New carbon dioxide emissions model: “carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced to around zero by the end of the century”

Via press release from the Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science

New carbon dioxide emissions model

Meteorologists have determined exactly how much carbon dioxide humans can emit into the atmosphere while ensuring that the earth does not heat up by more than two degrees

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculated projected temperature changes for various scenarios in 2007 and researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg have now gone one step further: they have developed a new model that specifies the maximum volumes of carbon dioxide that humans may emit to remain below the critical threshold for climate warming of two degrees Celsius. To do this, the scientists incorporated into their calculations data relating to the carbon cycle, namely the volume of carbon dioxide absorbed and released by the oceans and forests. The aim of the international ENSEMBLES project is to simulate future changes in the global climate and carbon dioxide emissions and thereby to obtain more reliable threshold values on this basis. (Climatic Change, July 21, 2010)

Fig.: Evolution of the carbon dioxide emissions calculated by the model (left) and the temporal development of the global mean annual temperature (right). In order to achieve the long-term stabilisation of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, fossil carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced to around zero by the end of the century. The black lines represent the observed values. (GtC/year = gigatons carbon/year)

Image: Max Planck Institute for Meteorology

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by the combustion of fossil fuels (gas, oil) has increased by around 35 percent since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. If carbon dioxide emissions and, as a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations continue to increase unchecked, a drastic increase in the global temperature can be expected before the end of this century. With the help of new models for a prescribed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, scientists from all over Europe have now calculated for the first time the extent to which the global carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced to halt global warming.

“What’s new about this research is that we have integrated the carbon cycle into our model to obtain the emissions data,” says Erich Roeckner. According to the model, admissible carbon dioxide emissions will increase from approximately seven billion tonnes of carbon in the year 2000 to a maximum value of around ten billion tonnes in 2015. In order to achieve the long-term stabilisation of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, the emissions will then have to be reduced by 56 percent by the year 2050 and approach zero towards the end of this century. Although, based on these calculations, global warming would remain under the two-degree threshold until 2100, further warming may be expected in the long term: “It will take centuries for the global climate system to stabilise,” says Erich Roeckner.

The scientists used a new method with which they reconstructed historical emission pathways on the basis of already-calculated carbon dioxide concentrations. To do this, Erich Roeckner and his team adopted the methodology proposed by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for simulations being carried out for the future Fifth IPCC Assessment Report: earth system models that incorporate the carbon cycle were used to estimate the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions that are compatible with a prescribed concentration pathway. In this case, the emissions depend solely on the proportion of the anthropogenic carbon in the model that is absorbed by the land surface and the oceans. Repetition of the experiments using different pre-industrial starting dates enabled the scientists to distinguish between anthropogenic climate change and internal climate variability.

The model used for this study is based on a low-resolution spatial grid with a grid spacing of around 400 kilometres, which takes the atmosphere, plus the land surface, the ocean, including sea ice, and the marine and terrestrial carbon cycle into account.

The overall aim of the study is to simulate future changes in the climate and carbon dioxide emissions in a single scenario in which the carbon dioxide equivalent concentrations in the atmosphere are stabilised in the long term at 450 parts per million (ppm), so that global warming increases to a maximum of two degrees above the pre-industrial level. The data are currently being evaluated by other European climate centres. “As soon as all of the results are available, we can evaluate the spread between the models,” says Erich Roeckner. “The more significant the data we have, the more accurate our forecast will be.”

Related links:

[1] Website of the ENSEMBLES project

Original work:

Erich Roeckner, Marco A. Giorgetta, Traute Crueger, Monika Esch, Julia Pongratz
Historical and future anthropogenic emission pathways

Advertisements

220 thoughts on “New carbon dioxide emissions model: “carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced to around zero by the end of the century”

  1. “It will take centuries for the global climate system to stabilise,” says Erich Roeckner.

    Ya think? When was the last time the ‘global climate system’ was stable?

  2. So they invent the scariest scenario possible; no energy usage from burning anything and they can only be bothered to model down to a 400 km grid spacing.

    That’s about as good as holding your finger up to find out which is the sunny side.

    These people ought to be tarred and feathered and put out in the town square in the stocks for people to throw rotten tomatoes at.

    Did you notice how careful they were to mention that they took clouds into consideration; oh maybe I read that in somebody else’s paper talking about the source of tornadoes.

  3. What a misleading headline, Anthony! The article says that if a 2 deg C goal is to be met, then CO2 emissions must be dramatically reduced. The headline would have us forget about the first half of that conditional. They are not saying emissions must drop; they are saying that IF we want to meet the 2 deg C GHG goal, THEN emissions must drop. That is an extremely important difference.

  4. Yeah, that’s doable.

    I promise to stop all use of fossil fuels 90 years from now.

    Hell, I’ll make that promise for 50 years from now. I might regret it on my 103’rd birthday but what the heck, I’m as enviromentally conscious as the next guy.

  5. “the emissions will then have to be reduced by 56 percent by the year 2050 and approach zero towards the end of this century. Although, based on these calculations, global warming would remain under the two-degree threshold until 2100, further warming may be expected in the long term: “It will take centuries for the global climate system to stabilise,” says Erich Roeckner.”

    Sigh, the last quote first, “It will take centuries for the global climate system to stabilise,” says Erich Roeckner.”———Will someone send this pinhead a note telling him the climate system has never been stable?

    CO2 emissions to zero?? So, are they planning the mass suicide by kool-aid? Or do they think we’ll have developed a different manner of breathing by then? I’ll gladly stand in line for the kool-aid, but every enviro whack-job has to stand in front of me. When the last one drinks the kool-aid, well, we might not have to drink anymore. We’ll measure the CO2 emissions then and see if zero is really necessary.

  6. From the ENSEMBLES home page: “an objective probabilistic estimate of uncertainty in future climate at the seasonal to decadal and longer timescales” . This is an oxymoron at best. No such thing as “objective probability”. All probabilities are subjective. And when combined with the rest of the phrase is total [snip]!

  7. “It will take centuries for the global climate system to stabilise,” says Erich Roeckner.

    Has the Earth’s climate ever been stable?

  8. New carbon dioxide emissions model: “carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced to around zero by the end of the century”
    ====================
    I’ve run my own CO2 emmision model, and it says:
    “Number of CAGW believers must be reduced to around zero by Friday”
    I’ve spent half day trying to find out why my model f****d up day of the week.

  9. “[…] Meteorologists have determined exactly how much carbon dioxide humans can emit into the atmosphere while ensuring that the earth does not heat up by more than two degrees. […]”

    Exactly? Oh, suuuuure….. Lord willin’ and the creek don’t rise.

    Color me skeptical. That’s an awful lot of certainty there.

  10. What better way to build a graph to show a rise in temperature over time then pick the starting point in the middle of a cool period. Presto castastrophic warming…

  11. I think that Max and his buddies need to spend more time studying CO2 rather than models.

  12. ” namely the volume of carbon dioxide absorbed and released by the oceans and forests.”

    No one knows this.
    They didn’t even adjust for plankton levels going down.
    Plankton goes down, oceans take up less CO2.

    Won’t happen, too many main CO2 emitters have given them the finger.

    They are just buying into the long term, and trying to make themselves a player for more government/grant money.

  13. Oh, and it’s based upon a model, based upon IPCC methodology, which is based upon what? WUWT?

  14. Here is the key: ““What’s new about this research is that we have integrated the carbon cycle into our model to obtain the emissions data,” says Erich Roeckner. According to the model, admissible carbon dioxide emissions will increase…”

  15. alGore wanted to be carbon free by 2015.
    He did pay 540 dollars so that means he doesn’t expect everything to be free
    We will have a lot more rubber car tires to burn by the end of the century.
    India and China have 75% of their people burn coal, charcoal, trash, wood to heat and cook. I suspect most humans will ignore this Eutopian ideology. There may be a few people that shut down their CO2 ouput. I can’t begin to explain how the claimant is really kidding themselves if they think they know what all produces CO2 and how it can be stopped. It takes 1,350 tons of coal to make steel for a 850 ton wind turbine tower. Let them find a carbon free Bessimer steel process.

  16. How many ways can this be wrong?
    1. The current temp rise is wrong. See Ross McKitrick’s paper.
    2. The projected temperature rise is wrong. It might go 1 degree. It might go down 1 degree. It may do nothing. Only the sun will tell.
    3. The projected carbon use is wrong. The Asian countries will take up any fossil fuel use that the West gives up. But that won’t make any differene to the temperature.
    4. “It will take centuries for the global climate system to stabilise,” says Erich Roeckner. Wrong. It’s stable now.

  17. “Meteorologists have determined exactly how much carbon dioxide humans can emit into the atmosphere while ensuring that the earth does not heat up by more than two degrees”

    In other news, demographers have also determined exactly what the US population will be in 2052, what every person in the US will have for breakfast on April 15, 2052, and who will be elected Principal of the Semi-United States in Gorevember (hint: she will belong to the Kool-Aid Party and hasn’t been born yet). Democrats are already demanding a recount.

  18. Sorry mods. I skipped a bit and went went right for the jugular. Feel free to delete all comments (not post as some say, but I’m a stickler for the proper use of terms ans spelling/grammar (it really aids the discussion when no one is questioning your use of the language (and we are using English, right?))). Nice parentheticals.

    [REPLY – I gave up on grammar/usage fascism decades ago. In the end, it’s the thought that counts, not the form. ~ Evan]

  19. “The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by the combustion of fossil fuels (gas, oil) has increased by around 35 percent since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.”

    I’m not a scientist, merely a casual reader. Question: What is the percentage of CO2 from fossil fuels compared to other sources? The above statement rings of someone spinning data. Human related CO2 emissions could be a very small part of the overall picture, yet the 35% makes it sound very scary. Could someone please enlighten me?

    Thanks.

    [REPLY – It accumulates little by little over time. We add c. 8 Bil. Metric Tons Carbon to the atmosphere. Half accumulates, the other half is absorbed by other sinks. There’s c. 760 BMTC in the atmosphere already. So it accumulates at c. half a % per year. My opinion, though, is that this has little effect. ~ Evan]

  20. This study critically depends upon the estimate of the time CO2 spends in the atmosphere before being absorbed. The IPCC says “centuries”; everyone impartial says a number between about 5 and 15 years. Which half-life did the Max Planck Society use? That graph cries out that they used a big number.

    My initial reaction: a disgrace to besmirch the memory of a brilliant physicist with such bad work.

  21. Finally, the “three legged stool” of AGW stands revealed before us:

    1.Zero anthropogenic carbon emissions (350.org);
    2.Veganism (Ban Ki Moon); and,
    3.Population control.
    The seat of the stool is global governance and wealth redistribution, brought to us by the experts who also operated the “Oil for Palaces, Payloads and Payoffs” program.

    Now, let the comprehensive and candid discussion of the actions necessary to achieve the future of the globe and its inhabitants begin in earnest.

    The program probably needs a “catchy” slogan, such as: “If we all lived like the people of Bangladesh, we could all live.”

  22. What a joke.

    – “It will take centuries for the global climate system to stabilise,” says Erich Roeckner.

    Ever since when has the climate been stable? How can they possibly know that?

    I think the key word here again is “model”. Garbage in, garbage out I suspect.

  23. At what point does someone claim they need to manage the relation between plant and animal biomass to control CO2?

    I’m not kidding, you know it’s occurred to someone.

  24. Yep. It’s the sound of new taxes. Nothing new. The science building is on the other side of the campus.

  25. It will never cease to amaze me that people can be intelligent, articulate, have letters following their name, and yet still be total idiots.

    I was going to follow that up with details, but I think it’s self evident.

  26. “What’s new about this research is that we have integrated the carbon cycle into our model to obtain the emissions data,”

    The carbon cycle was never integrated before? This would invalidate previous models, and they just admitted it. So the conclusions of the previous models were admittedly flawed, but used those faulty numbers and plugged it into a new model to spit out more faulty numbers. Where is the comprehensive estimate of pre-industrial emissions to base this on? What forcing factors from which faulty model did they use? When did they finally come up with the true measurement of the carbon cycle and its potential capacity to plug in to this? GIGO!
    Max Planck used to be the pinnacle of good science in Europe.
    It’s worse than we thought.

  27. Where to begin?

    “Although, based on these calculations, global warming would remain under the two-degree threshold until 2100, further warming may be expected in the long term:”

    Now I try to be a nice guy but hang on thar just a go’darn minute!

    “Nature’s CO2 balances itself out” we are told. So if we stop producing it, it stops increasing. In fact it starts to fall – most of the man-made stuff would be gone in a hundred years or so.

    But “based on these calculations”, throughout the fall and after it’s mostly gone (back to pre-industrial levels I’d guess) temperature continues to go up. For hundreds of years.

    ‘Scuse me!!

  28. I suppose they used the IPCC’s extraordinarily long CO2 residency time too. I wonder if they included the increase in the amount of chlorophyll in the biosphere in their calculations? How can they expect to be taken seriously when they use the IPCC as a starting point?– John M Reynolds

  29. Right now we are emitting 8.5B tons Carbon and the oceans and plants are absorbing/sequestering about half of that so the content in the atmosphere is only increasing at 4.0B tons Carbon (or about 1.98ppm/year CO2).

    It is apparent that that the oceans and plants absorb CO2 at an increasing rate according to the concentration in the atmosphere. As it goes higher they will absorb more. As it goes lower they will absorb less. CO2 has been at about 280 ppm for the last 24 million years so this could be looked at as the Equilbrium level in the current Earth continental and biosphere arrangement.

    So we do not have to reduce emissions to Zero. We only have to reduce emissions by about Half. Now to stay below 450 ppm, we will have to start reducing emissions now (with a long-term goal of a 50% reduction) to reach the target but we certainly do not need to go to Zero.

  30. … zero emissions by the end of the century…

    Zero.
    Zip.
    Zilch.
    Nada.

    So how do we achieve this goal ?!

    6+ billion people worldwide holding their breath (ie: no exhaling allowed) until the year 2100 to see if the models have it right ?!

    I could laugh heartily at this garbage science… but these ridiculously insane fantasical dreams based on ‘what-if’ computer models and utilizing them as gospel to mould worldwide policies… just simply doesn’t permit me to do so.

    *sigh*

  31. “..researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg have now gone one step further: They have developed a new model that…” tells them exactly what they and the IPCC collective want to hear. The world may get really hot…. and we need a lot more money to model it because “The more significant the data we have, the more accurate our forecast will be.”

    Ironically, the google ad (from ExploreTalent.com) above this comment window states “Models Wanted. Looking for inexperienced new faces, Sign Up! It’s Free!” Is the Max Planck Society behind this ad? It seems appropo they would soliciting for new “models”……… as the old ones are ‘long in the tooth’ and of questionable integrity!

    Perhaps Max Factor is an affiliate of Max Planck Society and they hope to yet refute the old adage “You can put lipstick on a pig….. but it’s still a pig.”

    };>)

  32. All this assumes positive feedback is a.) true, and b.) As bad as IPCC AR4 says.

    If it ain’t, then it’s wrong.

  33. Zero C02 emissions to form the new Vegetarian Earth by 2080.
    Sounds like a death sentence for all animal life.
    Why don’t they just cut to the chase and play Global Thermonuclear War?

  34. What perplexes me about the AGWers is their refusal to admit that the only way this is currently possible (and not put us back into the stone age) is through a massive nuclear power program, whether that means conventional or better yet intense research into new very promising ideas such as LIFE hybrid power engines. https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy_for_the_future/life/ .
    The idea is interesting; A laser would ingnite fusion targets surrounded by subcritical fission fuels that could include depleated and natural uranium, weapons grade plutonium (start burning those nasty weapons), thorium, and even all of the spent reactor fuels laying at the bottom of pools all over this country. The light energy required is half that of pure fusion, does not require uramium enrichment and produces 100 to 300 times the energy imputed (due to the fissionable material), and greatly reduces the long term storage needs.
    The numbers don’t add up otherwise with current technology. There are good reasons (economic, geopolitical and environmental) to slowly bring an end to the use of fossil fuels. This country has the talent and resources to develope these technologies. I don’t think that CO2 causes warming and I don’t think the world will come to an end if CO2 is not near zero by 2100 but the mind boggling efficiency of producing energy from fission or fussion must be embraced and pursued.

  35. This report is far too cautious. 95-97% of CO2 emissions are of natural origin. As our planet warms, the oceans will discharge this GHG Into the atmosphere more and more rapidly. Catastrophic positive feedback is inevitable if we merely seek to reduce our lethal exhalations to zero.
    No longer can we bask in the luxury of having a positive carbon footprint or dream about a carbon-neutral future. We have to become carbon negative!
    How? Easy peasy. We simply remove oxygen-consumers from the Carbon cycle and recycle, as compost, to support those lifeforms that are capable of carbon sequestration.
    We could begin with rats, roaches and nasty-insects. No one could have a problem with that, could they?

    It’s hardly rocket-science and its impact on the average family budget will be barely noticeable.
    Maybe not the family pet though!

    Disclaimer. I received no funding for these findings and my tongue stayed firmly in cheek throughout (unlike the aforementiond good Burgers)

  36. If the black line in the second graph is supposed to represent observations, not only does it look like it doesn’t match other graphs, it also stops at 2000.

    Is their study based on data that are 10 years out of date, or was it done 10 years ago?

  37. Again and again they use as a basis for their models the 1960-2000 period (from the coldest most recent data point to the warmest most recent data point), conveniently ignoring everything that went on before and after.

    This fact alone invalidates their grant-chasing extrapolations.

  38. Zero emissions within 90 years? Not going to happen, under any scenario. So it won’t drive effective action, but instead absurd demands and polarized politics.

  39. Funny how they don’t even mention the main drivers of our climate, the sun and oceanic cycles. The cooling over the next decades should temper this though.
    This is some real red meat for the warmists, expect to see this popping up everywhere.

  40. BTW:
    Do they realize that to achieve zero human CO2 emissions we’ve all gotta DIE?!!

  41. It is interesting that they make no mention of what kind of economy could exist under 0% man made fossil fuel emissions, or even at 1970 emission levels with current or future GDPs. Their conclusion would require a catastrophic contraction of the current economy.

    If what they are proposing is our only salvation, we might as well abandon the CO2 reduction project completely as China and India are makeing any such attempts futile. . . . . . not to mention the largest emitters. . . . the biomass and oceans.

    From a practical public policy perspective, you have to wonder what beneficial value such a conclusion could offer. . . other than hopelessness?

  42. Its time for the world to follow the US and pull all funding from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    The one thing all this has proven, countries should fund their own research, do their own Peer Review, and then meet at a round table to share results.

    Zero CO2 emissions is ignorant.

    What does the German science community think of this Institute for Meteorology computer game?

  43. What do they assume is the residence time of carbon in the atmosphere and what is their proof? I recall that AR4 assumes 100 years which far exceeds the robust consensus in the peer reviewed literature per 24 studies cited at c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5f07875970c-pi

    It sounds like same old, same old to me.

  44. ““What’s new about this research is that we have integrated the carbon cycle into our model to obtain the emissions data,” says Erich Roeckner.” –

    … Wait a minute. The other models DON’T integrate the carbon cycle into their calculations?

  45. This is GREAT!
    Somebody please get a 500MW dynamo to the Max Plank institute right away!!

    Max has got to be doing 1800 RPM in his grave.

  46. To all of those against this finding, it seems that you are not properly sedated. If you feel that you are not properly sedated, please ring 333. Failure to do so will put you in breach of the drug evasion act.

  47. C’mon, Max Planck Institute. Show us the way. Shut down all your activities immediately. Lead by example, not empty words.

  48. perversly (sp?) this ia a “good news story” – even the most un-informed , or even interested neutral, will start to see these ever shriller cliams for the nonsense they are.

  49. Ed Murphy says: “These people think we’re completely retarded mongoloids?”

    No, they think you don’t own any newspapers, that your elected representatives are card-carrying, Kool-Aid guzzling socialists, and that the latter will tax you to death to keep their grant gravy-train rolling long enough for the UN to set up a non-democratic government.

  50. zero emissions in 90 years? i guess the mathematical probability of that isn’t zero…

    it’d be funny if they weren’t serious.

  51. Hmm, so how come my posts are still saying “awaiting moderation” when I see posts after mine? WUWT? Am I being boycotted?

  52. There will be less then 500 million people by 2100 if things go as planned for the commies. Maybe this zero CO2 emissions is an inside humor among them?

  53. Can someone help me understand this?
    They say that if we stop human CO2 emissions by the end of the century temperature will continue to rise for 100’s more years. OK, I suppose that means that somehow CO2 doesn’t have its entire heating effect straight away, but only over a long period.
    But we’re told that the warming between the mid 1970’s and the late 1990’s was caused by human produced CO2. So, given that human production of CO2 was negligible until at least the mid 20th century, that means that some warming kicks in pretty quickly.
    So how much heat retention would the existing CO2, assuming no further CO2 production, cause over the next say 90 years? The 70’s-90’s warming was about 0.5 of a degree. How much more should follow on their model from what we’ve got already? Whatever figure it is, how does that match temperatures in past times when for many thousands of years there were CO2 levels many times higher than what we’ve got now?
    I think I must be misunderstanding the whole thing, because I can’t see how what they are now saying can possibly conform with known reality – at least not if there’s any truth to the idea that the 70’s-90’s warming was largely human produced.

  54. Doug in Seattle says:
    August 3, 2010 at 6:05 pm
    I think that Max and his buddies need to spend more time studying CO2 rather than models.

    Reply: I think Max is rotating at high rpm’s in his grave!

  55. Well, at least this time it was European Climate Ca$h that paid for this work…

    If people only knew what the government was doing with their tax money!

  56. A stable climate sounds a bit creepy – no change, just the same old what ever was popular at the time. It really is worse than we thought.

  57. Severian says: “Max Planck must be rolling in his grave.”

    Yeah, that’s what I’m thinking. This December, the Max Crank Institute for Meteorological Humbug will be visited by three spirits: Planck, Einstein, and Feynman….

  58. How much carbon dioxide is emitted is actually irrelevant and trying to control it is simply extreme stupidity. This is because Ferenc Miskolczy [E&E 21(4):243-262 (2010)] has shown that further addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere cannot change the already-existing greenhouse effect that keeps the earth habitable. Using NOAA’s database of weather balloon observations he demonstrated that the “…global average annual infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere has been unchanged for 61 years, with a value of 1.87. It will be inferred that CO2 does not affect the Earth’s climate through the greenhouse effect.” Optical thickness is a logarithmic measure of the transparency of the atmosphere to heat radiation from below. Constant addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere for 61 years straight has not changed its transparency or its optical thickness would have increased, and this did not happen. This means that the greenhouse absorption signature of the added carbon dioxide simply isn’t there. I have been spreading this info in various blogs and it seems to fall into a black hole, even in this gathering of skeptics. Are you really afraid to say that the emperor has no clothes on? I myself have demonstrated that the vaunted “anthropogenic global warming” has never been observed. I now understand why this is so: Miskolczy’s work shows that it is physically impossible.

  59. If it wasn’t, then this report should have been printed on low grade (preferably at least 2ply) continuous feed paper with convenient page perforations every few (approx 5) inches.

    That would at least make it of some practical use.

  60. Let’s see

    CO2 has gone from about 280 to 380, a 35% increase.
    So they atribute the entire increase to human activity.

    Willis just posted a new study showing that plankton levels have dropped 50%

    NOAA says plankton “Scientists looked at atmospheric CO2 and tiny marine plants known as phytoplankton, which remove almost 60 billion tons of carbon from the surface ocean each year” I’m assuming they mean at todays levels of plankton.

    So if plankton levels have dropped 50% in the past 100 years, then that’s an extra 60 billions tons a year that the oceans did not take up.

    No, I don’t think anyone can blame the entire increase on human activity.
    Looks like most of it is from lazy plankton.

  61. Paul Anderson says:
    August 3, 2010 at 6:08 pm
    Zero. That sounds good. Hey wait, *I* emit carbon dioxide!
    =================================================
    LOL Paul you are the weakest link

  62. Are they not just pointing out that the “critical threshold for climate warming of two degrees Celsius” will most probably be exceeded.

  63. That goes along with Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdern’s definition of a “human being”
    “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being….” Source: http://grendelreport.posterous.com/obamas-science-czar-advocates-de-developing-t

    Since we skeptics obviously have not had the “essential early socializing experiences” then we are not human. The consensus figures show we are a very small minority (3%) so that makes us “endangered species” Therefore we deserve the full protection of Greenpeace and Sierra Club and the EPA so we can enjoy our native habitat – high tech western Civilization – in peace un-threatened by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  64. The 2 graphs are not working together. They show co2 going down but temps still going up, going by the IPCC 50 yr temp trends the temps should be going down by the last 20 to30 yrs after the c02.

  65. Damn! I can feel that “socially disruptive cognitive disorder” kicking in again, anybody have a few Prozac you can spare ….or maybe just a bag of peanut M&Ms.

  66. Sigh. More garbage that doesn’t even rise to the level of pseudo-science. If this doen’t stop soon, we humans are going to need to take planet back from the idiot “elites” and their enablers. Lock and load…..

  67. In a 2006 report by Bengtsson, Lennart, Hodges, ROECKNER, Erich, Brokopf and Renate, they stated:

    We suggest that climate variability in Europe for the “pre industrial” period 1500-1900 is fundamentally a consequence of INTERNAL FLUCTUATIONS OF THE CLIMATE SYSTEM. Global temperatures are highly correlated with ENSO.

    How far they have fallen since then–into the IPCC quagmire. Quite a comedown for Roecker–an acclaimed scientist.

  68. Hm:

    “With the help of new models for a prescribed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, scientists from all over Europe have now calculated for the first time the extent to which the global carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced to halt global warming.”

    Do they actually say PRESCRIBED atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration

    Prescribed by who?

    And STABILIZING?

    So the earth is in intensive care now.

    And only Dr. Mann and Dr Jones can save it.

    In good hands, of course.
    All in good hands.

  69. i had a go at david adam on bishop hill over the use of “stabilised” in the following sub-heading:

    17 June: Guardian: David Adam: Cutting greenhouse gases will be no quick fix for our weather, scientists say
    UK study predicts increased floods and droughts will continue for decades after global temperatures are stabilised
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/17/cutting-emissions-not-fix-water-cycle

    WMO looking silly too:

    10 Feb: World Meteorological Organization: Sea level rise: a new Task Group formed
    Sea level will continue to rise for many centuries even after global temperatures are stabilized as it takes that long for the ocean and ice sheets to fully respond to a warmer climate…
    http://www.wmo.int/pages/publications/meteoworld/archive/feb10/sea_level_en.html

  70. The terror of it all.

    I promise, by all that is holy, to end all my CO2 emissions in all forms prior to my birthday in December 2099. I hope I won’t regret this pledge when I’m blowing out the 153 candles on my cake. Just think of the bliss that will spread across all the lands when we experience a stable climate for the first time in the planet’s existence. Such is mankind’s power.

    If mankind has such power to save the earth, why stop there? Let us go forth and first save the solar system, then the galaxy, then save the entire universe. We are on a mission from Gore!

  71. I think they need to be renamed the “Thick as Two Short Planks Institute”
    I like the cherrypicked 1960 starting point for their graph.

  72. The respiration of just one insect species, termites, produces three times the CO2 expired by all humans. That is apart from the Gtons of methane they produce by fermentation. These are just one facet of the wonderful biota of this planet that keeps us habitable.

    We should be at or above 1000 ppm CO2 to be at optimum plant growth. As as been shown by Arno and many others, this 3-fold increase will not affect the temperature, since it is already at saturated levels for the relevant wavelength absorption.

    Go man! Go termites!

  73. Arno Arrak says:
    August 3, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    This is well understood here. Along with a variety of other reasons why AGW is junk science. But they can’t hardly quote Miskolczy and then shut the blog down, eh? What fun would that be?

  74. Merovign says:
    August 3, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    At what point does someone claim they need to manage the relation between plant and animal biomass to control CO2?

    I’m not kidding, you know it’s occurred to someone.
    _____________________________________________________
    It did occur to them and a whole lot more:
    Livestock cut urged to tackle carbon emissions

    “A new report, published today, which features input from 13 universities and 12 research bodies, including the University of East Anglia, urges… cutting livestock numbers, which generates 82pc of green house gases in the agricultural sector…”

    Which leads into telling us what we can eat is planned:
    Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS

    “all Americans are supposed to have by 2014 … record [of] not only the traditional measures of height and weight, but also the Body Mass Index: a measure of obesity.

    The obesity-rating regulation states that every American’s electronic health record must: “Calculate body mass index. Automatically calculate and display body mass index (BMI) based on a patient’s height and weight.”

    The law also requires that these electronic health records be available–with appropriate security measures–on a national exchange.

    The new regulations are one of the first steps towards the government’s goal of universal adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) by 2014…. The new regulations also stipulate that the new electronic records be capable of sending public health data to state and federal health agencies..”

    (Reuters) – U.S. researchers estimate that an 18 percent tax on pizza and soda can push down U.S. adults’ calorie intake enough to lower their average weight by 5 pounds (2 kg) per year.

    Under the skin RFID tags are in the works too: RFID Implants Aimed At Chronically Ill

    Next we will be denied the right to buy a pizza and soda if we are 10 kilos overweight — Oh that’s right there has already been a commercial about that too.

  75. I believe none of this stuff until it is published in a reputable, peer-reviewed format such as Car & Driver or Barry Mitchell’s Fishing Guide.

  76. it never ends…

    4 Aug: SMH: AAP: Frozen CO2, methane a time bomb: experts
    Massive volumes of carbon dioxide and methane frozen in the earth’s soils are a “time-bomb ticking under our feet”, soil scientists say…
    The World Congress of Soil Scientists in Brisbane has been told that frozen soils and peatlands in the northern hemisphere are estimated to store up to 50 per cent of the world’s organic soil carbon.
    University of Wisconsin-Madison soil scientist Dr James Bockheim said global warming threatens to thaw these soils, some of which have been frozen for thousands of years.
    “Atmospheric temperatures have increased by 3 (degrees) C over the past decades in the Arctic and Antarctic regions and this continued warming may cause carbon stored in the surface permafrost to be released to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide,” he said.
    The potential release of greenhouse gases from frozen soils is not currently taken into account in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculations as it is not known exactly how thawing will impact on greenhouse gas emissions…
    Dr Merritt Turetsky, from the University of Guelph in Canada, is studying peatlands and describes them as a time-bomb ticking under our feet…
    “Peatlands have served as a long-term sink of carbon dioxide but today also represent one of the largest natural sources of methane….”
    http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/frozen-co2-methane-a-time-bomb-experts-20100804-117hw.html

  77. Oslo says:
    August 3, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    Ask your Climate Modeler if Nuclear Waste is right for you.

  78. If Scotland killed all its sheep, CO2 emissions would be reduced by fifty percent. Is it really necessary to kill all the humans too? Same for New Zealand. Same for all nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes in Africa and Asia, though substitute the local animal for sheep.

  79. I found the loophole.

    At the beginning they said all human caused CO2 and then back peddled to fossil fuel. Nancy Pelosi says natural gas is NOT a fossil fuel. That gives us something to work with.

  80. Paul Anderson says (August 3, 2010 at 6:08 pm):

    Zero. That sounds good. Hey wait, *I* emit carbon dioxide!

  81. Grant Hillemeyer says:
    August 3, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    What perplexes me about the AGWers is their refusal to admit that the only way this is currently possible (and not put us back into the stone age) is through a massive nuclear power program…
    __________________________________________________________
    Which was killed in the 1970’s. We would not have the C02 emissions or pollution problems or the mass loss of manufacturing to third world countries if the same idiots pushing CAGW had pushed nuclear power in the 1970’s instead.

    Cheap power means prosperity and that means the politicians and more importantly the socialists lose power over the masses. It always comes down to power and money.

    “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.” Henry L. Mencken

  82. Hey I thought we were supposed to cut our emissions by 80% by 2050. 50 years for the last 20% shouldn’t be that tough. Does that mean we have to stop breathing too?

  83. Paul Anderson says (August 3, 2010 at 6:08 pm):
    “Zero. That sounds good. Hey wait, *I* emit carbon dioxide!”

    Good point. Maybe someone will invent a personal CO2-containment breathing apparatus. Heck, if they do, I’m buying shares in the company.

  84. once again another model, which have been soooooooooo right so far, predicts something scary in an attempt to scare the public. So what if we don’t hit 0 emmisions? are we going to warm 3, 4, 5, maybe 6C by 2100. I don’t think so.

    Also, just because we cut CO2 emmisions to 0, which is a waste of time and money, doesn’t mean CO2 won’t still increase. Just by building more infrastructure and business we are eliminating plants that take CO2 out of the atmosphere, which will then cause CO2 to increase from a lack of plants. Bottom line, stop building more buildings and roads, and that will help stop the increase of CO2,

    That above paragraph is only pertinent if CO2 has an actual impact on temperature, which i have not seen any reason to believe, or any study actual correlating CO2 increase to temperature increase, If such a study does exist that shows this correlation please let me know, but i haven’t seen it yet

  85. Gail Combs I always like reading your comments, mostly because of the details you throw in. I’m well aware of the agenda. I think you should write an article on the AGW-world government link, and send it to http://henrymakow.com/.
    I think Henry would surely post it. Many who are aware of socialist world government agenda, are clueless to the GW role in it. I hope you shine some light on it.
    Personally I think, it is the most lethal bullet the oligarchs have. The transformation potential it has, is HUGE! It can literally demolish the old way of life, paving the way for a new order to be build.

  86. Max Planck would have not been pleased to see his name mistreated in such a way I am sure.Now the reality is that of all the atmospheric carbon dioxide human activity is responsible for around 5% which leaves around 95% over which humanity has no control and a cooling of the planets oceans via a la nina will more than account for that puny contribution anyway.
    I have just read what is perhaps the worst and most dangerous article yet published, it crosses the line into the realms of insanity. Two degrees Celsius? But where is the proof that killing our industrial society and handing over vast powers to a tiny elite will limit or control the earths temperatures when these same people failed to predict the current solar minimum, failed to predict oceanic cooling, failed to prove CO2 is the main driver of the greenhouse effect,failed to predict a cooling planet, failed to predict a fall in hurricane intensity, failed to predict a polar icecap regeneration and in fact have failed utterly in explaining and predicting the events now happening.
    The utter failure of climate models over the last twenty years, the utter failure of climate science to live by and obey the basic rules of scientific endeavour and in fact the only area which climate science has excelled is in soaking up vast amounts of funding and pedaling political socio economic narratives in the guise of science .
    I have always believed that science is the tool which humanity must use to escape the cesspit of ignorance,stupidity and superstition, it seems that some scientists are abusing their position to drag humanity back into that cesspit of fear and superstitious belief and wanton ignorance.
    My only comfort is that the planet will show them up for the fools they truly are and I hope that occurs before they wreak too much much damage.

  87. Stop Global Dumbing Now says:
    August 3, 2010 at 6:55 pm
    BTW:
    Do they realize that to achieve zero human CO2 emissions we’ve all gotta DIE?!!
    —–Reply:
    Congratulations–You have just gone one step further, sir.

    But all in all, I don’t think Anthony’s playing fair! He asked us all to tone it down and then he throws crap like this at us. Nobody can play by those rules! Nobody!

    /sarc off.

  88. So what’s next, pigs can fly? I know one who can, but he is fictional.

    I always wonder about the people who release this kind of steamy [snip], If they believe it why aren’t they … (not nice to suggest suicide as a final solution).

    Climatology almost sounds like Scientology, and it surely looks like it. A Pyramid scheme in wich people have to invest a lot (if not everything) for so little (nothing is more likely). But then Climatology has achieved more than Scientology, it has become a state/world religion in a way that Hubbard never could have dreamed off.

  89. hmmm…. CO2 in ALL past history has no historic infuence on golbal climate. So…suddenly in the the 21st century BC it awakens as the end all climate changer gas. I see no sense in any form of retorhic regarding CO2 affecting global climate. Why all the time and energy wasted is beyond logic.

  90. I have to agree with the assessment of this report. Far too many people are living in a land of denial. We need stop producing CO2 right now or human civilization is toast. Its up to you now.

    REPLY: OK, since you want to take the lead, I’ll give you a front and center post tomorrow (or as soon as you can get to it). You can show us how you’ve given up your car and sent it to the scrapyard, and now ride a bicycle everywhere, how you’ve taken out that A/C and heating from your home, how you’ve shut off your natural gas and electricity to your home/apartment, and how you’ve sent in your computer for recycling (but first send us the photos and essay).

    I look forward to receiving your submission. The offer is open for one week which I see as equating to your “right now” statement. Thanks in advance for being an inspiration to us all! – Anthony

  91. The data are currently being evaluated by other European climate centres. “As soon as all of the results are available, we can evaluate the spread between the models,” says Erich Roeckner. “The more significant the data we have, the more accurate our forecast will be.”

    If this were not so serious, it is a ROFL matter, but it is serious and it would be llike laughing at a maniac coming at you with a knife.

    These people are so out of any scientific ethos that they call model results “data”, and expect them to be validated by other model results, also called “data”.

    Like lemmings they follow each other down the cliff. The bad thing is they try to take the rest of the world down with them. The good thing is it seems we are really entering a cold cycle and all this will have to stop by the coming freezing ahead.
    BTW we are having a cool summer in Greece. July was like June or September, very pleasant.

  92. The emissions must be around zero, ideally negative. Humans will have to switch from breathing to photosynthesis. All of us should be replaced by the extra trees above our graves. Prof Schneider has already been transmuted in this way – will the other RC folks and the rest of us follow?

  93. Anthony, not only should you require Ale Gorney to show us all what he is doing to reduce CO2 emissions in a week, you should require him to love the consequences of such actions. Or at least forbid him from complaining any further.

    As for this report, it would not surprise me if they just picked the number “zero” for future emissions to start with and then worked backwards from there. A little sleight-of-hand by reverse engineering. Max Planck would be rolling in his grave, I think.

  94. Ale Gorney says:
    August 3, 2010 at 9:47 pm

    I have to agree with the assessment of this report. Far too many people are living in a land of denial. We need stop producing CO2 right now or human civilization is toast. Its up to you now.

    REPLY: “OK, since you want to take the lead, I’ll give you a front and center post tomorrow (or as soon as you can get to it). You can show us how you’ve given up your car and sent it to the scrapyard, and now ride a bicycle everywhere,….”

    I hope that bike is made of wood. And the tires……well…

    Ale, in what manner do you reckon we’ll be toast? Do you believe man has lost the ability to adapt to and overcome his environment? I keep reading all the doom and gloom, but really, specifically, in what manner do you believe the apocalypse will happen to us if we don’t quit emitting CO2? I’m really curious. Do you think man can’t cope with a few more inches of water? Or a drought? At what point in time do you believe we lost the ability to cope with these things? Do you believe the total collapse of our social-economic systems would bring a better offering? Honestly? Do you believe we should lose our humanity in order to save mankind? Have you given a thought to the less fortunate people of this earth and how they are dependent(for better or worse) upon us, the more fortunate? Do you not understand the economics of CO2 emissions or the implications of doing without? How do you figure on feeding yourself? Jeez.

  95. The Max Plank Institute has just gone down an order of magnitude in my estimation. A few weeks ago I was overcritical of a post by Willis regarding the amount of anthropogenic carbon in our atmosphere for which I apologize, however I still think he overestimated significantly the effect of human CO2 on the atmosphere and the following is a simple calculation to explain this.
    There is approximately 860 GT of carbon in the atmosphere which is approximately 2.2 GT per ppm. A very conservative estimate of the total carbon cycled in and out of the atmosphere is 215 GT per year which is 25% of the carbon in the atmosphere, personally my calculations are closer to 400 GT per year. Break that down into weeks and you get 0.48 % per week of all the carbon in the atmosphere.
    Now construct a simple Excel program which starts with 100 GT i.e.45.5ppm of anthropogenic carbon, deduct 0.48 % and on the next line you have the balance remaining after 1 week of the original amount i.e. 99.52 GT just repeat that calculation ( copy and paste ) and you have 78.24 GT of your original carbon left after 52 weeks.
    This means 21.76 GT of the original anthropogenic carbon has been removed from the atmosphere but our output is only 9 GT per year so that does not balance.
    To achieve a balance one must reduce the anthropogenic carbon to 18.8 ppm i.e. 41.36 GT. Now 21.76% of 41.36 is 9 GT per year thus the CO2 levels are not increasing because of human emissions the remain in equilibrium. Now if you assume a 400 GT carbon cycle per year the human contribution really becomes insignificant.
    If you think my numbers are way out go to page 515 of IPCC AR4 fig 7.3 and check them out.
    So much for all the Max Plank brainpower.

  96. sorry I misspelled Planck, what happened to Sami Solanki? surely he could endorse such a piece of rubbish.

  97. August 3, 2010 at 6:19 pm [Evan]
    In the absence of humans the mass balance for the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is
    dC/dt = R – kC
    where R is the rate into the atmosphere and kC the rate of removal. There is a possible steady-state here (dC/dt = 0) at a level
    Css = R/k
    The same in the presence of human emissions
    dC’/dt = R’ – kC’
    and a steady-state
    C’ss = R’/k
    Comparing the two

    C’ss/Css = R’ss/Rss

    so the 0.5% increase from R to R’ (which you claim) means a 0.5% increase from Css to C’ss. From the data from C14 after atomic testing it would take a bit more than 5 years to reach a new steady-state.

    The warmists say that CO2 is “saturated” (so the kC term is wrong) but this is ridiculous for a highly soluble compound present at 0.038%.

  98. When you see the terms “Meteorologists have determined exactly” and “computer models”, then you know there is no science here.

  99. Shows you that intellectual horsepower does not guarantee intelligence not even a semblence of common sense. This paper embodies all that is wrong in the CAGW universe.

  100. The Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science advances models which advance policies of impoverishment of daily life for all people.

    This could not be a clearer statement of what is now meant by the term Science. It is highly politicized and lost.

    And more people haven’t figured out that physics is just as dysfunctional, and that the patent office may be just as politicised.

  101. “they have developed a new model that specifies the maximum volumes of carbon dioxide that humans may emit to remain below the critical threshold for climate warming of two degrees Celsius”

    Yes, but …

    “a group of German scientists, yielding to political pressure, invented an easily digestible message in the mid-1990s: the two-degree target. To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization.

    […]

    “But this is scientific nonsense. “Two degrees is not a magical limit — it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.”

    “Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.”

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,687259,00.html

    Maybe the folks at Max Planck need to have a chat with the folks at PIK?!

    As for me, I think I’m going to stick with the advice of Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, (Nobel co-recipient in Physics, 1998):

    “Climate change … is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself. […] The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control

    http://www.theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/

  102. “According to the model, admissible carbon dioxide emissions will increase…to a maximum value of around ten billion tonnes in 2015.” “… the emissions will then have to be reduced by 56 percent by the year 2050 and approach zero towards the end of this century.”

    Well that is looking a bit logically inconsistent and politically expedient, isn’t it?

  103. Gail Combs says:
    August 3, 2010 at 8:26 pm
    Merovign says:
    August 3, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    At what point does someone claim they need to manage the relation between plant and animal biomass to control CO2?

    I’m not kidding, you know it’s occurred to someone.

    Reply: Once we have stabilised the climate there will be no need for climate scientists.
    There will be a large qty of these by that time therefore I suggest the meat of the day will be them. QED

    cheerio

    Jim

  104. The Max Planck Institutes get a lot of EU research money, German research funds, and a lot of payments from industry to help in developing and evaluating green technology. EU means: not democratically accountable; Crazy Connie from Denmark; you know the drill. It’s not a gravy train; it’s a gold rush. Max Planck has the biggest innate interest to perpetuate that.

  105. Arno Arrak says:
    August 3, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    I don’t think you will get much of a response regarding Miskolczi. Most of the people here know about his work, and the AGW advocates don’t know how to respond. I’ve noted before that there has been no peer reviewed response to Miskolczi’s 2007 paper. Judith Curry said that it’s because it was published in an obscure journal. I think it’s because they don’t really know how. And the failure to respond just increases his credibility.

  106. I could be wrong here but I think there is a Max Planck Institute which is the educated part of the use of the name. These wassocks are something else. Perhaps a socialist think tank?

  107. ‘Data’, which my dictionary informs me is ‘factual information taken from direct observation or measurement’ is NOT produced by models of any kind. Data produced by models is not data at all, it is nothing more than ephemera similar to the fairies that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle used to watch in his rest periods taken after writing his Sherlock Holmes novels.
    I am sure that the authors of this current opus are all correctly-validated science people with Phuds and all sorts of other impressive personal credentials, but are they sane? If they are, they must all be rolling around the floor laughing at how stupid people are that have taken them seriously. Either that, or the lunatics have taken over that particular asylum.

  108. The emissions must be around zero, ideally negative. Humans will have to switch from breathing to photosynthesis. All of us should be replaced by the extra trees above our graves. Prof Schneider has already been transmuted in this way
    .
    This made my day :) Let’s start the photosynthesis training TODAY !

  109. Here we go again!!. Can ANYONE here help me with the questions that I have been posting ?

    A few months before Climategate broke, I started my own investigations to see if my carbon footprint (CO2) really causes global warming, as claimed. To start off with, I found Svante Arrhenius’ formula completely wrong and since then I could not find any correctly conducted experiments (tests & measurements) that would somehow prove to me that the warming properties of CO2 (by trapping earth’s radiation between the wavelengths 14-15 um) are greater than its cooling properties (by deflecting sunlight at various wavelengths between 0 – 5 um). Even more disconcerting to me was finding that pupils at school and college are shown experiments with 100% carbon dioxide (representing earth’s atmosphere of only 0.04% or 380 ppms CO2!) and a light bulb as an energy source (representing the sun!). Obviously such crude experimentation can only lead to incorrect results and completely incorrect conclusions…e.g. what about the IR and near IR absorptions of CO2 and the UV absorptions of CO2 that have only been discovered recently and that also deflect sunlight?
    I also found untruths in Al Gore’s story (An Inconvenient Truth). A lot of CO2 is dissolved in cold water and comes out when the oceans get warmer. Any chemistry student knows that the first smoke from the (warmed) water in a kettle is the CO2 being released. So, quite a number of scientists have reported that the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past lagged the warming periods by quite a few hundred years… Cause and effect, get it? Smoking causes cancer but cancer does not cause smoking. But Al made it look from the past that our CO2 output must be the cause of global warming.

    Just to put the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere into the right perspective: it has increased by about 0.01% in the past 50 years from ca. 0.03% to 0.04%. This compares with an average of about 1 % for water vapor in the air. Note that most scientists agree that water vapor is a very strong green house gas, and a much stronger green house gas than carbon dioxide… (if indeed carbon dioxide is a green house gas, which, like I said before, has yet to be proven to me). It is also logical for me to suspect that as a result of human activities relating to burning, bathing, cooking, boiling, countless cooling processes (including that for nuclear energy), erection of dams and shallow pools, etc. a lot more water vapor than carbon dioxide is put up in the air.

    The paper that confirmed to me that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by re-radiating sunshine is this one:

    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec

    they measured this radiation as it bounced back to earth from the moon. So the direction of the radiation was:sun-earth-moon-earth. Follow the green line in fig. 6, bottom. Note that it already starts at 1.2 um, then one peak at 1.4 um, then various peaks at 1.6 um and 3 big peaks at 2 um.
    This paper here shows that there is absorption of CO2 at between 0.21 and 0.19 um (close to 202 nm):
    http://www.nat.vu.nl/en/sec/atom/Publications/pdf/DUV-CO2.pdf
    There are other papers that I can look for again that will show that there are also absorptions of CO2 at between 0.18 and 0.135 um and between 0.125 and 0.12 um.
    We already know from the normal IR spectra that CO2 has big absorption between 4 and 5 um.

    So, to sum it up, we know that CO2 has absorption in the 14-15 um range causing some warming (by re-radiating earthshine) but as shown and proved above it also has a number of absorptions in the 0-5 um range causing cooling (by re-radiating sunshine). This cooling happens at all levels where the sunshine hits on the carbon dioxide same as the earthshine. The way from the bottom to the top is the same as from top to the bottom. So, my question is: how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2? How was the experiment done to determine this and where are the test results? (I am afraid that simple heat retention testing might not work here, we have to use real sunshine and real earthshine to determine the effect in W/m3 [0.03%- 0.06%]CO2/m2/24hours). I am also doubtful of just doing analysis (determining surface areas) of the spectral data, as some of the UV absorptions of CO2 have only been discovered recently. Also, I think the actual heat caused by the sun’s IR at 4-5 maybe underestimated, e.g. the amount of radiation of the sun between 4 and 5 maybe small but how many Watts does it cause? Here in Africa you can not stand in the sun for longer that 10 minutes, just because of the heat of the sun on your skin.

    Anyway, with so much at stake, surely, someone actually has to come up with some empirical testing?

    If this research has not been done, why don’t we just sue the oil companies to do this?? It is their product afterall.
    I am going to state it here quite categorically again that if no one has got these results, then how do we know for sure that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Maybe the cooling properties are equal to the warming properties?

    I have also been thinking of the ozone concentration in the air: Assuming that its cooling properties are higher than its warming properties (did anyone test that?), then lower concentrations, as in the past, before CFC’s were banned, can be a cause for global warming; increasing levels, as noted in the past 10 years can be a cause of global cooling?
    So the net effect of the increases in CO2 and ozone is close to zero or even cooling?

    (I have no financial interest in any of this, I just started my investigations because I felt a bit guilty about driving my car)

  110. Arno Arrak says:
    August 3, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    It sounds like the sort of thing I should know more about. I’ve heard the general point made before, but not with 61 years of data. You’d *think* all those iconoclastic sciencey-types would want to follow up on that, but perhaps that’s just a little conceit.

    Gail Combs says:
    August 3, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    I’d actually heard about the “must get rid of livestock” thing before, but was too lazy to look it up. Thanks and sorry. :)

    As far as BMI, the whole idea is critically offensive, they’ve managed to wrap up an invasion of privacy (obvious), rampant bureaucracy (those collecting and collating for no good reason), unfunded mandates (reporting requirements), bad medicine (judging health based on a single meaningless number), and junk science (the “BMI” measurement itself is meaningless rubbish – a large number of fit people are “obese” under that standard, and they changed the definitions in 1997, declaring 30 million people newly “overweight” in one day) – all that combined in one simple, stupid action.

    Sorry for the diversion, but junk science really ticks me off, and it’s *everywhere*.

  111. I’ll shut off my gas and electricity right after AlGore shuts off his. And right after Brad Pitt stops flying around in a private jet.

  112. Hmm, the last figures I looked at put human contribution to annual CO2 at 3.5%.

    Residency time for CO2 has been measured several times and pans out between 5 and 13 years. The Hockey Schtick blog has one such study on it’s front page as I write.

    Given the well documented, in peer review papers, observations above this latest model would appear to be, ( at my most diplomatic here ), rather badly flawed.

  113. UK Sceptic says:

    This latest CO2 outgassing from our warmist elite deserves only one response from me.

    FUBAR!

    Close… when someone tells me I need to stop emitting ANY CO2 while I live in a winter climate and need to drive several miles to work every day, I don’t think FUBAR… I think FOAD.

  114. New carbon dioxide emissions model

    And they’re still messing around with 1:1,000,000 scale. At this rate, it’ll take them *forever* just to get to 1:72…

  115. Another one-size-fits-all concept that only works for the ‘average Joe’ is the Body-Mass index. One of my friends is a professional Personal Trainer and Sports Fitness Trainer. He is very well muscled and carries no surplas fat, but is well under 6 feet tall. His GP put the measurements into the BMI calculator and informed my friend that he was officially classified as ‘morbidly obese’. Utter nonsense, of course, and an example of mindless ‘groupthink’.

  116. While this research by “scientists from all over Europe” (quite a trick for 5 people) appears to be the usual bollux, it’s equally depressing to me to see the enormous number of responses along the lines of “I’d better stop breathing, then”.

    Surely WUWT readers are bright enough to know that breathing is part of the carbon cycle, so cancels out? That’s why CO2 from fossil fuel is different – it isn’t simply being recycled as plant-food-animal-Co2-plant-food-animal-Co2 ….

    You guys must be able to find better reasons to discount this research.

  117. Merovign: August 4, 2010 at 2:49 am
    …junk science (the “BMI” measurement itself is meaningless rubbish – a large number of fit people are “obese” under that standard, and they changed the definitions in 1997, declaring 30 million people newly “overweight” in one day) – all that combined in one simple, stupid action.

    I have a friend in the aviation department of the NJ State Police who, at six feet, three inches tall and 220 pounds, was declared “obese” and required to take an annual water-immersion test in order to maintain flight status.

    He’s a body-builder and has 3% body fat…

  118. steveta_uk: August 4, 2010 at 3:41 am
    Surely WUWT readers are bright enough to know that breathing is part of the carbon cycle, so cancels out?

    Zero emissions means zero emissions — unless there’s a new and improved definition of “zero” or “emissions” that I’m unaware of (which is entirely possible).

    That’s why CO2 from fossil fuel is different – it isn’t simply being recycled as plant-food-animal-Co2-plant-food-animal-Co2 ….

    Why is CO2 from fossil fuel different from CO2 from decaying organic matter or different from CO2 from biological exudations or different from CO2 from inadvertently-discharged fire extinguishers?

  119. First: Has their computer model ever been independently V & V ?
    Second: How many of the “Principles of Forecasting” targets have been met?

  120. Two questions:

    1. Where are the data for 2001-2009 in their “study”?
    2. What is so “magical” about 2 degrees C???? (Did the World vote on this number?)

    Sorry about the 3rd question.

  121. steveta_uk says:
    August 4, 2010 at 3:41 am

    You guys must be able to find better reasons to discount this research.

    This is not research, it is computer modeling, which in reality does not produce evidence.

  122. Northern Exposure says: “… zero emissions by the end of the century…”

    No problem – according to this lot we can make the UK zero carbon in a mere 20 years…

    http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/ – Download their full report (PDF) if you want a good laugh.

  123. Some day soon we’ll breathe in CO2 and breath out oxygen There’s got to be another Nobel prize in all this for Gore and Pachauri.

  124. What is the earth’s optimal global average temperature and why?

    For the true tree hugger, which I am, it must be that marked by the Eocene Climatic Optimum about 50 million years ago. The earth was ice-free and green from pole to pole. It was about 11F warmer than today.

    To the CAGW crowd I say this:

    “You want a green earth? YOU CAN’T HANDLE A GREEN EARTH!”

    So there.

  125. Scott Ramsdell says:
    August 3, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    Rather than halting my respiration, I’ll let the grass grow a bit taller in the yard.

    Thank you Scott! I can now get out of mowing the lawn. Not only does this cut down on CO2 emissions from the lawnmower, the extra grass will produce oxygen.

    Something tells me the wife won’t buy into this.

  126. “Stephen Brown says:
    August 4, 2010 at 2:58 am
    “The answer, sir, is in the plural. And they bounce.”

    W. S. Churchill.”

    A colleague of Churchills wanted to write ‘balls’ in the margin of a memo, to show his opinion of the content, but thought it prudent to write ’round objects’ instead . When Churchill saw it he commented ” Who is this Round and what does he object to?”

    cheers David

  127. Surely the only issue with CO2 is if it comes from sequestered sources i.e. fossil fuels, or not. If it does it adds to the system and the consequences can be argued over.
    If it doesn’t it’s just part of the closed system and of no consequence.

    cheers David

  128. steveta_uk says:
    August 4, 2010 at 3:41 am

    Surely WUWT readers are bright enough to know that breathing is part of the carbon cycle, so cancels out? That’s why CO2 from fossil fuel is different – it isn’t simply being recycled as plant-food-animal-Co2-plant-food-animal-Co2 ….

    And surely the CAGW scientists are bright enough to know that the greenest time for the earth in the last 100 million years was the Eocene Optimum which was some 11F warmer than today and was accompanied by, wait for it now,

    1000 years of rising CO2 at a rate commensurate with the rate of rise today.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum#Setting

    The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum lasted around 20,000 years, and was superimposed on a 6-million-year period of more gradual global warming,[7] peaking later in the Eocene at the “Eocene climatic optimum”. Other “hyperthermal” events can be recognized during this period of warming, including an event now called ETM-2 (also referred to as H-1, or the Elmo event). During these events – of which the PETM was by far the most severe – around 1,500 to 2,000 gigatons of carbon were released into the ocean/atmosphere system over the course of 1,000 years. This rate of carbon addition almost equals the rate at which carbon is being released into the atmosphere today through human activity. [8]

    So maybe if we’re lucky and have enough fossil fuel to burn at current rate for 900 more years we can recreate the Eocene epoch and have a truly green earth instead being in a continuing cycle of 10,000 cool interglacial years followed by 100,000 cold glacial years.

    Unfortunately we don’t have anywhere near 900 years worth of fossil fuel left at current rate of consumption. We’ll be lucky if we can maintain it for 100 more years. The only plan we need to halt CO2 emission from burning of fossil fuels is to keep burning them at the current pace for 100 years and then there won’t be any economically recoverable fossil fuel left to burn.

  129. Friends:

    I write to make two points concerning the paper from the Max Planck Institute that is the subject of this thread.

    Firstly, the paper attempts to assess emission constraints that would control global temperature such that it does not rise above 2 deg.C. However, global temperature rises by nearly double that (i.e. by 3.8 deg.C) from June to January each year and falls by the same amount from January to June each year. And the global temperature does this every year but nobody notices.

    This raises several questions; e.g.
    (a) Why is a rise of 2 deg.C thought to be problematic?
    (b) From what base is the 2 deg.C rise to be assessed?
    (c) How would it be determined that such a problematic rise had happened?
    (d) etc.

    The paper is meaningless unless and until these (and similar questions) are answered.

    Secondly, there was a Climate Conference held in Stockholm on 11 & 12 September 2006. It was addressed by – among others – a representative of the Max Planck Institute and myself.

    On the first day of that Conference I presented the findings of one of our studies
    (ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)).

    The synopsis of my presentation said;
    “It is commonly assumed that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration during the twentieth century (approx. 30% rise) is a result of anthropogenic emissions of CO2). However, the annual pulse of anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere should relate to the annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere if one is causal of the other, but their variations greatly differ from year to year. This presentation considers mechanisms in the carbon cycle and uses the model studies of Rörsch et al. (2005) to determine if other factors may be significant contributors to the observed rise to the atmospheric CO2 concentration. These considerations indicate that any one of three natural mechanisms in the carbon cycle alone could be used to account for the observed rise. This indicates that the observed rise may be entirely natural; indeed, it suggests that the observed rise to the atmospheric CO2 concentration most probably is natural. Hence ‘projections’ of future changes to the atmospheric CO2 concentration and resulting climate changes have high uncertainty if they are based on the assumption of an anthropogenic cause.”

    The next morning a representative of the Max Planck Institute gave another presentation to the Conference. His only mention of my presentation was to assert that it was “emotional” (this was a surprising assertion because (i) my presentation consisted of 17 pages of mostly calculations and (ii) others criticised my presentation for being “too technical”). However, his presentation asserted that his Institute was to produce a new model of climate change that would input the emissions of CO2 from human activity as a cause of climate change.

    So, the work reported in the paper that is the subject of this thread was known to be based on debateable assumptions before the work was conducted. But the Max Planck Institute has decided to ignore that and to make no mention of the problems with the assumptions adopted in their paper.

    Richard

  130. Merovign says:
    August 4, 2010 at 2:49 am

    Arno Arrak says:
    August 3, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    It sounds like the sort of thing I should know more about. I’ve heard the general point made before, but not with 61 years of data. You’d *think* all those iconoclastic sciencey-types would want to follow up on that, but perhaps that’s just a little conceit.

    Here’s a link to the paper for those remaining who haven’t read it.
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf

    (h/t to friendsofscience)

    (PS: He spells his name with an “i” not a “y”)

  131. steveta_uk says:
    August 4, 2010 at 3:41 am
    While this research by “scientists from all over Europe” (quite a trick for 5 people) appears to be the usual bollux, it’s equally depressing to me to see the enormous number of responses along the lines of “I’d better stop breathing, then”.

    Surely WUWT readers are bright enough to know that breathing is part of the carbon cycle, so cancels out? That’s why CO2 from fossil fuel is different – it isn’t simply being recycled as plant-food-animal-Co2-plant-food-animal-Co2 ….

    You guys must be able to find better reasons to discount this research.
    —————Reply:
    Think, man–think global and eternal; think like a geologist. You see, all this “new” and “different” carbon you’re complaining about was in the atmosphere at one time or another, causing concentrations far, FAR above what we currently have. And you know what? It never caused a tipping point. How do I know? Because the sky is blue and the oceans are deep–i.e., the earth didn’t heat up to the point that the oceans all boiled away, forever to be found as thick pea-soup fog in the atmosphere.

    So there you have it. Your bright sunny day is sufficient and necessary evidence that the hysteria you believe in is total bunk.

  132. I can only imagine that Ol’ Max is spinning in his grave.
    Der Max fragt- “Was it loss?”
    Die MPI antworten – “Der Hund, dumbkaupfh, der Hund! Wir sind Bannanen! Ho! Ho! Wir sind Bannanen! Ho! Ho! Wir sind Bannanen und der Hund is loss!”

    How the West has fallen! Now even the Germans have gone crazy, again! Decadance! Sin! Sex! Und Lies, Lies, Lies raus die Deueschen Maxenplanckenklappentrappenheissweltklimapsyentiesten!…
    Anyone speak Chinese?

  133. PS: No offense intended to anyone who speaks the Mother Tongue of English, I haven’t tried to sprechen in many, many years; and my spelling and cases and endings never were any good.

  134. So what happens if at 1980, the onset of UHI, MMTS, and general fudging of temperatures, .5°C is subtracted from the rise as that seems to be good estimate of the error in the records. Presto-chango, CO2 appears to have negligible to zero effect.

  135. RockyRoad says: Your bright sunny day is sufficient and necessary evidence that the hysteria you believe in is total bunk.

    Hang on a mo, I said up front that I think it’s all bollux. My only complaint was with the “better stop breathing” comments, which are basically nonsense by any standards.

  136. These horrible, fear mongering, poorly thought through “papers” keep on appearing like bugs at a picnic. Last week it was the phytoplankton nonsense, before that those poor bloody polar bears it is just nauseating but obviously there are a number of “policy makers” who believe this whole CO2 crock.

    That being the case why aren’t these same policy makers and political scientists just pushing for the immediate replacement of coal/gas fired power stations with nuclear plants? Truly if they believe that the world is in peril from CO2 then a quick ( decadal ) fix is there and it is well understood in the form of nuclear fission. The long term issue of waste disposal can tolerate an extended period to fix while we are told this AGW fiction needs to be solved immediately.

    This ridiculous excursion into “renewables” is just a waste of time, money and effort. They are minor and expensive solutions and offer no long term benefits at all given their expense and unreliability for a range of reasons. Any serious electrical power experts will tell you that these are at best niche solutions and at worst a total waste of time and a blot on the landscape while sucking up inordinate amounts of public money in the forlorn hope that it will all get better over time. It won’t.

    Our political elite is not serious about the CO2 story. If they were they would be enabling a world wide nuclear power initiative which would reduce the amount of CO2 by well over 50% and lead to greater energy security and lower costs at the same time.

    The AGW movement and it’s political acolytes are playing parlor games with renewables while the actual solution is right in front of them , nuclear. This leads me to conclude that they are not sincere in their arguments and are driven by objectives unrelated to the effects of CO2. CO2 forms the basis of their alarmism and yet they don’t want to do the obvious thing to immediately ( within the next 10 years ) to solve a huge amount of the anthropogenic CO2 that they claim is the problem.

    My argument is not dependent on whether the world is warming or whether CO2 is the cause , it depends only on the AGW people being serious about reducing our CO2 output in a meaningful way. Personally I think their whole argument is based on FUD and that is a debate that will go on for a while yet regrettably.

  137. steveta_uk says:
    August 4, 2010 at 7:57 am
    RockyRoad says: Your bright sunny day is sufficient and necessary evidence that the hysteria you believe in is total bunk.

    Hang on a mo, I said up front that I think it’s all bollux. My only complaint was with the “better stop breathing” comments, which are basically nonsense by any standards.
    ————–Reply:
    Don’t you get it? They’re making fun of this press release. Often, the only way to wake people up is to hang idiocy around their necks.

  138. Welcome to the Khmer Vert, and the road to CO2 year zero. Some advice – if you wear glasses, change to contact lenses.

  139. Courage. None of the scientist involved in this paper will live to see the day they are proven right or wrong. There are two possibilities: either some climatologists have superior knowledge which is not cummunicable to the public or they have superior courage to make bold statements about a system we have only begun to chart and we understand still very little about. I am convinced that in a few decades, we will have much more comprehensive and comparable data -allbeit for a still limited period of time in view of the climate scale- and a more profound, allthough still incomplete understanding of the climate system. Arguing and claims based on models cannot be refuted, but at the same time models are not convincing in the sense that theyare built and used in areas where the human mind can no longer comprehend the interactions. So far, in my perception, the climate models produced have proven inadequate for the purpose of giving guidance to policy makers so I am afraid we should all be patient for a couple of decades.

  140. Polar bears and humans breathe out different kinds of CO2

    One is WNOCO2 (Wholesome natural organic CO2) and the other is DWMCO2 (Dirty white man CO2.) You can measure the different concentrations in the sky using a fairly new device, developed in western europe and the USA, called a guiltometer. Basically, what you do is show various trendlines to people and record the outrage. The percentage of outrage is directly proportional to the percentage of DWMCO2.

    To prevent the spread of disastorous DWMCO2, you put out collectors called “economic depressions.” These function just like “tropical depressions,” in that they start in really poor areas and sweep into richer areas, wreaking destruction and often being upgraded into “recessions.” The number of DWMCO2 molecules collected is proportional to the number of RDWM (Rich dirty white men) downgraded into TTWM (trailer trash white men,) who emit significantly less CO2.

    Oddly, the sky over areas of India and China are filled with vast amounts of a different type of CO2, CCISDTAICO2 (cant change it so dont talk about it CO2,) which probably doesn’t effect the climate at all.

    Further, if you look at the trendlines in the guiltometer, you will clearly see that the one calling for the most “economic depressions” clearly shows an ideal level of DWMCO2 at the VHEL (voluntary human extinction level.) Obviously society can only reach utopia by using “economic depressions” which upgrade rapidly into “recessions” efficient enough to help us reach the ideal, VHEL state.

    It’s only funny because it isn’t true. Oh, wait.

  141. Carbon dioxide absorbs infra red at only certain limited wavelengths and not across the whole spectrum. The atmosphere is transparent to the majority of radiation which ‘disappears’ into space. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere would not absorb any additional infra red ie no Global Warming. One would think that the Max Planck Institute above all would know this.

  142. grayman says:
    August 3, 2010 at 7:44 pm
    “The 2 graphs are not working together. They show co2 going down but temps still going up, . . .”

    Do not forget that they have given heat momentum and, once warming, it takes time to slow down.

    What THE INSTITUTE has proven beautifully is that THEIR COMPUTER MODELS SUCK!

    Let’s assume that trailer parks cause tornadoes and project future tornadoes from the sale and distribution of RVs and camping trailers. Wow, we have overlooked the number of tornadoes that people do not even notice while camping in Maine in the summer, as we know that there are lots of those vehicles up there in that season. We cannot explain why these tornadoes are not being reported by the campers; maybe we can assume that all such witnesses are either in denial or dead. But, it does mean that we MUST stop making such vehicles immediately, tax those out there and make it too expensive to own them. We could also threaten to charge trailer and RV owners with criminal negligence for maintaining a tornado generating device.

  143. Henry Pool writes:

    “Here we go again!!. Can ANYONE here help me with the questions that I have been posting ?”

    You are not going to get genuine science from the Warmistas. They do not practice it. They latch onto some small point, make some pseudo-scientific claim on the basis of it, and switch the topic to policies. Climate science is in its infancy. The best is has produced is Mann’s hockey stick, which is full of flaws and you can read about them on McIntyre’s site daily. The closest thing we have to climate science is an attempt to use proxies to reconstruct a history of temperature changes. That’s it. That’s all there is. Ponder that for a moment. And their policy claims are ever more draconian and hysterical. I am sad to say that your questions about climate science will not be answered by proponents of AGW, at least not for several decades.

  144. Ok… it’s a daft idea but – if mankind could only make a machine to take CO2 out of the air and swap it for.. I don’t know… oxygen say – that would help a bit wouldn’t it?
    And then if we built loads of these, er – machines…

    Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

  145. Richard S Courtney says:
    August 4, 2010 at 5:57 am

    What an excellent post. I dare say that the mix of science and politics that you describe continues to be characteristic of the Max Planck Institute.

  146. I pray that Ajad’s military advisors do not use computer models as input to strategic decisions.

  147. The atmosphere presently contains 750 gigatons of carbon and is at 390 ppm CO2.

    If all the known 4,000 Gt of fossil fuel reserves were burned, the atmsopheric carbon would increase to 4,750 GT. Using the HITRAN calculations, the resulting logarithmic temperature increase would be a paltry 1.4C. Add this to the 14.5C we’re at now and the temperature would increase to 15.9C.

    Over the last 550 million years the temperature according to PALEOTEMP has remained in a stable band betwen 12C and 22C, being at 22C about 46% of the time, and at 12C only about 6% of the time.

    600 milllion years ago CO2 was at 7,000 ppm, 18 times higher than today. In 1825, CO2 was 425 ppm (Beck 2007).

    So where’s the tipping point? and what’s the problem?

  148. Henry@Theo Goodwin

    I figured that one. Because no one has done the right kind of tests, there are only theories and stories. But no results.

    Henry @ Richard Courtney
    I liked what you said. I also figured out that the IPCC put the cart before the horse with their assumptions. They looked at the problem (of global warming) from the wrong end.. They assumed what the cause was and then worked their way back. That is the worst mistake a scientist can make. I am saying: There is no solid basis from tests or experiments where I can report that the net effect of CO2 is cooling or warming.

  149. “According to the model, admissible carbon dioxide emissions will increase…to a maximum value of around ten billion tonnes in 2015.” “… the emissions will then have to be reduced by 56 percent by the year 2050 and approach zero towards the end of this century.”

    That is an interesting magic year the model has chosen, 2015.

    Perhaps carbon legislation can be put off until then, due to its unpopularity and public scepticism; and perhaps the sun will have become more active by then as well.

  150. Then….will our grandkids will be stop breathing by then? You fool kool-aid drinkers!
    Ignorants of all ignorance!…is it evil or mega stupidity?

  151. It’s really interesting that their model outputs through 2000. Plug in the GISS or CRU data through the current date and see that their model comes completely off the track. You would think that scientists would be embarrassed to print stuff that is so obviously wrong.

  152. As a climatologist have you had any education in physics and thermodynamics? From my reveiw of many individual that claim knowledge in climatology they are very lacking in knowlege of the basic laws of physics. The ghg effect has been proved to not exist as early as 1909 by R.W. Wood an American physisist and expert in IR and UV radiation. since then many physicists have shown that the concept of the ghg effect violates the second law of thermodynamics and others laws of physics. The conclution then is that Mann-made global warming or climate change just does not exist. Below and attached are several references that back up this including my definition of climate.
    Definitions of the Climate Discussion

    What is Climate?

    Definition:A few thousand weather days end to end for a specific location.

    How many climates are there in the world?

    Every part of the country and the world has a unique climate -the south of France, the North slope of Alaska, the heart of Africa, the northeast Great Lakes region of the US ,the north of Italy, the south of Italy,thousands of different climates etc.

    What is weather?

    The atmospheric conditions where you are.

    Can mankind control the weather?

    We have tried for thousands of years from the Indian rainmaker, to the cloud seeders of the 1950-60. Man can not control the weather, then how the hell can man be controlling the climate. This whole B.S of MANN-made global warming is a fairy tale. The MANNipulation of temperature data is a crime against humanity and these criminals should be put in jail.

    List of references:

    The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009

    Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics

    B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World

    Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.

    Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link

    that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.

    R.W.Wood

    from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i

    The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
    By Alan Siddons

    from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST

    The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.

    “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

    After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.

    Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

    University of Pennsylvania Law School

    ILE

    INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS

    A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,

    and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences

    at the University of Pennsylvania

    RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08

    Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination

    Jason Scott Johnston

    UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

    May 2010

    This paper can be downloaded without charge from the

    Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:

    http://ssrn.

    Web- site references:

    http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder

    wwwclimatedepot.com

    icecap.us

    http://www.stratus-sphere.com

    SPPI

    many others are available.

    The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.

    The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
    —Albert Einstein

  153. Maybe if all the Global Warmers would all stop breathing at once, keep holding their breath for say, a week, then maybe we would save the World……………Zero C02 by end of century!………………ridiculous comments from ridiculous people!…………what about trees and plants?……..oh yeah……….they don’t matter…….they only live on C02!

  154. Dave Lowery says:
    August 4, 2010 at 10:34 am
    Ok… it’s a daft idea but – if mankind could only make a machine to take CO2 out of the air and swap it for.. I don’t know… oxygen say – that would help a bit wouldn’t it?
    And then if we built loads of these, er – machines…

    Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

    That machine has already been invented. Though it’s not needed now, it might be needed when we run out of fossil fuels. With the machine described here (pat. pend.):

    http://www.lanl.gov/news/newsbulletin/pdf/Green_Freedom_Overview.pdf

    We can make liquid fuels for our transport infrastructure out of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course the more we have there the easier this would be.
    That’s of course in the case that we DO run out of fossil fuels (which at some point we will) and we DON’T invent some magic large battery for electric cars (which I don’t thing we will).
    With uranium and thorium as primary energy sources mankind has enough energy to last until the sun has exhausted its fuel.

  155. I am always surprised that people don’t seem to understand what is meant by the numbers, 450ppm. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has actually increased from about 0.003% to about 0.004% of the air. Do these small numbers frighten you as much as 350 or 450ppm, which sound huge but are really minuscule!

  156. I am always surprised that people don’t seem to understand what is meant by the numbers, 450ppm. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has actually increased from about 0.003% to about 0.004% of the air. Do these small numbers frighten you as much as 350 or 450ppm, which sound huge but are really minuscule!
    Have I an extra zero there? Does it make much difference?

  157. These people at the Max Planck Institute are simply *EU money launderers.

    * The organization that has failed to produce acceptable annual accounts for over 12 years.

    The ENSEMBLES project, to which they refer in the present tense, finished last year. The report (50MB) is full of red coloured regional maps of Europe showing the horrible things that are going to happen in 2021-2100. Unfortunately, we have to wait 10 years to find out how horribly wrong they were.

  158. “”” Henry Pool says:
    August 4, 2010 at 2:39 am
    Here we go again!!. Can ANYONE here help me with the questions that I have been posting ? “””

    Henry, I don’t know if I can help you with all of your questions; I can’t even finish reading through them actually, but somethings you seem to have a bit wrong.

    The lab experiment with the CO2 filled flask and the light bulb; is not as you suppose. It is supposed to be a demonstration of GHG warming by CO2.

    So the light bulb DOES NOT represent the sun in these experiments because the sun is not the source of GHG warming.

    The radiant energy that causes GHG warming is emitted by the surface of the earth or the oceans or other layers of the atmosphere. And none of those are any where near a shot as an incandescent light bulb which may be 2800 K.

    On average in fact per trenberth’s global energy balance model; the source is likely to be at about 288 K; the global mean (supposed) surface temperature.

    So instead of putting an incandescent light bulb by the CO2 filled flak to watch it warm up; yopu need to place something like a brick there; after cooling it down to about 15 deg C. Only then will it be radiating the same spectrum as the earth’s surface is on average emitting.

    So give that a shot, and report back to us; how much atmospheric heating occurs due to radiation from a brick at 288 K.

  159. Here’s a quote from the ENSEMBLES report:

    Generally, in the mid-latitudes, skill from seasonal forecasts is relatively low or current forecasting systems have no skill. Through spatial disaggregation of the datasets and the use of local target data from long-term established weather station sites, it is possible to both improve the skill in the ensemble forecasts and provide datasets at local scales, which thus become useful for impacts studies.

    Is that indistinguishable from magic or what?

  160. “”” cleanwater says:
    August 4, 2010 at 2:51 pm
    As a climatologist have you had any education in physics and thermodynamics? From my reveiw of many individual that claim knowledge in climatology they are very lacking in knowlege of the basic laws of physics. The ghg effect has been proved to not exist as early as 1909 by R.W. Wood an American physisist and expert in IR and UV radiation. “””

    Well cleanwater; if that is the hill you choose to die on, be my guest. For myself if that hill were covered in snow; I personally would not even ski on it.

    In fact, my second attempt at winning a Darwin Award actually occurred while I was President of the University Ski Club, and I actually did ski across a steep sloped (40 deg) traverse; and yes I actually made turns on it, that had me going straight down the fall line in the middle of those turns. Had I fallen on (or off) my skis, there was a 1000 ft cliff entrance to oblivion at the bottom of that slope and maybe 200 feet of slding room to get stopped before going over.

    So today I stay off hazardous slopes; and defending some of the authors whose writings you cite, is not something I would undertake; even on a bet. One of them in particular I actually tried to save from himself but he would have none of it.

    So good luck on that project; I personally would not live on this planet or any other that did not enjoy a greenhouse effect that kept it warmer than its equilibrium black body temperature.

  161. Ed Reid says:
    August 3, 2010 at 6:26 pm

    The program probably needs a “catchy” slogan, such as: “If we all lived like the people of Bangladesh, we could all live.”

    You’re aiming high!

    DaveE.

  162. Arno Arrak says:
    August 3, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    Keep it coming Arno. It may take a while, but the truth always wins. Always!

  163. They should turn their model to something more valuable, like determining how much emissions should be increased to end the CO2 famine and return us to .1%.

  164. “The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by the combustion of fossil fuels (gas, oil) has increased by around 35 percent since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.”

    I don’t think so – we’re only producing 3% of the total volume of CO2. Even if our miniscule contribution to the total volume rose to 4% (as claimed by some), it couldn’t have caused an increase of 35% of the total volume of CO2. I believe that would be an impossibility.

  165. Ale Gorney says: August 3, 2010 at 9:47 pm
    I have to agree with the assessment of this report. Far too many people are living in a land of denial. We need stop producing CO2 right now or human civilization is toast. Its up to you now.
    ——————————————————————————-
    Ale Gorney. Of course you are talking tongue in cheek! Otherwise your statement is just daft. But if you are serious, and I can’t believe you are, why stop at just living in a land of denial? Why not go the whole hog Ale and say far too many people are living. Period! That would really sort things out. Of course then I would expect you to lead by example.

    Doug

  166. Henry@George Smith

    There is cooling caused by CO2 (by re-radiating sunshine) and there is warming caused by CO2 (By re-radiating earthshine, “the brick”). Now, WHAT IS THE NETT EFFECT?
    Obviously I need to see the test procedure and I need to see these results in the right SI dimension. I think it may be that you assess this in two different tests.

    Here is a link as to what I think, trying to keep everything simpe…
    http://letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok

  167. Models again. There is an unwritten rule in mathematics that you do not interpolate beyond the data points of a graph. You can only interpolate between known data points. Models do exactly that- interpolate beyond known data points. Add to that the fact that the model inputs are not true and the desire of the ‘scientists’ for a heating result and you get the rubbish that you deserve. I love CO2, without it this planet would be a desert with no life at all.

  168. Doug;
    Don’t pick on Al like that. He just misunderstood the statement. The original refers to a % multiplicative increase of a %, not an additive % of the total atmosphere, but he misread it. You must be really desperate to put down us Denialists.

    Personally, I think a 300% increase of the present .038% to .11% would be great! End the CO2 famine!

  169. Of course, given the strong negative feedbacks in the system, a CO2 increase to 0.11% would probably trigger the long-overdue Global Cooling. It’s those darn “tipping points”, y’know?

  170. If average temperatures were reduced by 2 degrees C, and it resulted in daily highs and daily lows each being lowered by that amount, the great majority of people living in temperate zones would shortly die. Starvation, effects of famine, and probably most in wars fought over the little food crops which could be harvested.

    Much later killing frosts in spring and much earlier killing frosts in autumn would shorten the growing season in temperate zones to where few crops could grow to be harvested.

  171. Larry;
    the (deluded) mandate of the CAGW Cult is to limit the INCREASE to 2°C this century, not to reduce the temperature.
    There are so many levels of nonsense embedded in that it’s pointless to debate them. It assumes CO2 is a “forcing driver”, that humanity can affect the levels significantly, that warming is bad, that draconian carbon cutbacks are survivable, and more. None of those are true.

  172. Dave Lowery says:
    August 4, 2010 at 10:34 am

    Ok… it’s a daft idea but – if mankind could only make a machine to take CO2 out of the air and swap it for.. I don’t know… oxygen say – that would help a bit wouldn’t it?
    And then if we built loads of these, er – machines…

    Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

    that was puntastic :) a good laugh is always appreciated in the morning.

  173. From estimation to exactitude. With skills like this, these guys should be spending their time at the race track.

  174. “”” Henry Pool says:
    August 5, 2010 at 12:18 am
    Henry@George Smith

    There is cooling caused by CO2 (by re-radiating sunshine) and there is warming caused by CO2 (By re-radiating earthshine, “the brick”). Now, WHAT IS THE NETT EFFECT?
    Obviously I need to see the test procedure and I need to see these results in the right SI dimension. I think it may be that you assess this in two different tests.

    Here is a link as to what I think, trying to keep everything simpe…
    http://letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok “””

    WellCO2 has very little interraction with sunshine since very little sunshine is at wavelengths that CO2 can absorb; and CO2 most certainly cannot re-radiate sunshine.

    Now the brick at 15 deg C will radiate a near black body spectrum putting out about 390 W/m^2 with a peak emission wavelength near 10.1 microns.

  175. Sorry George. I am afraid this is where most scientists made their mistake. You should try to read and understand my complete post.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/03/new-carbon-dioxide-emissions-model/#comment-447343

    There is sunshine re-radiated by CO2. How else can we measure it as it bounces off the moon? Thus, there must be cooling caused by CO2. And because everybody forgot about this, they only measured the warming effect. My question is: what is the nett effect of the cooling and warming properties of CO2?

  176. I always said that these new highspeed computers would be a curse. If the “scientists” who make these calculations had to do it by hand, on paper, we wouldn’t have to put up with all the drivel. By the time the stuff was published, nobody would care. “The train would have left the station” so to speak.

Comments are closed.