The Uncertain Inn, Uncertain TX. Image from Travelpod - click
Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
You readers here at Watts Up With That have been very kind to me during my guest-blogging stint here, and I’d like to express my thanks for the cordial reception I have found, especially since I’m well aware that my views are not really congruent with those of many viewers. You all are certainly more open-minded and accommodating than the audience at many other internet locations. (Okay, enough sucking up–get on with it!)
However, one commenter on my last post had the audacity–the sheer audacity–to criticize my writing because this is a science blog after all, and my guest posts have not been about the science. Well, touche and all that, my dear sir, but well, I’m not a scientist.
We are not really at the point where only scientists can say intelligent things about climate change.
Two reasons: First, the basics are pretty well understood. CO2 should cause about a 1.5 to 2.1 degree Celsius rise in temperatures if we double its concentration in our atmosphere. (If it doesn’t, it’s because other forces are counteracting it, not that it doesn’t exist.) This really is not very controversial at all.
Second, the controversial part of the discussion is not going to be settled any time soon. We really do not know the sensitivity of the atmosphere to a doubling of CO2 concentrations. We are not likely to know for at least 30 years–and that’s if we’re lucky, according to Judith Curry.
To offer the extreme and absurdist example, as Roger Pielke Jr. points out on his weblog, we could achieve our emission reduction goals overnight, by switching from BP’s estimate of our 2009 emissions of CO2 to the IEA’S estimates of the same. There’s quite a bit of uncertainty out there.
So, despite their protestations, climate scientists at this point have about as much ‘clout’ in deciding what we should do as anybody else. So your comments and my guest posts here are not automatically dismissable as coming from the rabble. What we write on this weblog and others should be evaluated on the merits of what we say. Of course, people who have been studying the biology, chemistry, geology and ecological interactions of this planet should be treated with quite a bit more respect, and many climate scientists got their start in one of those fields–by no means am I trying to exclude them from the conversation, just because they can’t point at a red dot on a thermometer and say ‘that’s where we’ll be in 90 years.’
It is my own belief that other things we do here on this Earth have an impact on this planet, and that we should be aware of the impacts and in some cases work to lessen them. It is a happy coincidence that lessening these other impacts may also serve to reduce the impacts of whatever climate change we may be causing with CO2.
In the past century we have gone from cultivating about 3% of the world’s land for agriculture to about 33%. And of course this has had an effect on the planet, and of course that includes this planet’s climate. It has changed the albedo of the land and it has changed the level and movement of moisture over (and around) the cultivated areas. The vertical columns of air that shape what we perceive as weather are hugely affected by this. As they are by creation of manmade reservoirs behind the 850,000 dams we have built.
We have cut down forests, and not only for agriculture. They’re recovering in the developed world, but not in the emerging nations that still need the wood for fuel and the land for space. And again, this has affected the entire ecology and that does include climate.
(Digression–with the increasing urbanisation of this planet, some of these effects will lessen. More of us will live in cities, occupying a smaller space. Technology will reduce the amount of land needed for agriculture, despite our growing population. Some things will get better–maybe a lot of things, if we work for them.)
I could go on, but the point is clear enough for you to either agree or disagree. We are changing our planet, and one poorly understood change is the composition of the atmosphere.
Had the IPCC and others been savvy enough to look at all the changes we are making instead of just focusing on the ‘flavor of the month,’ I think the science–and our options–would have been more clearly expressed and more believable.
Instead, they focused on CO2 and treated all who disagreed as the rabble I mentioned before. What they wanted was a rabble alarmed. What they got was a rabble in arms.
We Talk About Politics Because The Science Is Uncertain
You readers here at Watt’s Up With That have been very kind to me during my guest-blogging stint here, and I’d like to express my thanks for the cordial reception I have found, especially since I’m well aware that my views are not really congruent with those of many viewers. You all are certainly more open-minded and accommodating than the audience at many other internet locations. (Okay, enough sucking up–get on with it!)
However, one commenter on my last post had the audacity–the sheer audacity–to criticize my writing because this is a science blog after all, and my guest posts have not been about the science. Well, touche and all that, my dear sir, but well, I’m not a scientist.
We are not really at the point where only scientists can say intelligent things about climate change.
Two reasons: First, the basics are pretty well understood. CO2 should cause about a 1.5 to 2.1 degree Celsius rise in temperatures if we double its concentration in our atmosphere. (If it doesn’t, it’s because other forces are counteracting it, not that it doesn’t exist.) This really is not very controversial at all.
Second, the controversial part of the discussion is not going to be settled any time soon. We really do not know the sensitivity of the atmosphere to a doubling of CO2 concentrations. We are not likely to know for at least 30 years–and that’s if we’re lucky, according to Judith Curry.
To offer the extreme and absurdist example, as Roger Pielke Jr. points out on his weblog, we could achieve our emission reduction goals overnight, by switching from BP’s estimate of our 2009 emissions of CO2 to the IEA’S estimates of the same. There’s quite a bit of uncertainty out there.
So, despite their protestations, climate scientists at this point have about as much ‘clout’ in deciding what we should do as anybody else. So your comments and my guest posts here are not automatically dismissable as coming from the rabble. What we write on this weblog and others should be evaluated on the merits of what we say. Of course, people who have been studying the biology, chemistry, geology and ecological interactions of this planet should be treated with quite a bit more respect, and many climate scientists got their start in one of those fields–by no means am I trying to exclude them from the conversation, just because they can’t point at a red dot on a thermometer and say ‘that’s where we’ll be in 90 years.’
It is my own belief that other things we do here on this Earth have an impact on this planet, and that we should be aware of the impacts and in some cases work to lessen them. It is a happy coincidence that lessening these other impacts may also serve to reduce the impacts of whatever climate change we may be causing with CO2.
In the past century we have gone from cultivating about 3% of the world’s land for agriculture to about 33%. And of course this has had an effect on the planet, and of course that includes this planet’s climate. It has changed the albedo of the land and it has changed the level and movement of moisture over (and around) the cultivated areas. The vertical columns of air that shape what we perceive as weather are hugely affected by this. As they are by creation of manmade reservoirs behind the 850,000 dams we have built.
We have cut down forests, and not only for agriculture. They’re recovering in the developed world, but not in the emerging nations that still need the wood for fuel and the land for space. And again, this has affected the entire ecology and that does include climate.
(Digression–with the increasing urbanisation of this planet, some of these effects will lessen. More of us will live in cities, occupying a smaller space. Technology will reduce the amount of land needed for agriculture, despite our growing population. Some things will get better–maybe a lot of things, if we work for them.)
I could go on, but the point is clear enough for you to either agree or disagree. We are changing our planet, and one poorly understood change is the composition of the atmosphere.
Had the IPCC and others been savvy enough to look at all the changes we are making instead of just focusing on the ‘flavor of the month,’ I think the science–and our options–would have been more clearly expressed and more believable.
Instead, they focused on CO2 and treated all who disagreed as the rabble I mentioned before. What they wanted was a rabble alarmed. What they got was a rabble in arms.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
211 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DaveF
September 4, 2010 4:23 am
“CO2 should cause about a 1.5 to 2.1 degree Celsius rise in temperatures if we double its concentration in our atmosphere…. This really is not very controversial at all.”
Well, I’m not a scientist either but I have read several posts here and elsewhere that the effect of CO2 upon the atmosphere rises logarithmically and that we’re not too far from the point where more of it will cease to have much more effect. So, unless I have misunderstood the things I have read, (always a distinct possibility) then your statement is still controversial.
Wally the Walrus
September 4, 2010 4:24 am
Well said!
NicL
September 4, 2010 4:36 am
You make some interesting points but I am struggling to grasp if they are really significant.
“In the past century we have gone from cultivating about 3% of the world’s land for agriculture to about 33%”
Sounds very dramatic but assuming 70% is sea then your statement is that we have gone from cultivating 1% to 9% of the world’s surface for agriculture. Likewise you mention 850,000 reservoirs which sounds a lot and may be significant but I cannot tell.
I am always a little wary of arguments that insist “man is so important and so powerful he must be changing the planet” when in truth it might be better described as two fleas arguing which made the dog fart.
Bruce Cobb
September 4, 2010 4:43 am
“It is my own belief that other things we do here on this Earth have an impact on this planet, and that we should be aware of the impacts and in some cases work to lessen them. It is a happy coincidence that lessening these other impacts may also serve to reduce the impacts of whatever climate change we may be causing with CO2.”
Yes, but any of those impacts, if deemed important enough to try to ameliorate should be able to stand on their own merits without piggybacking onto the C02 mythology. And aye, there’s the rub. To the Warmistas, any so-called chance that C02 maybe, might possibly, could cause a “tipping point” is enough. They go into their little “risk analysis” routine, saying something like, “you don’t expect your house to burn down either, but you still (if you’re smart, anyway) buy fire insurance. Then it’s “do we dare gamble with our childrens’ and grandchildrens’ future?
Tim
September 4, 2010 4:43 am
I don’t believe they wanted to examine the big picture regarding all the changes we are making to the planet; I think they were looking instead for something identifyable, tradeable and taxable.
richard verney
September 4, 2010 4:45 am
I agree with the general thrust of this. As a starting point in any debate, any poster should be treated with respect (irrespective of the views expressed) unless they have done something substantive to disentitle them to respect. Again, comments should be judged on the contents of what is said. It is then for other commentators to explain (with civility) what is wrong with the comment, explain why a comment may have no relevance or significance, put forward an alternative proposition etc.
I also consider to a significant extent, non scientists can rightly comment on climate science since to a large extent it is a matter of commonsense and we all recognise GIGO. For example, one does not have to be a scientific genius to review temperature logs, see trends and question the need/relevance of any adjustment to the raw data. Likewise, any one can comment upon siting issues. They same applies to general observations about proxy evidence and the efficacy of so called peer review.
Of course climate science is very wide. Scientists operating in other areas/disciplines can rightly comment upon the extent to which the ordinary rigours of scientific principle are being applied to climate science. Even those from the quasi arts (eg., classics, classics and archaeology) can comment upon the past and how man was affected/benefitted.
If most people accept as a general premise that the climate is changing but the issue is whether this be natural or anthropogenic, then one does not need to be a scientist to add to the debate on what if any action should be taken to address the change. My own view is that we have gone totally off the rails in seeking to halt the change rather than to concentrate on reacting to the change if and only if the change has demonstratable adverse consequences. My own view is that for the main part a warmer climate will be a good thing but for a few local areas it may have a negative impact which negative effect should be addressed if it truly proves to cause problem In other words I do not accept the catastrophic scenarios and I would like to see much more evidence showing the realistic consequence of climate change.
In fact any one with a forensic mind can usefully add to the debate and it is conceivable that such persons may be better able to see the wood for the trees.
R. de Haan
September 4, 2010 4:47 am
Thomas Fuller, you don’t get it.
The UN IPCC is pushing policies not climate science.
They are pushing policies to give the strong hand to a political elite providing them absolute power to regulate every detailed aspect of our world.
It doesn’t matter to me if such an organizations crooks up climate science or any other human related impact on this world.
I simply reject the entire initiative and the organization involved.
And if you intend to live your future life in freedom, I advise you to do the same.
Anthony
September 4, 2010 4:50 am
The one disagreement I would make with your statement is:
“First, the basics are pretty well understood. CO2 should cause about a 1.5 to 2.1 degree Celsius rise in temperatures if we double its concentration in our atmosphere. ”
The “scientific” evidence behind this relies on massive climate forcings to cause 1.5 to 2.1 degrees. CO2 alone will cause less then a tenth of one degree, because of the fact that CO2 to Temperature is a logarithmic relationship, and we are right now well beyond the saturation point. The first 20-40 ppm contribute over half of CO2’s warming effect.
Evidence for my statement: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
This among other “scientific facts” That are always assumed at the beginning of an argument are the greatest reason that there is so much belief in a theory that has little empirical evidence to support. In fact, virtually all of the empirical evidence points to some outside source forcing climate change and CO2 merely reacting as the oceans warm or cool.
SO until and unless scientists can use empirical evidence to prove that climate forcings will increase the effect CO2 has by roughly 2000%, the idea that CO2 is the cause is not even close to being proven. Anyone can prove anything given a computer and allowed to generate code with your desired result in mind.
Rick Bradford
September 4, 2010 4:50 am
Anybody with the power of conscious cerebration knows there must be huge uncertainties associated with such a vast and complex system as the earth’s climate on land, sea and in the atmosphere.
Thus, we are angered to be told ‘the debate is over’, especially as that statement appears to us to be made usually by people who lack the critical abilities referred to above, and who are either mindlessly following or malevolently driving an illogical and emotional crusade to an alarmism-ruined future.
JimB
September 4, 2010 4:50 am
This statistic sort of jumps off the page and begins to move the WUWT “Funny Number” meter:
“In the past century we have gone from cultivating about 3% of the world’s land for agriculture to about 33%.”
Do you have a reference for this? I do a fair amount of travel, and I can’t even begin to reconcile that with what seems to be reality.
JimB
paulw
September 4, 2010 4:54 am
If you want proper feedback for your writings (you are not a scientist as you mention), you should write somewhere else.
[snip]
There is not much critical thinking going on here. Critical commenters gave up.
[snip]
Your post is a scatter gun of issues that is too much of a task to start dealing with.
[Advertising blogs that incessantly badmouth WUWT is getting out of hand. ~dbs, mod.]
Lucien
September 4, 2010 4:55 am
Well, the author is just giving all the ingredients of “post normal science” .
<>
First you use the term “climate change” ; well, the only certain and stable thing about climate is “change”, congratulations, you got a point here !
Then you talk about agriculture and change of the albedo, since you do not give any analyse of the effect of such change you are just “making noise” .
You are not a scientist, you do not have to tell it, it’s obvious!
The only interesting point of your article is that it shows the new way “governementalitists” are going to follow : more post normal science, more fear without any proof and their will to make people believe in some “normality” about climate !
To sum up, without any scientific base, diagnosis and cure will be at their own absolute disposal while people will have to pay for.
Lucien d’Athenes
GM
September 4, 2010 4:55 am
(Digression–with the increasing urbanisation of this planet, some of these effects will lessen. More of us will live in cities, occupying a smaller space. Technology will reduce the amount of land needed for agriculture, despite our growing population. Some things will get better–maybe a lot of things, if we work for them.)
Ah, yes, of course, we’ve gone from 3% land use to 33% land use, but increased urbanization will take care of the problem because, of course, the physical footprint of a human being is the same as its ecological footprint, and both of those decrease with urbanization. Absolutely makes sense.
And of course, technology will make tons of corn grow on square centimeters of land. Because, of course, photosynthesis uses cold fusion to generate biomass and it is not at all dependent on such things as energy flow from the sun, water, nutrient availability, and its own efficiency at converting sunlight to chemical energy. So we can increase yields indefinitely…
You have to love these people, they seem to be having so much fun… Only problem is [snip]
Ed MacAulay
September 4, 2010 4:58 am
In the past century we have gone from cultivating about 3% of the world’s land for agriculture to about 33%.
Seems a strange ratio of increase. The population for 1850 was around 1.5 billion, soon, 2011, to be 7 billion, a 5 fold increase.
Agriculture has changed from horse-animal powered which required growing the animal feeds for horse power production. The widespread use of commercial fertilizers as well as the “green revolution” have greatly increased agriculture production per acre and efficency.
How does a 5 fold increase in population require a 10 fold increase in agricultural land?
Ian W
September 4, 2010 5:00 am
The major impact on climate will come from increasing the amount of the land surface used for agriculture (as you state 3% – 33%) and especially ‘turning deserts green’. Plants survive by using a kind of ‘total loss’ circulation system. They take water in through their roots and transpire that water out through the stomata in their leaves. This transpiration can be at a surprisingly significant rate with mature trees transpiring more than 100 litres of water an hour in summer. All those desert areas in Libya, the Negev going green are doing so by using cubic kilometers of ‘fossil water’ (Google it).
Water is only normally required for irrigation where the surface is dry (rather obviously) and so in these dry areas the relative humidity is raised by adding water vapor transpired by plants. Water vapor accounts for ~70% of the ‘green house effect’ yet for some reason the cubic kilometers of additional water being continually added to the atmosphere by agricultural irrigation in just the right hot dry places to have the maximum effect on global heat retention, is not even seen as an ‘anthropogenic’ effect.
The insistence that water vapor is ‘only a feedback’ is one of the major faults in the IPCC reports.
Tom I believe you will find that for a doubling of CO2 you will get no more then 1.2° C of temperature rise. Even the Connolley approved Wiki says 1° C:
“Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback” [6]; addition of these feedbacks leads to a value of approximately 3 °C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
However that is not the most important part, it is your second point. Land use change effecting weather and climate used to be taught in basic 3rd grade science when I went to school. Back then everyone was taught about how if you change how much water was available, you changed how much evaporated, you changed how many clouds are formed, you changed….. I’m pretty sure you get my drift. That is why when I read Dr. Pielke Sr. position and some of his papers dealing with Land use change to explain changes in climate, it was something you could easily wrap your mind around because it was built up from basic, sound science. Which in turn led to the inevitable question of “Why doesn’t the IPCC address this?” and the only answer I could find was because there really is no easy political power to be had in that position.
What are they going to say to the third world “Sorry we had to shut off the irrigation and let the land to turn back into desert so the planet stays cool?”. Or how about here in the US are you going to tell that to the farmers in he Midwest and the Central Valley of California? What about the people now so used to getting basically fresh “off season” vegetables at the supermarket? What are they going to do put a irrigation tax on those vegetables, causing prices to rise? So no they can’t acknowledge land use change because there is little they can advocate for politically, only CO2 gives them that.
“CO2 should cause about a 1.5 to 2.1 degree Celsius rise in temperatures if we double its concentration in our atmosphere…. This really is not very controversial at all.”
Well, I’m not a scientist either but I have read several posts here and elsewhere that the effect of CO2 upon the atmosphere rises logarithmically and that we’re not too far from the point where more of it will cease to have much more effect. So, unless I have misunderstood the things I have read, (always a distinct possibility) then your statement is still controversial.
The logrithmic curve fit holds – the next doubling will increase temperatures another 1.5 to 2.1 °C, not 3.0 to 4.2.
Unless confounding things like convection, clouds, etc are confounding things, of course.
Note that if CO₂ were rising exponentially, then that negates the logrithmic fit and we’d into a steady temperature rise over time.
H.R.
September 4, 2010 5:12 am
Agreed that the CO2 driven CAGW and AGW science isn’t settled.
I’ve not seen enough evidence – models aren’t evidence – that CO2 is a primary, secondary, or tertiary driver of temperature or climate. I’d say that portion of the science isn’t settled and the returns coming in don’t look promising to confirm CO2 driven global climate. I’ve seen far more evidence for water vapor, airborne particulates, geography, and ocean circulation as the key ingredients that determine what the climate will be at anyones particular address, with local conditions being tempered by land use.
The earth has never experienced runaway global warming, though it certainly will when the sun expands and engulfs the earth. We’re wasting and will waste enormous wealth studying and mitigating what I see is a non-problem. I’d be very happy to have climate science fully explain and predict the glaciations and interglacials.
All of the ballyhoo about CAGW is political and should be treated as such, and when politics are involved, keep a sharp eye on your wallet. Politics are strictly about OPM.
Sorry Tom, DaveF [first post] is correct.
Mr Fuller writes: “We really do not know the sensitivity of the atmosphere to a doubling of CO2 concentrations. ”
No, but we know that the IPCC has grossly overestimated the effect of CO2. That is because most of the effect has already occurred. And that is using total CO2 as measured at MLO. The human contribution is under 3%.
The biosphere is starved of CO2, and that’s a fact. Even when CO2 was at thousands of ppmv, it had no discernible effect on temperature. Why should it be any different now? Have the laws of physics changed?
Land use and other factors have a much bigger effect than a tiny trace gas. But the government and the IPCC have put all their eggs in the CO2 basket, and now they’re stumbling around, trying to convince a skeptical public that the rise in CO2 matters. But the evidence and physical observations show that CO2 does not matter.
Still, governments are forced to continue with the CO2 charade, because taxing water vapor is next to impossible. And tax money is the driver for the entire “carbon” scare.
Tom needs to got out more, and listen to other people who base their conclusions on facts, not on vaguely understood speculation that the real world does not validate.
Leonard Weinstein
September 4, 2010 5:21 am
It would be helpful to not get your basic facts wrong to start with. The theoretical effect of doubling CO2 from the value of 290 ppm in 1850, to 580 ppm (expected value by 2100?) would add about 1.2 C (not 1.5 to 2.1 C), and the increase from 1850 to the present (we are presently at 390 ppm CO2) has already seen 0.8 C rise, at least half of which was agreed by both sides to have been probably caused by natural variation.
Since additional increase to 580 is only 1.5 times the present value (not double), and the effect of CO2 is a logarithmic effect, it thus seems very unlikely that even an additional gain of 0.5 C is possible from present levels, absent positive feedback. Since no positive feedback effects have been shown to be present, and in fact it required negative feedback to explain present levels, you have little science support.
Leon Brozyna
September 4, 2010 5:22 am
From where I sit on the bell curve, let me say this about the “rabble”:
— There are an awful lot of ’em.
— Never underestimate the power of the “rabble” to surprise; they’re a lot more intelligent than they may appear at first blush.
— I never met any of the “rabble” I didn’t like. But then, I’ve never met the likes of Messrs. Mann, Hansen, Gore, et al.
latitude
September 4, 2010 5:23 am
First, the basics are pretty well understood. CO2 should cause about a 1.5 to 2.1 degree Celsius rise in temperatures if we double its concentration in our atmosphere. (If it doesn’t, it’s because other forces are counteracting it, not that it doesn’t exist.) This really is not very controversial at all.
===================================================
Hold on to your seat Tom, you’re about to get an edjumacation…..
pesadilla
September 4, 2010 5:27 am
Read this article twice just to make sure that there was nothing that i could take issue with and failed to find anything other than commonsense. This article gives the subject of climate change the kind of perspective, sadly lacking in much of the drbate.
Refreshing, easy to comprehend and well written in my opinion.
Thankyou
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your reasoned discourse on this issue. As for your claim: “CO2 should cause about a 1.5 to 2.1 degree Celsius rise in temperatures if we double its concentration in our atmosphere. (If it doesn’t, it’s because other forces are counteracting it, not that it doesn’t exist.) This really is not very controversial at all.”
Uh, yes, that is THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL THING THAT YOU WROTE! Scientists are surprised to find similar temps to today with up to 20 times level of Co2! The “not very controversial” claim of temp impact of doubling Co2 is starting to sound like a “crystal ball” prediction.
New studies are showing the atmosphere less sensitive to Co2 than previously thought. See: Climate CO2 Sensitivity Overestimated making simplifying assumptions about nature has led to an over estimation of carbon dioxide’s impact on temperature. — http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/climate-co2-sensitivity-overestimated
Peer-Reviewed Study finds ‘ancient’ Earth’s climate similar to present day — despite CO2 levels 5 to over 20 times higher than today! — Geologists reconstructed Earth’s climate belts between 460 and 445 million years ago and found ‘ancient climate belts were surprisingly like those of the present’ — Also included ‘a brief, intense glaciation’ http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7649/PeerReviewed-Study-finds-ancient-Earths-climate-similar-to-present-day–despite-CO2-levels-5-to-over-20-times-higher-than-today
Continued…
“CO2 should cause about a 1.5 to 2.1 degree Celsius rise in temperatures if we double its concentration in our atmosphere…. This really is not very controversial at all.”
Well, I’m not a scientist either but I have read several posts here and elsewhere that the effect of CO2 upon the atmosphere rises logarithmically and that we’re not too far from the point where more of it will cease to have much more effect. So, unless I have misunderstood the things I have read, (always a distinct possibility) then your statement is still controversial.
Well said!
You make some interesting points but I am struggling to grasp if they are really significant.
“In the past century we have gone from cultivating about 3% of the world’s land for agriculture to about 33%”
Sounds very dramatic but assuming 70% is sea then your statement is that we have gone from cultivating 1% to 9% of the world’s surface for agriculture. Likewise you mention 850,000 reservoirs which sounds a lot and may be significant but I cannot tell.
I am always a little wary of arguments that insist “man is so important and so powerful he must be changing the planet” when in truth it might be better described as two fleas arguing which made the dog fart.
“It is my own belief that other things we do here on this Earth have an impact on this planet, and that we should be aware of the impacts and in some cases work to lessen them. It is a happy coincidence that lessening these other impacts may also serve to reduce the impacts of whatever climate change we may be causing with CO2.”
Yes, but any of those impacts, if deemed important enough to try to ameliorate should be able to stand on their own merits without piggybacking onto the C02 mythology. And aye, there’s the rub. To the Warmistas, any so-called chance that C02 maybe, might possibly, could cause a “tipping point” is enough. They go into their little “risk analysis” routine, saying something like, “you don’t expect your house to burn down either, but you still (if you’re smart, anyway) buy fire insurance. Then it’s “do we dare gamble with our childrens’ and grandchildrens’ future?
I don’t believe they wanted to examine the big picture regarding all the changes we are making to the planet; I think they were looking instead for something identifyable, tradeable and taxable.
I agree with the general thrust of this. As a starting point in any debate, any poster should be treated with respect (irrespective of the views expressed) unless they have done something substantive to disentitle them to respect. Again, comments should be judged on the contents of what is said. It is then for other commentators to explain (with civility) what is wrong with the comment, explain why a comment may have no relevance or significance, put forward an alternative proposition etc.
I also consider to a significant extent, non scientists can rightly comment on climate science since to a large extent it is a matter of commonsense and we all recognise GIGO. For example, one does not have to be a scientific genius to review temperature logs, see trends and question the need/relevance of any adjustment to the raw data. Likewise, any one can comment upon siting issues. They same applies to general observations about proxy evidence and the efficacy of so called peer review.
Of course climate science is very wide. Scientists operating in other areas/disciplines can rightly comment upon the extent to which the ordinary rigours of scientific principle are being applied to climate science. Even those from the quasi arts (eg., classics, classics and archaeology) can comment upon the past and how man was affected/benefitted.
If most people accept as a general premise that the climate is changing but the issue is whether this be natural or anthropogenic, then one does not need to be a scientist to add to the debate on what if any action should be taken to address the change. My own view is that we have gone totally off the rails in seeking to halt the change rather than to concentrate on reacting to the change if and only if the change has demonstratable adverse consequences. My own view is that for the main part a warmer climate will be a good thing but for a few local areas it may have a negative impact which negative effect should be addressed if it truly proves to cause problem In other words I do not accept the catastrophic scenarios and I would like to see much more evidence showing the realistic consequence of climate change.
In fact any one with a forensic mind can usefully add to the debate and it is conceivable that such persons may be better able to see the wood for the trees.
Thomas Fuller, you don’t get it.
The UN IPCC is pushing policies not climate science.
They are pushing policies to give the strong hand to a political elite providing them absolute power to regulate every detailed aspect of our world.
It doesn’t matter to me if such an organizations crooks up climate science or any other human related impact on this world.
I simply reject the entire initiative and the organization involved.
And if you intend to live your future life in freedom, I advise you to do the same.
The one disagreement I would make with your statement is:
“First, the basics are pretty well understood. CO2 should cause about a 1.5 to 2.1 degree Celsius rise in temperatures if we double its concentration in our atmosphere. ”
The “scientific” evidence behind this relies on massive climate forcings to cause 1.5 to 2.1 degrees. CO2 alone will cause less then a tenth of one degree, because of the fact that CO2 to Temperature is a logarithmic relationship, and we are right now well beyond the saturation point. The first 20-40 ppm contribute over half of CO2’s warming effect.
Evidence for my statement: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
This among other “scientific facts” That are always assumed at the beginning of an argument are the greatest reason that there is so much belief in a theory that has little empirical evidence to support. In fact, virtually all of the empirical evidence points to some outside source forcing climate change and CO2 merely reacting as the oceans warm or cool.
SO until and unless scientists can use empirical evidence to prove that climate forcings will increase the effect CO2 has by roughly 2000%, the idea that CO2 is the cause is not even close to being proven. Anyone can prove anything given a computer and allowed to generate code with your desired result in mind.
Anybody with the power of conscious cerebration knows there must be huge uncertainties associated with such a vast and complex system as the earth’s climate on land, sea and in the atmosphere.
Thus, we are angered to be told ‘the debate is over’, especially as that statement appears to us to be made usually by people who lack the critical abilities referred to above, and who are either mindlessly following or malevolently driving an illogical and emotional crusade to an alarmism-ruined future.
This statistic sort of jumps off the page and begins to move the WUWT “Funny Number” meter:
“In the past century we have gone from cultivating about 3% of the world’s land for agriculture to about 33%.”
Do you have a reference for this? I do a fair amount of travel, and I can’t even begin to reconcile that with what seems to be reality.
JimB
If you want proper feedback for your writings (you are not a scientist as you mention), you should write somewhere else.
[snip]
There is not much critical thinking going on here. Critical commenters gave up.
[snip]
Your post is a scatter gun of issues that is too much of a task to start dealing with.
[Advertising blogs that incessantly badmouth WUWT is getting out of hand. ~dbs, mod.]
Well, the author is just giving all the ingredients of “post normal science” .
<>
First you use the term “climate change” ; well, the only certain and stable thing about climate is “change”, congratulations, you got a point here !
Then you talk about agriculture and change of the albedo, since you do not give any analyse of the effect of such change you are just “making noise” .
You are not a scientist, you do not have to tell it, it’s obvious!
The only interesting point of your article is that it shows the new way “governementalitists” are going to follow : more post normal science, more fear without any proof and their will to make people believe in some “normality” about climate !
To sum up, without any scientific base, diagnosis and cure will be at their own absolute disposal while people will have to pay for.
Lucien d’Athenes
Ah, yes, of course, we’ve gone from 3% land use to 33% land use, but increased urbanization will take care of the problem because, of course, the physical footprint of a human being is the same as its ecological footprint, and both of those decrease with urbanization. Absolutely makes sense.
And of course, technology will make tons of corn grow on square centimeters of land. Because, of course, photosynthesis uses cold fusion to generate biomass and it is not at all dependent on such things as energy flow from the sun, water, nutrient availability, and its own efficiency at converting sunlight to chemical energy. So we can increase yields indefinitely…
You have to love these people, they seem to be having so much fun… Only problem is [snip]
In the past century we have gone from cultivating about 3% of the world’s land for agriculture to about 33%.
Seems a strange ratio of increase. The population for 1850 was around 1.5 billion, soon, 2011, to be 7 billion, a 5 fold increase.
Agriculture has changed from horse-animal powered which required growing the animal feeds for horse power production. The widespread use of commercial fertilizers as well as the “green revolution” have greatly increased agriculture production per acre and efficency.
How does a 5 fold increase in population require a 10 fold increase in agricultural land?
The major impact on climate will come from increasing the amount of the land surface used for agriculture (as you state 3% – 33%) and especially ‘turning deserts green’. Plants survive by using a kind of ‘total loss’ circulation system. They take water in through their roots and transpire that water out through the stomata in their leaves. This transpiration can be at a surprisingly significant rate with mature trees transpiring more than 100 litres of water an hour in summer. All those desert areas in Libya, the Negev going green are doing so by using cubic kilometers of ‘fossil water’ (Google it).
Water is only normally required for irrigation where the surface is dry (rather obviously) and so in these dry areas the relative humidity is raised by adding water vapor transpired by plants. Water vapor accounts for ~70% of the ‘green house effect’ yet for some reason the cubic kilometers of additional water being continually added to the atmosphere by agricultural irrigation in just the right hot dry places to have the maximum effect on global heat retention, is not even seen as an ‘anthropogenic’ effect.
The insistence that water vapor is ‘only a feedback’ is one of the major faults in the IPCC reports.
Tom I believe you will find that for a doubling of CO2 you will get no more then 1.2° C of temperature rise. Even the Connolley approved Wiki says 1° C:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
However that is not the most important part, it is your second point. Land use change effecting weather and climate used to be taught in basic 3rd grade science when I went to school. Back then everyone was taught about how if you change how much water was available, you changed how much evaporated, you changed how many clouds are formed, you changed….. I’m pretty sure you get my drift. That is why when I read Dr. Pielke Sr. position and some of his papers dealing with Land use change to explain changes in climate, it was something you could easily wrap your mind around because it was built up from basic, sound science. Which in turn led to the inevitable question of “Why doesn’t the IPCC address this?” and the only answer I could find was because there really is no easy political power to be had in that position.
What are they going to say to the third world “Sorry we had to shut off the irrigation and let the land to turn back into desert so the planet stays cool?”. Or how about here in the US are you going to tell that to the farmers in he Midwest and the Central Valley of California? What about the people now so used to getting basically fresh “off season” vegetables at the supermarket? What are they going to do put a irrigation tax on those vegetables, causing prices to rise? So no they can’t acknowledge land use change because there is little they can advocate for politically, only CO2 gives them that.
DaveF September 4, 2010 at 4:23 am
“CO2 upon the atmosphere rises logarithmically”
Sure does.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
“I’m not a scientist either but I have read”
Yes, that’s all that’s needed to get across the essentials!
DaveF says:
September 4, 2010 at 4:23 am
The logrithmic curve fit holds – the next doubling will increase temperatures another 1.5 to 2.1 °C, not 3.0 to 4.2.
Unless confounding things like convection, clouds, etc are confounding things, of course.
Note that if CO₂ were rising exponentially, then that negates the logrithmic fit and we’d into a steady temperature rise over time.
Agreed that the CO2 driven CAGW and AGW science isn’t settled.
I’ve not seen enough evidence – models aren’t evidence – that CO2 is a primary, secondary, or tertiary driver of temperature or climate. I’d say that portion of the science isn’t settled and the returns coming in don’t look promising to confirm CO2 driven global climate. I’ve seen far more evidence for water vapor, airborne particulates, geography, and ocean circulation as the key ingredients that determine what the climate will be at anyones particular address, with local conditions being tempered by land use.
The earth has never experienced runaway global warming, though it certainly will when the sun expands and engulfs the earth. We’re wasting and will waste enormous wealth studying and mitigating what I see is a non-problem. I’d be very happy to have climate science fully explain and predict the glaciations and interglacials.
All of the ballyhoo about CAGW is political and should be treated as such, and when politics are involved, keep a sharp eye on your wallet. Politics are strictly about OPM.
Sorry Tom, DaveF [first post] is correct.
Mr Fuller writes: “We really do not know the sensitivity of the atmosphere to a doubling of CO2 concentrations. ”
No, but we know that the IPCC has grossly overestimated the effect of CO2. That is because most of the effect has already occurred. And that is using total CO2 as measured at MLO. The human contribution is under 3%.
The biosphere is starved of CO2, and that’s a fact. Even when CO2 was at thousands of ppmv, it had no discernible effect on temperature. Why should it be any different now? Have the laws of physics changed?
Land use and other factors have a much bigger effect than a tiny trace gas. But the government and the IPCC have put all their eggs in the CO2 basket, and now they’re stumbling around, trying to convince a skeptical public that the rise in CO2 matters. But the evidence and physical observations show that CO2 does not matter.
Still, governments are forced to continue with the CO2 charade, because taxing water vapor is next to impossible. And tax money is the driver for the entire “carbon” scare.
Tom needs to got out more, and listen to other people who base their conclusions on facts, not on vaguely understood speculation that the real world does not validate.
It would be helpful to not get your basic facts wrong to start with. The theoretical effect of doubling CO2 from the value of 290 ppm in 1850, to 580 ppm (expected value by 2100?) would add about 1.2 C (not 1.5 to 2.1 C), and the increase from 1850 to the present (we are presently at 390 ppm CO2) has already seen 0.8 C rise, at least half of which was agreed by both sides to have been probably caused by natural variation.
Since additional increase to 580 is only 1.5 times the present value (not double), and the effect of CO2 is a logarithmic effect, it thus seems very unlikely that even an additional gain of 0.5 C is possible from present levels, absent positive feedback. Since no positive feedback effects have been shown to be present, and in fact it required negative feedback to explain present levels, you have little science support.
From where I sit on the bell curve, let me say this about the “rabble”:
— There are an awful lot of ’em.
— Never underestimate the power of the “rabble” to surprise; they’re a lot more intelligent than they may appear at first blush.
— I never met any of the “rabble” I didn’t like. But then, I’ve never met the likes of Messrs. Mann, Hansen, Gore, et al.
First, the basics are pretty well understood. CO2 should cause about a 1.5 to 2.1 degree Celsius rise in temperatures if we double its concentration in our atmosphere. (If it doesn’t, it’s because other forces are counteracting it, not that it doesn’t exist.) This really is not very controversial at all.
===================================================
Hold on to your seat Tom, you’re about to get an edjumacation…..
Read this article twice just to make sure that there was nothing that i could take issue with and failed to find anything other than commonsense. This article gives the subject of climate change the kind of perspective, sadly lacking in much of the drbate.
Refreshing, easy to comprehend and well written in my opinion.
Thankyou
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your reasoned discourse on this issue. As for your claim: “CO2 should cause about a 1.5 to 2.1 degree Celsius rise in temperatures if we double its concentration in our atmosphere. (If it doesn’t, it’s because other forces are counteracting it, not that it doesn’t exist.) This really is not very controversial at all.”
Uh, yes, that is THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL THING THAT YOU WROTE! Scientists are surprised to find similar temps to today with up to 20 times level of Co2! The “not very controversial” claim of temp impact of doubling Co2 is starting to sound like a “crystal ball” prediction.
New studies are showing the atmosphere less sensitive to Co2 than previously thought. See: Climate CO2 Sensitivity Overestimated making simplifying assumptions about nature has led to an over estimation of carbon dioxide’s impact on temperature. — http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/climate-co2-sensitivity-overestimated
Peer-Reviewed Study finds ‘ancient’ Earth’s climate similar to present day — despite CO2 levels 5 to over 20 times higher than today! — Geologists reconstructed Earth’s climate belts between 460 and 445 million years ago and found ‘ancient climate belts were surprisingly like those of the present’ — Also included ‘a brief, intense glaciation’
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7649/PeerReviewed-Study-finds-ancient-Earths-climate-similar-to-present-day–despite-CO2-levels-5-to-over-20-times-higher-than-today
Continued…