climate,11 which is an executive summary of the science supporting the predictions quoted above. The full “Fourth Assessment Report” (4AR) came out in sections during 2007.
Figure 1 shows a black-and-white version of the “Special Report on Emission Scenarios” (SRES) Figure SPM-5 of the IPCC WGI, which projects the future of global average temperatures. These projections12 were made using General Circulation Models (GCMs). GCMs are computer programs that calculate the physical manifestations of climate, including how Earth systems such as the world oceans, the polar ice caps, and the atmosphere dynamically respond to various forcings. Forcings and feedbacks are the elements that inject or mediate energy flux in the climate system, and include sunlight, ocean currents, storms and clouds, the albedo (the reflectivity of Earth), and the greenhouse gasses water vapor, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons.
In Figure 1, the B1 scenario assumes that atmospheric CO2 will level off at 600 ppmv, A1B assumes growth to 850 ppmv, and A2 reaches its maximum at a pessimistic 1250 ppmv. The “Year 2000” scenario optimistically reflects CO2stabilized at 390 ppmv.
The original caption to Figure SPM-5 said, in part: “Solid lines are multi-model global averages of surface warming (relative to 1980–99) for the scenarios A2, A1B and B1, shown as continuations of the 20th century simulations. Shading denotes the plus/minus one standard deviation range of individual model annual averages.”
Well and good. We look at the projections and see that the error bars don’t make much difference. No matter what, global temperatures are predicted to increase significantly during the 21st century. A little cloud of despair impinges with the realization that there is no way at all that atmospheric CO2 will be stabilized at its present level. The Year 2000 scenario is there only for contrast. The science is in order here, and we can look forward to a 21st century of human-made climate warming, with all its attendant dangers. Are you feeling guilty yet?
But maybe things aren’t so cut-and-dried. In 2001, a paper published in the journal Climate Research13 candidly discussed uncertainties in the physics that informs the GCMs. This paper was very controversial and incited a debate.14But for all that was controverted, the basic physical uncertainties were not disputed. It turns out that uncertainties in the energetic responses of Earth climate systems are more than 10 times larger than the entire energetic effect of increased CO2.15 If the uncertainty is larger than the effect, the effect itself becomes moot. If the effect itself is debatable, then what is the IPCC talking about? And from where comes the certainty of a large CO2 impact on climate?
With that in mind, look again at the IPCC Legend for Figure SPM-5. It reports that the “[s]hading denotes the plus/minus one standard deviation range of individual model annual averages.” The lines on the Figure represent averages of the annual GCM projected temperatures. The Legend is saying that 68% of the time (one standard deviation), the projections of the models will fall within the shaded regions. It’s not saying that the shaded regions display the physical reliability of the projections. The shaded regions aren’t telling us anything about the physical uncertainty of temperature predictions. They’re telling us about the numerical instability of climate models. The message of the Legend is that climate models won’t produce exactly the same trend twice. They’re just guaranteed to get within the shadings 68% of the time.16
This point is so important that it bears a simple illustration to make it very clear. Suppose I had a computer model of common arithmetic that said 2+2=5±0.1. Every time I ran the model, there was a 68% chance that the result of 2+2 would be within 0.1 unit of 5. My shaded region would be ±0.1 unit wide. If 40 research groups had 40 slightly different computer models of arithmetic that gave similar results, we could all congratulate ourselves on a consensus. Suppose that after much work, we improved our models so that they gave 2+2=5±0.01. We could then claim our models were 10 times better than before. But they’d all be exactly as wrong as before, too, because exact arithmetic proves that 2+2=4. This example illustrates the critical difference between precision and accuracy.
In Figure 1, the shaded regions are about the calculational imprecision of the computer models. They are not about the physical accuracy of the projections. They don’t tell us anything about physical accuracy. But physical accuracy — reliability — is always what we’re looking for in a prediction about future real-world events. It’s on this point — the physical accuracy of General Circulation Models — that the rest of this article will dwell.
h/t dbstealey
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Do they have different models for F=ma in engineering? i.e. F=.9 ma or F=1.1 ma?
For those who still ignore some facts I will repost the following:
CO2 follows temperature, not the other way. Open a coke and you´ll see it: The more you have it in your warm hand the more gas will go out when you open it.
CO2 is the transparent gas we all exhale (SOOT is black=Carbon dust) and plants breath with delight, to give us back what they exhale instead= Oxygen we breath in.
CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038% of it.
There is no such a thing as “greenhouse effect”, “greenhouse gases are gases IN a greenhouse”, where heated gases are trapped and relatively isolated not to lose its heat so rapidly. If greenhouse effect were to be true, as Svante Arrhenius figured it out: CO2 “like the window panes in a greenhouse”, but…the trouble is that those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, there would be 9996.2 HOLES.
See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28018819/Greenhouse-Niels-Bohr
CO2 is a gas essential to life. All carbohydrates are made of it. The sugar you eat, the bread you have eaten in your breakfast this morning, even the jeans you wear (these are made from 100% cotton, a polymer of glucose, made of CO2…you didn´t know it, did you?)
You and I, we are made of CARBON and WATER.
CO2 is heavier than Air, so it can not go up, up and away to cover the earth.
The atmosphere, the air can not hold heat, its volumetric heat capacity, per cubic cemtimeter is 0.00192 joules, while water is 4.186, i.e., 3227 times.
This is the reason why people used hot water bottles to warm their feet and not hot air bottles.
Global Warmers models (a la Hansen) expected a kind of heated CO2 piggy bank to form in the tropical atmosphere, it never happened simply because it can not.
If global warmers were to succeed in achieving their SUPPOSED goal of lowering CO2 level to nothing, life would disappear from the face of the earth.
So, if no CO2 NO YOU!
stevengoddard says: June 23, 2010 at 6:37 am The “arithmetic” shows a long term increase of about 0.6C per century in the GISS record.
I’m sorry, where do you see this? Maybe I’m not understanding what you’re saying.
Anders,
This is complete nonsense, of course. Using less energy will always be cheaper than using more.
What? Where did you get this strange idea? You clearly understand neither the tradeoff between cost and efficiency nor the economic principle of utility. By your logic, it would be “cheap” for us all to go back to Paleolithic living standards, even though that would reduce GDP by 99%.
There’s a reason we use money: it can be easily exchanged for utility. By mandating we use more costly “green” tech, we reduce GDP and living standards, just as if we mandated that a tenth of our crops and livestock be burned every year as an offering to the gods. Whether or not money is “real,” utility certainly is.
Barry,
GCMs cannot predict short-term fluctuations, and to expect them to do so is to fundamentally misunderstand their purpose and capability.
What evidence is there that they can predict long-term fluctuations? The only ones with long-term track records were badly wrong. All GCMs can do is model what the temps might look like if CO2 had a major effect on temps. With all the physical uncertainties, it’s criminally dishonest for IPCC to claim the models are so reliable they should be used as the basis for multi-trillion-dollar policies.
Also, they hindcast against a dataset that is breathtakingly dirty. Even aside from the legion of siting errors, the TOD “adjustments” alone are large compared to the signal, and the whole thing is being administered by activists whose careers are built around the notion AGW is a serious problem.
If they want to do a real, honest forecast, they should talk to the forecasting scientists, who currently find their claims laughable. Of course, to do good science they would need to admit the errors bars are so large as to make the predictions meaningless, which would destroy the field. So instead we get more politically driven pseudo-science — policy-based evidence-making instead of evidence-based policy-making.
Roald says:
Climate isn’t a chaotic system.
Just because you say so? Climate is the archetypal chaotic system.
“”” latitude says:
June 23, 2010 at 6:22 am
“”But correlation is not causation,””
9 out of ten people that have car accidents, drink coffee…
….coffee causes car accidents “””
No Latitude; you have it all wrong; if you study the climate question of CO2 and Temperature causation; as epitomised by Nobel Laureate Climate Expert And Oscar Winner Al Gore; you would know that in the question of causation, the cause must happen after the event it causes. So rising CO2 in the atmosphere causes Temperature rise 800 years ago; and as evidence of that we know that CO2 is currently rising; and that 800 years ago was the mediaeval warm period when temperatures rose as a result of today’s CO2 increases.
Therefore; you should have said that:- “”” 9 out of ten people that have car accidents, drink coffee…
….car accidents cause coffee “”” since it is the cofee drinking that happens first just like the global Temperature rise.
Paul McCartney links global warming denial to Holocaust Denial. Oy Vey, say it ain’t so
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3027440/Exclusive-Paul-McCartney-chat.html
[Which is why using the d-word is against site policy. ~dbs. mod.]
“”” Enneagram says:
June 24, 2010 at 5:40 am
For those who still ignore some facts I will repost the following:
CO2 follows temperature, not the other way. Open a coke and you´ll see it: The more you have it in your warm hand the more gas will go out when you open it.
CO2 is the transparent gas we all exhale (SOOT is black=Carbon dust) and plants breath with delight, to give us back what they exhale instead= Oxygen we breath in.
CO2 is a TRACE GAS in the atmosphere, it is the 0.038% of it.
There is no such a thing as “greenhouse effect”, “greenhouse gases are gases IN a greenhouse”, where heated gases are trapped and relatively isolated not to lose its heat so rapidly. If greenhouse effect were to be true, as Svante Arrhenius figured it out: CO2 “like the window panes in a greenhouse”, but…the trouble is that those panes would be only 3.8 panes out of 10000, there would be 9996.2 HOLES.
See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28018819/Greenhouse-Niels-Bohr “””
Enneagram; I see this statement (you posted) repeated often at WUWT; and there are some well known “Skeptics” well at least quite vocal; who make a career out of asserting that there is no “Greenhouse effect” and that GHGs cannot warm the atmosphere or cannot trap radiation or similar claims; as originally proposed by Arrhenius in the case of CO2.
My personal opinion is that this is NOT a useful avenue of “attack” on the idea of Man-Made Global Warming Climate Change; MMGWCC. I simply refuse to use artificially made up words like “Anthropogenic”; particularly to describe things that most certainly are not Ma- Made. Whatever changes humans might make to their enviropnment, like making ( or generating) houses, cars, planes or what have you; we are not “Making” climate change; although some aspects of “Climate” may change, following some other things that we do “make”; but we do not have any climate change industry that is manufacturing climate change; but I’m digressing.
Back to “Greenhouses”. Yes we all know that the CO2 capture of LWIR radiation described by Arrhenius, is NOT the process by which ordinary Agricultural “Greenhouses” work. In the case of the real “Greenhouse” the postulate is (or was) that the GLASS windows of the Greenhouse allowed Solar Spectrum radiation energy to enter the building, and warm up the interior by whatever means that can happen; but that the LWIR radiation generated inside the building, could not escape through those same GLASS windows, and so was trapped, by “The greenhouse effect”, permitting the temperature inside to rise. So the essence of the CLAIMED “greenhouse effect” in real greenhouses was the differential spectral transmission and absorption of EM radiation by the glass windows. The exact same principle is employed in thermal flat plate solar energy collectors. The flat plate surface is deliberately tailored (blackened) to increase its absorptance of Solar Spectrum EM radiation. Black absorbs better than White.
But the solar collector panels (some of them) go further than that; and they also process the plate surface to make the LWIR surface a poor radiator at LWIR frequencies such as those that would be emitted by a surface at elevated Temperatures. The greater the differential in absorptance/emittance that the manufacturer can achieve from solar spectrum to thermal spectrum; the hoitter his plat plate collectors will get, and the greater will be the capture of solar energy.
So goes the argument for the window glass of real greenhouses.
Now as has been subsequently pointed out; ad infinitum; to the point of boredom; is that the primary functionaing thermal process which is different inside a greenhouse from what occurs outside on open crop lands, is the “Atmospheric Convection”.
On the farm, the heated air near ground level, results in upward convection; which is a much more powerful transport of heat mechanism; that conduction through the atmosphere; which is a very good thermal insulator (relatively speaking). That convection is prevented in the enclosed greenhouse; and it is the trapping of the heated air that produces the heating effect in a real greenhouse.
The “Differential Spectral Transmission” thesi for the GLASS windows of the green house, also fails to perform as advertised for a particular reason. The poor LWIR transmission of ordinary window glass, is a result of the absorptance of that energy band in the material of the glass; it is not reflected back into the greenhouse, but absorbed by the glass.
This in turn, raises the temperature of the glass, as can be attested to by anyone who has ordinary tinted glass windows on an automobile; it gets HOT.
In turn; the heated windows of the real greenhouse become respectable radiators of their own LWIR emissions, as a result of their elevated temperature; and about half of that radiation will be emitted from each side of the glass so half will escape from the greenhouse, and half will radiate back into the house. But the prevention of convection is well known NOW to be the primary mechanism by which real greenhouses work.
So we all know that; so it is not useful to keep bringing up that real greenhouses DON’T work via the “greenhouse effect”.
Well as I have pointed out they actually DO; becuase of the re-emission from the heated GLASS; except the Convection interruption is a more overpowering effect.
But what we call “The Greenhouse effect”, in a real greenhouse was the original concept of Differential spectral transmission, by the windows.
Now in the atmospheric case; as postulated by Arrhenius, what we call the “Greenhouse Effect” and it is quite real; is quite well understood; BUT !! it is different again, from either the “convectus interruptus” real mechanism of real greenhouses; AND!! it is different again from the supposed differential spectral transmittance of greenhouse windows.
This is because the so-called “Greenhouse Gases” shall we say CO2, do NOT function via differential spectral absorption.
CO2 absorbs (intercepts) ‘precisely’ the same LWIR radiation spectrum that it “emits”. Now I flagged the ‘precisely’, to warn that this is a loose usage. Only at extreme altitudes where mean free paths are long does CO2 emit PRECISELY the radiation that it absorbs; by returning to the ground state, and re-emitting the exciting LWIR photon that it intercepted; in a spontaneous decay process. At normal altitudes; specially the lower ones where CO2 is most effective at ground level; the captured energy is immediately thermalized by collisions between the capturing CO2 molecule, and the ordinary atmospheric gases of N1, O2, Ar. This thermalizing process coveys the GHG captured energy to the atmosphere and thereby raises the Temperature of the atmosphere; which in turn responds by emitting a continuum spectrum of thermal (Black body like) radiation which is close in spectrum to the original radiation from the ground; since they are at quite similar Temperatures.
So it is in that sense that I flagged the ‘precisely’. The captured and subsequently emitted radiation are BOTH LWIR spectra that are not too dissimilar; whereas in the original greenhouse window mechanism the captured and emitted spectra are quite different; one being soalr spectrum, and the other LWIR.
So we actually have three quite different mechanisms that we loosesly relate to “The greenhouse effect”. And everybody understands pretty much how they all work, and we don’t make any progress, by asserting that “There is no greenhouse effect.”
Now in the case of the Superman of all “greenhouse gases” H2O, we have a more complicated picture; that largely is not followed by any of the other GHGs well pedantically we might claim CO2 to have a weak similarity.
H2O as in WATER VAPOR behaves like CO2 in that it too absorbs parts of the LWIR thermal radiation spectrum from the ground, and thermalizes that to result in thermal re-emission from a heated atmosphere. BUT!! H2O also has a very respectable set of absorption bands at the longer wavelength end of the incoming solar energy spectrum; at wavelengths of about 760 nm and longer; out to a couple of microns and beyond, where about 45% of the solar energy still resides; and that solar spectrum capture by H2O vapor, might account for as much as 20% of that solar energy.
So H2O exhibits two different capture-emission processes. And we note that cO2 does have some weak absorption bands at the longer end of the solar spectrum; but they are relatively inconsequential in the CO2 scheme of things; let a lone compared to H2O.
The water vapor effect is interesting, because absorption of incoming solar energy by water vapor; while it warms the atmosphere; it cools the ground; so it is a negative feedback cooling effect. And it is a no-brainer to show that it IS a cooling effect.
The solar spectrum energy that is captured by atmopsheric H2O vapor, DOES NOT reach the surface (ocean) , where it will be absorbed, and contribute to surface (ocean) warming. Instead it heats the atmosphere. THEN, the heated atmosphere re-radiates LWIR thermal energy BUT !! HALF of that emission heads skywards back towards outer space, and only half of it returns in the direction of the surface.
Because of a process which I won’t repeat here (for brevity), the LWIR emission from the water warmed atmosphere is somewhat favored to escape upwards, rather than return downwards, in a cascade of re-absorption, and re-emission events.
The atmospheric Temperature, and Density gradients force a favored escape route, over a return to earth; so the atmospheric capture by H2O of SOLAR SPECTRUM ENERGY (and also by CO2 to the extent that it happens) is a net surface cooling.
The LWIR capture/re-emission by both CO2 and H2O vapor is clearly a surface warming POSITIVE feedback.
So it is not fruitful to claim, that there is NO “Greenhouse effect”; there clearly is; and it is an invitation to “kook” label
s to assert otherwise.
Now that DOES NOT mean that the MMGWCCers are correct; and CO2 is clearly public enemy number one. They are not correct; but the “Greenhouse effect” is real.
What it is that upsets their apple cart; that they simply refuse to acknowledge; is the simple fact that H2O alone; of all the GHGs exists as a permanent and substantial part of the earth atmosphere virtually everywhere that matters; IN ALL HTREE ORDINARY PHASES OF MATTER; VAPOR, LIQUID, AND SOLID.
And it is the strong negative feedback cooling of both liquid and solid H2O clouds that simply swamps ANY “GREENHOUSE EFFECT”, and reduces CO2 to a mere bit player in a process that is completely under the control of the Physical Properties of the H2O Molecule.
Hey !! “IT”S THE WATER !!”
But let’s not choose that weak “NO greenhouse effect” hill to die on; it’s so bleak out on those slippery slopes.
1) there are 26,900,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules in 1 cubic meter of air at sea level. From Dr. Spencer’s article @Steve Milloy.
So cube root of above is 299629171.44 per sqr meter.
Divided by 1E6 is 299.6
Times 388 (CO2 per million) is 116382 CO2 molecules per square meter.
Total surface area of those molecules using 320 square picometers for area of one molecule is 3.72E-5 square meters.
As CO2 would radiate isotropically less than half of the IR would go down. Reflection angles and all that. So 1.86E-5 is total radiating surface area per square meter in the air.
According to Wein’s Law (K= 3000/ 15 um) CO2 the temperature that CO2 absorbs at is 200K.
P= 5.6696E-8 * 1.86E-5* 200K^4*1
P=.00168 W
If I have done my sums correctly that is the best the warmist can get from a square meter of CO2.
H=kA(T1-T2)/L
Air 0.024 is thermal conductivity from engineering tool box
H= (.024 W/mK* 1 sq. m * 4K)/1 m
H = .096 W
Since the air can get rid of heat 57 times faster than CO2 can send reradiate it back down how can the surface get heated by CO2?
Phil Clarke says:
“June 23, 2010 at 8:13 am
May I be the first to wish this article a Happy 2nd Birthday. If Frank’s arguments held water he would have the Nobel by now. As it is…
(what follows is a quotation)
You (Frank) did not show any error propagation in a GCM – you showed it in a toy linear model that is completely divorced from either the GCMs or the real world. Statements you make about GCMs therefore have an information content of zero
Source: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=9961”
I, Theo Goodwin, say that you should not waste your time following the link. It was troll bait when it was posted at Skeptic magazine. I am impressed by Mr. Frank’s article and would like to see some serious criticism of it, but I can find none. All the link says is that Mr. Frank’s model is a toy but a real GCM does not have these problems. Every response made by the climate faithful appeals to the ingenious models that they have constructed which are perfect and that no ordinary Ph.D. could possibly ever understand. The obvious truth of the matter is that there is no climate science worth the name. Not one climate scientist has presented something that can be called science and that supports AGW. The best we have, the best IPCC has, the best Al Gore has is Mann’s dreamy creative statistics and inadequate data. That’s it. Until climate science can present some science, they should say nothing at all.
George E. Smith says:
June 24, 2010 at 12:03 pm
It is the water. I concur.
That is why I used to laugh at the Honda car commericials that talked about having cars that ran on hydrogen and produced only water. Burning anything with carbon in it produces more molecules of water than CO2. If someone said “Hey global warming is being caused by humans adding too much water vapor in the air.” I may have believed that. But people know water is necessary for life and making a villian out of water would never have gotten anywhere.
How the CAGW hypothesis illustrations became infected.
As Spain has shown the world.
Phil Clarke, that’s just an argument reposted from a comment by Gavin Schmidt during our debate on RealClimate. Ken Fabos at the Skeptic site just re-posted that comment as an argument from authority.
The simple linear equation in the Skeptic article got its “0.36” fraction from an extrapolation of the GCM output published by Manabe, as referenced in the Supporting Information. The forcings were all calculated from the IPCC-issue equations that are also used in the current GCMs.
So, to suppose that the equation is, “divorced from either the GCMs…” is wrong.
The part about “… or the real world,” is irrelevant because I specifically disclaimed any connection to the physics of climate. The whole idea was to test what GCMs do, not what Earth does.
Skeptic article Figure 2 shows that this simple equation has all the fidelity of any given state-of-the-art GCM in projecting the atmospheric temperature effect of increasing CO2. This point is fully established in the Supporting Information document. The fidelity validates the subsequent uncertainty estimate shown in Figure 4.
I’m still surprised that more hasn’t been said about what Joel Rogers “Mr. Crime inc himself” said about it not mattering one bit what is done about carbon, it won’t change the temperature a bit even with a 0 co2 footprint, we just need the money for our green agenda and for other projects through Cap and Trade.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8322323502581858919&hl=en# about 30 minutes into the video when he says it(give or take).
Also like has been said if we are putting 30million metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere currently and that is 2ppm of the greenhouse gases that’s 15 tonnes per ppm.
so even if we had no humans or animals on earth it would take 33 years to make .65 degrees C difference in global temps.
Where is everyone going for 33 years?
And the other side is saying it doesn’t matter what we do with CO2 we just want the money for our projects from Cap and Trade?
Roger Knights says:
June 24, 2010 at 7:01 pm
As Spain has shown the world.
I’m sorry I must have misunderstood what you said.
I misread your comment about Spain showing the world that a green ecological economy is cheaper?
Um with hundreds of businesses fleeing the country and or sending jobs over seas to Third world nations because they can’t afford to keep employees and they have a national 21% and growing National Unemployment rate and the Nation of Spain is this close to literally declaring bankruptcy as a nation and needing the ITO to come in and give them a life saving transfusion of funds and taking control of their nation as similar to Greece, I certainly didn’t read your post correctly did I?
Um well so far the US Government has thrown not spent 1.8 trillion and growing over the last 10 years.
By the time they instigate Cap and Trade it will cost this nation of ours probably about 10 trillion and another 35 million lost jobs, and our country being controlled by the ITO.
skeptic nonsense in deed.
Espen,
I’m trying to figure out how you figure the world is the archetype of chaos?
For Eons the world has warmed and cooled. It has brought itself back to balance naturally. Volcano’s blow sending ash into the atmosphere which while, reaking havoc on airplane travel for the rich from europe to america and vice versa, it cools the planet.
While one end of the world loses ice the other gains it.
when the world gets cold the worlds oceans release co2 and warms it via the greenhouse effect.
Now Venus, Mars, and the Moon all show obvious signs of chaos. Very little greenhouse gases and no or little atmosphere and no life possible.
The world is an incredibly intelligent design and full of logical behavior put into motion by an intelligent designer.
Excellent article which illustrates something that has bothered me for a while.
We see so much effort devoted to arguments about measurements of data such as ice thickness and temperature as if these data by themselves mean something conclusive. In reality until there is a reliable model the data is just data. Few people seem to appreciate this. There is no way that a reliable model can be produced which is not immediately consumed by its own error bars.
Even if by some miracle we had a perfect model there is absolutely no way that we can produce a method of steering the climate. Unless maybe we can turn volcanoes on and off adjust the sun etc.
So between measurement and spending money we have two absolute show stoppers. Why do we spend so much time arguing with warmists over what was the warmest decade and when was the ice thicker when it is all completely moot?
Smokey says:
June 24, 2010 at 4:58 am
RR Kampen says at 9:57 am [ … ]
If it weren’t for your strawman, you’d have nothing.
—
I don’t understand this comment.
Are you trying to deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
@Jeff Green
June 23, 2010 at 5:01 pm
My answers are in capital letters. No offense.
I was being sarcastic.