Some People Claim There’s a Human to Blame (GW Tiger)

I’d comment, but I’m still looking for that damned lost shaker of salt.

According to Tom Segalstad Man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is small, maximum 4% found by carbon isotope mass balance calculations.
http://www.co2web.info/
Conclusion here;
http://www.co2web.info/esef6.htm

Dear Ira,
Some comment here: the natural CO2-temperature cycle over the ice ages shows only changes of 8 ppmv/°C (Vostok ice core, recently confirmed over the 800,000 years Dome C). This is also confirmed for the Law Dome ice core for the MWP-LIA temperature change (6 ppmv for ~0.8°C change in temperature – depending of what reconstruction you take).
Further, a 40 ppmv drop in CO2 levels at the end of the previous interglacial – the Eemian – had no measurable effect on temperature or ice sheet formation. That means that the 0.1°C for the present increase of about 100 ppmv may be about right…

I predict South Florida real estate will become more desirable in the coming years.

kwik says:
January 31, 2011 at 1:38 pm
According to Tom Segalstad Man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is small, maximum 4% found by carbon isotope mass balance calculations.
Sorry, but Segalstad is right and wrong: the 4% (actually some 7%) is what is left in the atmosphere of original molecules from human origin, after the huge CO2 exchanges caused by the seasons. Nothing to do with the total increase in CO2 mass, which is mostly caused by humans, as we emit(ted) twice the amount of CO2 as what we see as increase in the atmosphere. The seasonal exchanges do move a lot of natural (and some of the human) CO2 between the atmosphere and oceans/vegetation. That does influence (reduce) the human fingerprint in the atmosphere, but doesn’t add one gram of CO2 to the total amount present in the atmosphere. To the contrary: half of the additional mass is removed by natural fluxes.

Dear Ira Glickstein
From your site http://knol.google.com/k/ira-glickstein/-/3ncxde0rz8dtk/0#
“I’m a retired system engineer (IBM/Lockheed Martin) with my name on five patents in the area of artificial intelligence and a PhD in System Science. I currently teach an online graduate course in System Engineering at the University of Maryland.”
. . . . about 80% of the CO2 rise from about 280 ppmv to 390 ppmv since 1880 is due to human activities.
So what !. . . . 280 ppmv to 390 ppmv is insignificant, no matter natural or man made.
What are the natural variations, for Nitrogen, for Oxygen, and everything else that makes up air.
Two hundred plus years ago, the argument was; does air even exist. . . .
And all the methods we use to infer have their limitations . .
If people want to paint their roofs white . . . oh well, Just like they can throw salt over their shoulders or visit the card reader, or go to church Monday, Wednesday, & Sunday if they like.
I just don’t like politicians using Scientists to who-do the “commoners” and pretending it’s for their own good. Gee wiz, that’s like poisoning the well, just because one is going into the bottled water business.

“for the negative cloud feedback to work, temperatures must rise at least a little bit to generate the additional clouds.”
I have a question relating to the above comment.
I agree with the statement in principle but wonder if there could be an exception.
As I see it extra downward IR from more CO2 cannot get into the oceans. Instead it just adds extra energy to the system from the ocean skin upwards which presumably invigorates the water cycle to a miniscule degree hence more clouds.
So we have the extra downward IR trying to alter the temperature differential between the ocean and the air above.
However it is the sea surface temperatures that control surface air temperatures and the extra energy in the air just gets whisked away in the form of more latent heat.
There might be a slightly warmer ocean skin from the ongoing process but given the faster water cycle does the air itself just above the surface actually warm up at all ?
After leaving the ocean skin the extra energy which has been converted to latent form will not turn up again until it condenses out much nearer the tropopause so the exit to space will be accelerated too.
So, doesn’t the upward acceleration of the energy flow from the enhanced phase changes of water just cancel out the deceleration of the energy flow from extra GHGs for a zero net effect ?

A bit off topic but this article confirms what many have said in previous posts:
“Warm good, Cold bad.”
http://7thspace.com/headlines/371306/about_450_million_years_ago_earth_suffered_the_second_largest_mass_extinction_in_its_history.html

Like GE and J Immelt investments in wind and carbon credits we may want to check Chu’s investments in white roofing materials. Follow the money and you will find out the answers. Human contributions to climate change are immeasurable and undoubtedly immeasurably small. It’s 15 below zero F here today. Sorry, I ain’t buying it. Just reviewed my photos of the 1994 annular eclipse of the sun which I took from Ohio. Lots of sun spots back then, not so many now. Gather firewood and get your warm clothing together. We may be in for another solar minimum.

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 31, 2011 at 1:46 pm
“Further, a 40 ppmv drop in CO2 levels at the end of the previous interglacial – the Eemian – had no measurable effect on temperature or ice sheet formation. That means that the 0.1°C for the present increase of about 100 ppmv may be about right…”
This one:
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Vostok-CO2.png
Yes CO2 drops from about 270ppm to about 230ppm.
If we assume IPCC levels of CO2 power (like 3C per doubling) and factor in the higher temperature change at the poles, that particular 40ppm fall should cause about 1C cooling. Over that period it does look to me that temperature dropped about 1C, perhaps a little over. Although surely a major confounding factor of figuring out whether the temp change it’s compatible with the CO2 change is not knowing what temperature would have done if that CO2 hadn’t dropped 40ppm. Was temperature heading upward anyway and the CO2 drop therefore only caused it to fall slightly.

“During the ice age to interglacial transitions, on average a change of 7°C led to a doubling of CO2.”
So having failed to account for the logarithmic effect of spectral absorption you now assume there is a logarithmic relation between surface temperature , bulk temperature of the ocean and how that affects atmospheric CO2.
Is that based on some research that you forgot to link to or is it because you’ve heard the term “CO” doubling” somewhere and assume it relates to all CO2 subjects?
Is this post some kind of satire of WUWT ? It’s a wind-up right ?

“Perhaps I should have left it as “woman” since, without their civilizing influence, we men would still be huddled in caves, wearing bearskins,……”
I have found this to be a fallacy as persistent and unsupported as AGW .
“WS Gilbert said women were the really civilized humans, while Darwinian Man, even when well-behaved, was nothing more than a Monkey Shaved .”
I suggest WS Gilbert was seeking affections from a particular woman when he offered that quip, and not any profound philosophy. Or perhaps he was parodying himself, throwing gender insults as simian feces theses?!
Don’t get me wrong. I like the company and tender attentions of a lady more than most. But without the requisite male gender bashing, please…… It’s uncivilized.
Your postings were otherwise interesting and informative, Ira!

Ira,
I for one think your division of the components of the 0.8ºC reported rise is very close (± 0.1ºC for each component). That’s very close to my conclusions though it might be more 0.4ºC bias and 0.3ºC natural cycles.
If I were to comment deeper it would be on a more planetary level of cause, effects, and relationships. The equations being used to describe our atmosphere are not holding when applied to other atmospheres. The radiation equations are either wrong or assumptions are being made that don’t hold universally to all atmospheres. That’s what I take away after a year of study in this “climate scientology”.

I wonder if these modelers recognize that water vapor is a vicious beast in the modeling arena. We see discussions of Clouds being modeled as net positive or net negative feedback onto the system when the reality is that each cloud type has a different type of effect.
Water can be used as a refrigerant. It isn’t as effective as Freon of course, but its ability to phase shift within atmospheric temperature/pressure ranges distinguishes it greatly from CO2, which cannot exist anywhere on our planet as a liquid in nature (at least above the ground). I may be stretching the analogy a little to call water a refrigerant, but it does transport way more energy than CO2.
That we are attempting to model this as a forcing parameter should be enough by itself to make all modeler question their own results. They should be modeling precipitation/evaporation/condensation/etc to be better able to assess what is happening.

Ian
Although there is a certain element of reasonableness to the various apportionments that you make, I cannot help but consider that the requisite data is either too uncertain or missing such that any apportionment is little more than a matter of conjecture.
The data problem even extends to CO2 levels. I consider the jury to still be out on the pre-industrial level of CO2, and I consider that the uncertainty behind this level was deliberately down played by the IPCC since this would totally scupper the theory that they wished to promote.

evanmjones says:
January 31, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Don’t be so sure the ‘extra’ CO2 is anthropogenic. The argument is that it must be fossil carbon because of isotope ratios. Supposedly the only source of fossil C is man burning coal, natural gas, or oil.
There are other potential sources of old C. One is naturally vented methane. Methane from natural sources can be converted to CO2 either by oxidation in the atmosphere or by methanotrophs that eat it and convert it to CO2. Another possible source of isotope-depleted methane is very old rotting vegetation, perhaps the melting tundra permafrost. These sources are influenced by ambient temperature. Methane clathrates at some depth in some locations may shift equilibrium to gas if the sea temperature rises. Methanogens and methanotrophs are more active at higher temperatures as well.
I suspect when the planet cools, we will likely see these sources slow down and CO2 derived from methane and the decay of old vegetation will revert to their prior less active state.

Ira, I think you’re right but for a different reason.
I’ve been wondering why it is that scientific types, who know from archeological research that humans flourished when it was warm, should WANT it to get cold.
Simple answer: all professional scientists are hard-core leftists, so deeply imbued with the Culture of Death that they instinctively prefer whatever causes the extinction of the human race. They don’t have to think about it.
If most pro scientists had been females, the natural female need for more heat would partially overcome the leftist instinct, and would lead to a more rational “set point”.
Who always wants to turn up the thermostat? Women.

Ira, please stop using fancy images for the background of your graphs. It makes your graphs very difficult to view and IMHO, essentially worthless. Thank you!

Women were such precious commodities in caveman days that genetic evidence seems to indicate women were regularly stolen from neighboring groups, and not without much violence involved in the taking. This leads me to propose that women did not have as long of a lifespan as men did. One can make an educated guess as to why. The very thing that made women sought after, also killed them quite frequently.

‘Frank Lee MeiDere says:
January 31, 2011 at 1:23 pm
I’d comment, but I’m still looking for that damned lost shaker of salt’
Better find it soon before salt is outlawed.
Co2 is a pussycat. Water , water vapor and clouds are the tigers.

Even if the terrestrial temperature record since 1880 is questionable, particularly in light of repeated “adjustments” by the official climate Team that appear to overstate the warming, it seems to me the satellite data, available since 1979, clearly proves there has been considerable net warming since that date.
Yes, the satellite data show net warming since 1979. What they don’t show is that the warming exceeds natural variation. Absent such proof, I don’t think you can winkle out a signal for anthropogenic warming. The planet has been warmer in the past—when the human population was smaller, land use changes were less, and industrialization had yet to contribute to CO2 emissions through fossil fuel burning. The planet gets warmer, then it gets colder, then it gets warmer again. It’s cyclic.

Dear Ira Glickstein
You write many things in your article that I quite frankly do not understand. Therefore as you say “I expect some WUWT readers will challenge even my low estimate and I request you back your challenges up with science-based reasoning, which I would love to hear”
Let’s have a look at the (your) first one:
“I estimate that 0.1ºC of the supposed 0.8ºC warming is AGW, where we humans are to “blame” (assuming that that tiny amount of warming will make much of a difference, or, even if it does, that it will turn out to be bad).
As I cannot immediately find where you back your estimate up with science-based reasoning I can only draw the conclusion that science-based reasoning is very hard to come by when it comes to AGW. – Never mind how small the percentage is.
Next you say that “some WUWT readers have suggested that the entire supposed 0.8ºC warming since 1880 is data bias” which, if you say so, probably is true, but there again I cannot understand why they should suggest that. I for one do not know how much it has warmed so I cannot argue against 0.8ºC of warming. And quite frankly I don’t care. What I do care about and will say though is that I can find no scientific proof anywhere that says that CO2 is definitely the cause of that entire warming, or even of any small percentage part of it. – But you must have found it so please share —-.
Please note I am (we are I hope) just talking about the extra 80 or 100 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 which stand for the A in AGW. So please bear with me until I have worked this out in percentages, as we can all probably recognize percentages better than “per milleages.” – In 1880 atmospheric CO2 = 280ppm= 0.028%. By 2010 atmospheric CO2 has risen by, say 34.5% to 390 ppm (or maybe a bit more) which = 0.039%. That means the atmospheric proportional rise is 0.039 minus 0.029 = 0.01%.
I shall come back to this 0.01% later.
I shall not comment much on the “white paint theory” as I do not quite believe that you really support that one. However you do talk about albedo which is, at least, in my opinion, a very important point. I do however get the impression that “climate scientists” shut their eyes and ears to anything other than changed albedo through loss of reflection by snow and ice lost due to AGW.
Sir William Herschel and Ben Franklin are just two of the best known men of old who experimented with colors and their different temperature absorption rates, and I find it very strange that scientists in general and climate scientists in particular ignore this. Well, ignore may not exactly be the right word as they do acknowledge that Sir William discovered IR radiation. – Well, he may well have done that, but what he actually discovered was that there “must be another color in the spectrum, next to red (I have by now forgotten what he called it) which carried more heat than the red and other colors.
The important thing about this is that every square km. of the 30% of the planet which is landmasses (148 000 000 km²) on which the Sun shines may have incalculable variation in colors alone, never mind the differences in textures as well, that all add up to make it impossible to determine how much solar energy is absorbed and how much is reflected. (Trenberth 2008 = 168 & 23 W/m²????) And colors are changing throughout the whole year.
Neither must we be forgetting about the other 70% of the globe called oceans. The reflection and absorption rates here are also forever changing depending on the state of the seascape.
A long time ago when at school I learnt that when the Sun’s rays struck the Earth, some rays would be partly absorbed and some would be partly reflected. Those parts that were absorbed would “excite” the surface molecules thus increasing their motion and therefore also their temperature. In those days the bottom of the atmosphere was in contact with the top of the surface and the air molecules would therefore be excited by the surface molecules. In other words heat was transferred from the surface to the air by conduction.
All was correct in accordance with “The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics” which was in vogue with my science teachers at the time.
The thought in those days was that the Zeroth Law was a necessary and fundamental principle upon which the rest of thermodynamics was based. Without it, one cannot be sure that temperature means anything, and temperature or heat was in those days fundamental to thermodynamics.
In fact all throughout my life as a mechanical engineer the correct name for most of the things we call “radiators” were in fact “heat exchangers”
These days however radiation, without which AGW cannot take place, is all the rage. Yet, only greenhouse-gases can receive and therefore also emit long wave radiation (in the case of AGW one should only concentrate on radiation to and from CO2 as I just said, only greenhouse gases can do this radiation thing.)
So what is the scientific explanation for how 0.01% of the atmosphere warms up the other 99.99% a bit extra?
I do recognize that Dr. Spencer, who you give a mention, is a well educated and clever man and I respect all of his work except his “Defense of The Greenhouse Effect”
No person who likens the greenhouse effect to what happens to a pot of water warming on a stove and has to turn the heat up on the stove to raise the water temperature is going to convince me that it is “back-radiation” from the rising water vapor (steam) that does it.
Neither the pot, it’s steam nor that stove is going to bring the water to the boiling point or even a little bit towards it, unless more energy is transformed into heat first!
However in your clip Dr. Spencer says: “As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthening the Earth’s greenhouse effect.”
I notice that on this occasion he uses the term energy instead of the usual radiation. But how can a small part of a trace gas trap infrared energy in the atmosphere as long as there is something called convection?
He also says “As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.
Are the words “it is believed that” scientific substitution for “only God knows if” ?
Oh well, this comment has gotten long enough. But I would like to ask in closing: “What is the scientific proof for the natural greenhouse effect? And what would happen to Earth’s temperature if you leave all the “Greenhouse gases” but take away all the other gases?”

” If water vapor was the only GHE gas in the atmosphere, cooling could cause all the water vapor to precipitate out leaving only the inert gases.”
Can you expand on the above please ?
Solar shortwave would still be entering the oceans much as now.
The warmth of the oceans would warm the inert gases above.
So the air might have a different vertical temperature profile but it would still be above freezing and still with a water cycle would it not ?

Ira said: I do not know of any reasonable scientist, skeptical or not, who doubts that GHE gases absorb longwave IR radiation emitted from the Sun-warmed Earth and re-emit about half of it back towards the Earth, causing the Earth to be warmer than it would be absent those GHE gases.
Assuming that’s true, it also means that they re-emit half the IR radiation away from Earth making the Earth cooler than it would be absent those GHE gases.
What is this saying then? That greenhouse gases act to both warm and cool the atmosphere.
The assumption that greenhouse gases only go to warm the Earth is falsified by the very assumption made about IR which includes radiating half into space given to ‘prove’ this only goes to make the Earth warmer. Clearly, to me, it’s gobbledegook. If it isn’t also gobbledegook to “any reasonable scientist, skeptical or not,”, then I wouldn’t call them reasonable.
The statement that ‘without greenhouse gases the Earth would be around 30°C cooler’ is without foundation, hoist by its own petard.
From your link to Spencer: Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature,
This assumption is falsified by tons of empirical evidence showing the Earth is in a constant state of temperature flux, from seasons and local weather differences around the globe, which doesn’t take a ‘scientist’ to appreciate when planning holidays, to the vast time scale knowledge we have from geological record etc. that the Earth is subject to massive variations in temperature. In our current Ice Age alone, we have huge changes to the Earth every 100,000 years or so when coming out of this into considerably hotter Interglacials for some 10,000 years before descending back into our Ice Age; a cyclical pattern graphically depicted by Vostok shows even the non-scientist that this assumption that the Earth maintains a constant average temperature is gobbledegook.
GIGO. Just these two AGW assumptions show its claims do not relate to the real world we live and breathe in, but to an imaginary world created by the assumptions.
Much of what I see in these like analyses to the one you present here suffers from this basic disjunct, you are arguing against already falsified assumptions.
Again from Spencer: Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement.. it is well understood by climate scientists.
It is a controversial statement.
Based on the unproven assumption that IR ‘trapped’ by greenhouses gases is even capable of heating the Earth’s surface by this ‘back radiation’ and then by ignoring half the assumption anyway, that greenhouse gases are cooling the Earth by constant radiation into space.
And that’s before starting on other ‘assumptions’ produced by AGW about CO2, that it can stay up in the atmosphere accumulating for the hundreds and thousands of years and is ‘well-mixed’ in the atmosphere…
These assumptions by AGW cannot be taken seriously. Shouldn’t be taken seriously by any thinking themselves scientists.

I still think there are good grounds for upping your estimate of data problems, Ira. But thanks for your contribution.

Ira, in a previous post I noted that summer TMax is not increasing. In fact, in Canada, summer heat waves are DROPPING, the highest being in the mid 1920-1930’s. Other locations around the world also shows no increase in Summer TMax either. The highly proclaimed evidence of AGW, the French 2003 heat wave, was in fact a very local event. At the same time Paris was sweltering in 40C daily high temps, beating the 1947 record by 0.2C, Berlin was having a perfectly normal summer. In fact, 1947 Paris had 10 more of days above 30C than 2003 making 1947’s heat wave “worse” than 2003.
What is driving up the average temperature is winters are getting less cold, and with that spring is coming sooner, and fall is arriving later (that is the number of days between the last frost of spring and the first frost of winter is increasing).
This means that the magnitude of the difference between summer temps and winter temps is narrowing. The range of swing of temps is converging. That means at some point that converging must stop (winter can’t be warmer than summer), and must reverse and start to diverge again, regardless of how much CO2 there is.
That means this ‘warming’ is part of a natural cycle.

polistra says:
January 31, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Who always wants to turn up the thermostat? Women.

Not in my house! She wants it OFF! 😉

Ira
I am sorry that I mis-spelt your name. I also regret the length of this response but hopefully it adds something to the debate. I understand the points that you make and I do not violently disagree with the thrust of your comments.
However, I like many other posters have not done the underlying research but have read many papers on the subject (and visited numerous sites both pro and sceptical). The starting point to this debate (leaving aside the important issue as to whether the measurement of temperature is the correct metric since this does not fully show energy) is: has there been any warming since the late 1800s and if so, how much? The truthful answer to this is that given measurement errors, no one knows for sure but it is probable that there has been some warming. The satellite data shows some recent warming but of course if temperatures were higher in the 1930s or 1880s (which they may have been if one considers the error bars and downwards adjustments) perhaps there has been no (or little) warming.
The data record suggests 0.8C. I doubt that this is correct. I have seen first hand the effects of UHI. I have little doubt that the recent temperature record has been corrupted by UHI and station drop out, such that the recent warming is exaggerated. I also feel that it is probable, that revisions of past temperatures (always downwards never up) has also exaggerated the true extent of the warming during the past century. However, whilst I understand that there are reasons to consider that this may have resulted in 0.2 or 0.3 or even perhaps 0.4C of bias, I am not certain. Thus in summary on this point, I am not certain that there has been any warming during the past 100 years or so, but I accept that it is probable that there has been some warming and in which case it is almost certain that the amount of warming has been exaggerated in the various temperature sets probably by somewhere between 0.1 to 0.3C. The problem I have is that it would be mere conjecture for me to place a figure on this exaggeration (albeit I consider a figure of 0.2 or 0.3C to be entirely reasonable for this exaggeration such that perhaps the true warming since the late 1800s is 0.6C or perhaps only 0.5C).
The next stage is what is the cause behind this warming? If one examines the temperature record over the past century, pre the 1940s when manmade CO2 emissions began to increase substantially, one can see that natural variation at that time was capable of making temperature changes of 0.4C (and arguably up to about 0.6C). The problem is we do not know whether in 2000 those same natural processes are still at work, and if so to what extend. We do not know whether new natural processes have been added or some natural processes switched off. The upshot of all of this is that I can see that natural variation could be responsible for between 0.3 and 0.6C of the true warming that has actually occurred from the late 1800s to date. However, once aging, I have a problem. It would be a matter of conjecture for me to place any figure on it since the processes behind natural variation have not been fully identified still less fully understood.
The further stage is to consider whether man has had any role in this. If the apparent recent warming detailed in the temperature record is largely due to UHI, the answer is both yes and no. I have little doubt that mans engineering of his habitat could have some slight effect on local temperatures. If nothing else, over the area where UHI measurements can be detected. But in truth short of substantial deforestation, mans effect on the global landscape is small. Over 70% of the Earth is covered by water and the amount of land occupied by Cities/urban development is a relatively small percentage of the land mass. Whilst there has been quite some deforestation, it is generally considered that notwithstanding this, total biomass has increased over the last 50 years. So I accept that there could be some effect here, but it is modest.
As regards the effect of CO2 emissions, I have a real problem with this. When one looks at the geological record (there are times when the Earth was warm but CO2 levels were relatively low, times when the Earth was cool and yet CO2 levels were relatively high, there were times when CO2 levels were rising but the temperature was falling, and times when CO2 levels were falling but the temperature was rising) there is no sound correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. The same is so if one examines the temperature record since the LIA. There are too many points when temperatures are not responding in accordance with a correlation with CO2. Whilst correlation does not prove causation, a lack of correlation without proper explanation invariably disproves causation. Thus even at this basic level it is less than encouraging for the AGW theory.
But on a scientific level, I have real problems with the theory. I share many of the views expressed by O H Dahlsveen at January 31, 2011 at 9:25 pm and as outlined in the recent post by EM Smith (Frostbite Falls Posted on January 23, 2011 by Anthony Watts Guest post by E.M.Smith) which contained a practical real life example of how little warming effect CO2 possesses. Further given the wavelength of the back radiation emitted by CO2, it can only penetrate the oceans by microns (90% of the energy is absorbed within 10 microns and probably the remaining 10% within a further 5 or 6 microns). Given this, there is no effective way that energy from back radiation from CO2 can effectively warm the oceans and since these account for 70% of the surface area of the Earth and (ignoring the core/mantle) some 99% of the retained energy of the Earth, if the oceans cannot be effectively heated by CO2, then CO2 is not capable of global warming. I have never seen a convincing explanation as to how CO2 back radiation effectively heats the oceans, nor an experiment demonstration how CO2 heats the oceans. It would appear that the warming of the oceans is due to changes in cloud albedo and/or geothermal energy.
The upshot is that I have seen no empirical evidence supporting the contention that recent CO2 emissions has had any effect on current temperatures. Presently, I have seen no evidence to suggest that the increase in these emissions has caused even a 0.1C increase in temperature but I could be persuaded by proper valid and accurate empirical observational data showing an increase in temperatures caused by CO2 emissions and/or if those proposing the theory could actually demonstrate the science involved in a real world experiment.
Regrettably, we do not have the required data to make a proper shot at any of this. In particularly, it is fundamental to have a proper understanding of clouds and precisely how cloudy, the type of cloud involved and where these clouds were formed to see whether the observed warming is due to nothing more than changes in cloud albedo.
This leads to the final point: is it necessary to take any action at this stage? I am of the firm view that the answer to this is NO. If manmade CO2 emissions are not causative, any steps in mitigation will be a waste of time and expense. If warming is beneficial (as I believe would be the case), it would be counter productive to take steps which may prevent that beneficial warming occurring. Further, if global warming is truly occurring and if global warming is truly a problem and if this warming is not due to CO2 emissions, if we spend trillions of dollars unsuccessfully mitigating because we have aimed at the wrong culprit, we may bankrupt ourselves such that we may no longer have the money or indeed the resources to make such adaption as may prove necessary. It is clear that adaption is the best policy since adaption works irrespective as to whether the warming is or is not due to manmade CO2 emissions AND one only incurs the expense if warming turns out to be harmful. So my suggestion is to simply monitor the situation and try and gain a better understanding of what is going on but lets spend money on more worthwhile projects rather than to waste money on what is probably no more than a pussycat.
The problem we all have is how to we engage with proponents of the AGW theory. Your views sound reasonable and reasonableness usually always helps engagement. However, we are not dealing with people who value reasonableness and regretfully, no matter how reasonable you are, given the data problem, you are not able to prove your position and will be criticised for the lack of scientific rigour. It is difficult to win with these people as plainly demonstrated by their proposed reversal of the burden of proof. It is not sufficient for you to point out problems with their data, their theory, that different interpretations of data are equally as valid etc. They expect you to prove that they are wrong. Whilst I have enjoyed reading all your series of articles (and whilst I share your view that in the end this is likely to turn out to be a pussycat), regretfully I feel that this falls short of proving them wrong.

@HR says:
February 1, 2011 at 1:01 am “This is opinion or science?”
I think Ira is just trying to find a consensus.

Ira said:
“Most polar regions are below freezing and, in winter, so are some temperate regions. Thus, if water vapor was the only GHG (i.e., no CO2 or other GHG at all), the water vapor would precipitate out as rain/snow, and deplete the water vapor content of the atmosphere. This would further cool the polar and winter temperate zones, causing more rain/snow, and so on. ”
Yes that is how I understood the proposition, but….
The drier and cooler air near the poles would cause faster evaporation when the air returned over the equatorial regions hence replenishing the loss and maintaining overall humidity and a water cycle.
Evaporation is faster under drier air and air with a larger emperature differential from the water surface so I can’t see that proposition working.
I’d really like an answer to that conundrum because AGW proponents are currently using the idea to upgrade the significance of GHGs.

For: Ira Glickstein & others
http://www.google.com/search?q=geologist+on+global+warming&hl=en&sa=X&tbs=tl:1,tl_num:100&prmd=ivns&ei=oWdITbeSG6D48gTn84HeCA&ved=0CF8QywEoBA
Maybe this timeline link will help some see the evolution and information on the AGW dispute . . . I’m sure google will someday make it so that they can be automatically downloaded into an excel spread sheet for analysis. . . But I find the timeline, interesting. I hope the link works, as they are still working out the ‘kinks in their links’

Thank you Ira very much for your very long and comprehensive response (Ira Glickstein, PhD says February 1, 2011 at 10:34 am) to my comment on your original article. It was very much appreciated.
It is however going to take me a long time to digest all that you have written. In short, yes I have read Spencer’s “Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell” many times including last night as you suggested and again today. – And no, I never was taught that a greenhouse works because the glass passes shortwave light (UV, visible and near IR). A conventional “Hothouse”, I was taught, worked because it stopped convection. – My education (the type that lets you have papers as proof) started in 1947 and ended in 1964. – That may give you a clue that I shall never again have a 70eth birthday celebration. – I think you may well be a lot younger than that.
However as I said at the start of this piece it will take me a me a long time to digest all that you have written and thou I do feel I should perhaps explain why I am not quite ready to accept Dr. Spencer’s basic explanation of global warming theory an early response from me may therefore quite easily turn into some kind of circular conversation or argument. That, I believe nobody wants.

‘richard verney says:
February 1, 2011 at 9:09 am
They expect you to prove that they are wrong. Whilst I have enjoyed reading all your series of articles (and whilst I share your view that in the end this is likely to turn out to be a pussycat), regretfully I feel that this falls short of proving them wrong.’
I, sir, disagree with you. “CO2 drives the climate” is still an unproven hypothesis. It is up to them to prove that they are right. So far they have not done so.

Regarding old construction worker’s comments at February 1, 2011 at 10:44 pm, I do not disagree that those proposing the AGW theory should prove their theory. That is obviously correct.
What I am commenting upon is the Trenberth reversal of proof. The reality is that to make progress with the ‘Team’ it is necessary to prove them wrong as opposed to simply pointing out problems with their data or that the data is open to different interpretations etc. Whilst Trenberth’s proposal to reverse the burden of proof is only a recent suggestion, in practice this has been accepted for a long time. This is the effect of the mantra that the ‘science is settled’, the ‘debate is over’, the MSM’s acceptance of the AGW theory and acting as a mouthpiece for that theory rather than seeking to question those who propose it, the biased reporting by the BBC, the fact that most Governments have accepted the theory and are adopting policies supposedly justified by that theory etc.
One needs to be realistic as to what is happening/going on, it is no use crying about what ought to be going on. The reality is that unless Mother Nature shows beyond doubt that natural drivers are king, the burden is on the sceptics to prove that AGW theory is false and the degree of proof expected is high.

richard verney said: Governments have accepted the theory and are adopting policies supposedly justified by that theory etc.
One needs to be realistic as to what is happening/going on, it is no use crying about what ought to be going on. The reality is that unless Mother Nature shows beyond doubt that natural drivers are king, the burden is on the skeptics to prove that AGW theory is false and the degree of proof expected is high.
This is the speech, argument, of an autocrat, or a huckster . . . . which is why there are so many behavioral cycles. . . . For example, in our economy, the system has failed because there are those that think they can tax directly, without apportionment . . . the result, the productive capacity quits. In another way, how many fences did Tom Sawyer paint for Huck Finn. . . . or how many times will you participate in a coin toss when the rules are Heads I win . . . . Tails you lose . . . Just one more time, no!
Not me! The rules change or I don’t “play”, and this my friend is human nature . . .
It’s why kings, get their head chopped off, and thugs seem to just disappear sometimes.
. . . and you say, . . . unless Mother Nature shows beyond doubt that natural drivers are king. How many times has she done it and how many MORE times does “she” have to do that . . . . and by who’s definition? Go put on your Burka . . . . NOW! And give me that 10% you owe GOD! . . . NOW!
We all know that famous quote . . . . . . . . . . “Knowledge is Power . . .
but, not many know the rest of it which is . . . . & Ignorance is Control”

Sorry Mods, continual interruptions, my last post should be elsewhere. On the Roy challenge, and I messed it there too – forgot the close italics after quoting Mike Haseler. Time for a break.

For a 3rd comment I shall begin mine just like all good stories do; “Once upon a time” – all those who were seriously skeptical of the claim that a trace-gas which we call CO2 was driving all, the as yet unknown – to modern man, factors that make up the climate through it’s “claimed ability” to warm the Earth like it has never been warmed before. – They were skeptical, seriousy!
This claim that CO2” was warming the whole Earth had a very simple rebuttal; The case was, is – and always will be the other way round, – i.e. if you warm, say a piece of coal up to a temperature where it catches fire, then from there on, CO2 is produced. – Easy , peasy. – I.E. Warming comes first, and then CO2 is produced.
I am not a rich person, but I will promise to buy – for the use of yourself and your best science -mates, – say 4 or maybe even 5 bottles of compressed CO2 for you to do with what you like as long as you can produce heat from that CO2. Yes, you are allowed to use as many matches to “set fire to it “as you need – just as I needed matches to set fire to the coal.
But of course; if you cannot demonstrate as a fact that CO2 can cause warming then you pay for the bottled gas yourself – as I do not make a habit out of giving away free “electrical fire extinguishers”
However, all that said – any skeptical claim with evidence from Ice Cores included, was soon parried with a rebuttal from the “warmists” who agreed that, – in each case of; “At the beginning of an Interglacial period”, the Sun would start the warming off, but very soon the rising levels of CO2 would “take over and amplify” that warming.”
Warmists were never challenged as to where the temp. and CO2 graph lines crossed over, nor were they pressed to explain why ice core graphs show the Earth always starts to return back to glaciations at a time when CO2 levels are at maximum.
As, at the time, unfortunately, I did not follow “The Day to Day Development” of the global warming debate very closely, so I feel justified in saying that by now I am staggered to find that skeptics are actually siding with the “warmists” by saying:
“Come on, its obvious, – we are guilty, – but how guilty are we?
“Not very much” they answer themselves, because CO2 can only produce or cause x% of the warming. (That’s a small x)
Shall I laugh, or should I cry? It has by now become an argument about percentages!