My New Paper On The Economics And Science Of Climate Change
Guest Post by Alan Carlin
On Friday my new paper on climate change science and economics was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, a peer-reviewed journal. The paper is unusual from a number of different perspectives.
From a policy perspective, the paper’s conclusions include the following:
· The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting.
· The costs of CO2 emissions reductions are perhaps an order of magnitude higher than usually estimated because of technological and implementation problems recently identified.
· CO2 emissions reductions are economically unattractive since the few benefits remaining after the corrections for the above effects are quite unlikely to economically justify the much higher costs unless much lower cost geoengineering is used.
· The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.
From a historical perspective, the paper builds on my Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act, prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency in early 2009, by presenting an expanded version of a few portions of that material in journal article format, incorporating many new or updated references, and explaining the implications of the science for the economic benefits and costs of climate change control.
It is also particularly noteworthy for appearing in a peer-reviewed journal rather than the “gray literature,” such as a report to EPA, where many skeptic analyses end up—something that warmists never fail to point out. Although this article was not written for EPA, it has major implications for the scientific validity (or lack thereof) of the December 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding and the economics that EPA and many economists have used to justify current efforts to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, cap-and-trade schemes, and other approaches to controlling climate change.
From a scientific perspective, the paper starts with a detailed examination of the scientific validity of two of the central tenets of the AGW hypothesis. By applying the scientific method the paper shows why these two tenets are not scientifically valid since predictions made using these hypotheses fail to correspond with observational data. (See primarily Section 2.).
From an economic perspective, the paper then develops correction factors to be used to adjust previous economic estimates of the economic benefits of global warming control for these scientifically invalid aspects of the AGW hypothesis. (See primarily Section 2.) It also briefly summarizes many of the previous analyses of the economic benefits and costs of climate control, analyzes why previous analyses reached the conclusions they did, and contrasts them with the policy conclusions reached in this paper. (See primarily Section 5.) It also critically examines the economic costs of control. (See primarily Section 3.)
From a methodological perspective the article argues that economic analyses of interdisciplinary issues such as climate change would be much more useful if they critically examine what other disciplines have to say, insist on using the most relevant observational data and the scientific method, and examine lower cost alternatives that would accomplish the same objectives. (See primarily Section 1.) These general principles are illustrated by applying them to the case of climate change mitigation, one of the most interdisciplinary of public policy issues. The analysis shows how use of these principles leads to quite different conclusions than those of most previous such economic analyses.
Additional background and access information can be found at carlineconomics.com.
A CEI press release on it can be found at http://cei.org/news-releases/epa-whistleblower-criticizes-global-warming-science-and-policy-new-peer-reviewed-study . My 2009 report to EPA can be downloaded from http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/1
See also:
Getting closer to the truth perhaps?
Here is what the EPA (for once telling the truth) estimates the effects on temp and sea level of lowering CO2.
“the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be
reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean
temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.015 °C by 2100 and sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by
approximately 0.06–0.14cm by 2100.
Top of second column
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=57cadd3c-afb0-4890-bae5-3d6a101db11f
Great article,
I note that references (which where in the early EPA draft report) to Ernst Beck’s paper are missing. That would have round off the questions over global warming and the models. It is a pity that Dr Noor Van Andel’s recent presentation to KNMI here http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/CO2_and_climate_v7.pdf was not available for you but the September presentation http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/KNMI_voordracht_VanAndel.pdf could have added to the overall picture.
Thanks Alan for your unbiased overview of the science/technology (note thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid dynamics are engineering subjects few scientist understand) and economics associated with the AGW political movement. Thanks should also be given for your courage and persistence.
Keep healthy and strong
cementafriend
The French have thrown out the CO2 tax it is amazing what a vote against can achieve.
Keep up the flow of truth about the economic consequences of this absurd belief.
Omigawd! An excess of sanity! I cain’t hardly stand it!
Will his 100 x 10 = 1000 net benefit overstatement assessment be taken on board by any pols? I’ve had a figure like that kicking around in my head for some time, and it’s great to see backup!
“The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting.
The costs of CO2 emissions reductions are very much higher than usually estimated because of technological and implementation problems recently identified.”
Simply wonderful, now that the weakness of the CAGW proponents policy position is well articulated in the literature we really need to move from defense to offense. I submit that not only are the economic benefits of CO2 reduction two orders of magnitude lower then projected, but that the sign is wrong, and the BENEFITS of CO2 are orders of magnitude greater then formally acknowldged. The benefits to the biosphere are KNOWN, (health to the biosphere, crops, trees etc) the harm is now known to have been theoretical only and not matched by observations.
We need to have the editor of this journal removed, or maybe we even have to redefine what the peer-review literature is
Because the belief in CAGW is an emotionally driven one rather than a rationally driven one, the publication of several thousand papers of this type would not change the belief system of the CAGW zealots.
Great article! Mny txs.
The URL reads: …/former-skeptic-epa-researcher-alan… Shouldn’t “skeptic” be erased?
Brgds/TJ
Did someone say the french have thrown out climate tax? If so was it a tax that is being discontinued or one they planned to introduce?
What is more has this been reported on the BBC?
We await the news with interest!
I’ll certainly be interested to see how you concluded feedbacks are negative. Every time someone has said that ‘predictions based on positive feedback haven’t stood up to observations’ so far, it’s just been a case of them cherry picking, fiddling the data, doing their sums wrong or just inventing the predictions and doing it wrong.
Alan, thank you for this paper. I hope to read it next week.
well, why read the paper? Obviously the Koch Brothers / Exxon / Illuminati / boogiemen du jour have bought him off.
/sarc
(there, I saved everyone from wondering what Romm’s response will be)
Ya know, it’s been a long time since I’ve read a peer-reviewed, journal published extensive paper that sensibly explains human effects on climate (which we do but in very different ways and very local ways than is usually trumpeted), and what can and cannot be done to mitigate such effects (we can mitigate but in much more reasonable and very local ways than is usually trumpeted). If I had said I’ve never read such a paper on climate change, I’ld be talking through a hole in my hat and then my gray hair at the temples would so give me away.
I remember the papers that came out announcing the discovery of the PDO and its long term affect on climate. What followed was paper after paper on other land species (one of my favs was on Elk) that demonstrated the same long term population rise and fall tied to this phenomenon that only industrious and wise salmon searching seamen knew. Back then, that was real science, brought to us from hard working field researchers.
Well done, well done.
Closer to the truth but still a ways to go. Higher atmospheric CO2 in and of itself has a large economic benefit. What small amount of warming it entails is predominantly in the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere, during the night, and in the winter. This has been a boon to agriculture via longer growing seasons where they are most needed. Then we have the botanical effect of rising CO2 making plants bigger and consuming less water per unit of growth.
Migating CO2 by any means is economically counter-productive. Evev if the mitigation cost nothing it would still be counter-productive. We could stand a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere for, if nothing else, a hedge against the Holocene interglacial coming to an abrupt end. The Holocene interglacial period is already longer than the average interglacial and if ends people will find out the hard way that catastrophic climate change involves falling temperatures not rising temperatures.
1000 Swiss francs is certainly a bargain if it lets you claim the prestige that having your pile of recycled canards published in a peer-reviewed journal brings. But however many canards you stuff into the paper (don’t they have page limits?), it doesn’t amount to a “Critical examination of scientific validity”.
Carlin’s inability to distinguish between the atmospheric lifespan on a single molecule of CO2 and the speed at which an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations are drawn down rather guts his argument.
I have only one question – who paid?
REPLY: Yes Richard, who pays for your publications when they go into a peer reviewed journal? Your objection that he had to pay the journal is simply stupid and condescending. Every journal has fees of some kind. There’s fees for word count, figures, color, and open access to name a few. On many journals they don’t even allow open access, but force user to pay to view government funded research, which is my opinion is wrong.
For example the new journal “Nature Climate Change” charges $1000 per publication, flat fee. By your argument that makes them untrustworthy.
You argument about fees fails fabulously. – Anthony
@Matter
Positive feedback: massive government funding
Negative feedback: public opinion of having energy prices artificially inflated
Positive feedback has been ahead for most of the game, but the public, with our annoying “votes” beginning to apply enough negative feedback, are pulling even.
Viva Democracy! No wonder some opinionistas are complaining about it (e.g. http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2009/09/thomas-friedman-our-one-party-democracy/)
(Pages 1000-1002) UN feedback hypothesis is not supported or even partially supported by a comparison with real world data. eg The UN’s Missing Hotspot in the Troposphere is still missing. Tremberth’s Missing Atmospheric of the last decade is still missing, hasn’t turned up in the oceans. Argo says ‘No.’
Where’s the feedback?
It sounds like the “companies” who have invested Billions in selling “Space Blankets will kept you warm” are going go broke.
Alan Carlin: Your paper uses the term “Ocean Warming Index”, which you describe as “the Pacific Decadal Oscillation plus the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (PDO + AMO).” And you refer to a source written by Joe D’Aleo: “D‘Aleo, J. US Temperatures and Climate Factors since 1895. Icecap (online), 2008:” http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf
The PDO and AMO cannot be added as Mr. D’Aleo has done, so that part of your paper is wrong. This has been discussed many times here a WUWT. Example:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/26/a-must-read-european-climate-alpine-glaciers-and-arctic-ice-in-relation-to-north-atlantic-sst-record/#comment-492327
The applicable portion of that comment reads: Unfortunately, the PDO and AMO are not similar datasets and cannot be added or averaged. The AMO is created by detrending North Atlantic SST anomalies, while the PDO is the product of a principal component analysis [of the] North Pacific SST anomalies, north of 20N. Basically, the PDO represents the pattern of the North Pacific SST anomalies that are similar to those created by El Niño and La Niña events. If one were to detrend the SST anomalies of the North Pacific, north of 20N, and compare it to the PDO, the two curves (smoothed with a 121-month filter) appear to be inversely related:
http://i52.tinypic.com/fvi92b.jpg
I’ll have to update the discussion of this in the Introduction to the PDO post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/09/introduction-to-enso-amo-and-pdo-part-3.html
In your paper, you later write about the PDO, “In fact, major changes in the PDO from positive to negative and back appear to coincide almost exactly with observed changes in global temperature trends over 20–30 year timeframes, as hypothesized in Figure 5.”
There is no mechanism by which the PDO could cause the observed changes in global temperatures, since the actual Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the North Pacific north of 20N (the area used to determine the PDO) are inversely related to the PDO. Refer to the tinypic link above.
Holbrook on April 3, 2011 at 5:16 am
“Did someone say the french have thrown out climate tax? If so was it a tax that is being discontinued or one they planned to introduce?
What is more has this been reported on the BBC?
We await the news with interest!”
Was it an EU instigated tax that the French had thrown out?
That would make it even more interesting!
richard telford,
The paper was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, a peer-reviewed journal. Carlin notes: “By applying the scientific method…”, which is something few climate papers do, and something which Mann, Jones, Briffa and the rest of their clique never do. They all refuse to provide the transparency required by the scientific method.
Phil Jones says he “lost” most of the raw temperature records. Mann still refuses to disclose his methods and data after thirteen years, despite constant requests. And Harry the programmer wrote that he fabricates the missing data as he goes along. Those are the people on your side, the ones you defend. Tell us why we should trust them.
Since you can’t credibly debunk Carlin’s paper, you set up a fake strawman of un-named “recycled canards” instead, and knock it down. That’s typical of what passes for alarmist argument: attack the messenger. Attack the journal, because Michael Mann doesn’t have that particular climate journal in his back pocket.
Here’s a thought: since you apparently believe you know how the climate works, write an article for WUWT. Let’s see what remains standing at the end of the day.
Bob Tisdale says: at 6:49 am ~~~ “The PDO and AMO cannot be added …”
Bob has said and demonstrated this time and time again.
Somewhere it is said that it is way harder to unlearn a thing than it is to learn it in the first place. A few months ago I wrote (a rare) letter to the editor of our local newspaper regarding a false statement in an opinion piece from one of their contributors. Two weeks ago the same person used the same false material again. He knew of my letter and had commented on it at the time. I call foul on that.
Now Alan Carlin and Joseph D’Aleo have been told (again) by Bob Tisdale of their error. It is time to unlearn!
because feedback is negative rather than positive
For those who don’t know what negative feedback is here is an easy to understand explanation from Reginald Newell. He worked at MIT, NASA, and IAMAP.
1 minute video
Matter says:
April 3, 2011 at 5:23 am
I’ll certainly be interested to see how you concluded feedbacks are negative.
Here is a work showing negative:
Roy Spencer, 8:34 video, part 1:
Roy Spencer, 8:53 paper, part 2:
Matter,
Positive feedback is found in computer modelling only. If you have a study showing the positive feedback you speak of please link them. I am talking about actual measured data. I am not asking for papers that talk about the results from a computer program. They are different.
I did a dogpile search on the French carbon tax thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/global/24iht-carbon.html?_r=1
About a year old– but apparently it was dropped, in part, due to ruling party loses in local elections. Elections have consequences and the French prole is no more interested in spending a lot of money into the pockets of global warming rent-seekers than any other group of people.
There is a post at Jo Novas about the French carbon tax thing.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/france-ditches-carbon-tax-as-protests-mount/
REPLY: Yes Richard, who pays for your publications when they go into a peer reviewed journal?
—————–
All the organisations that have supported my research are listed in the acknowledgements section of the relevant papers. Carlin does not acknowledge any financial support. If he received any funding, that would contravene the journal’s rules
‘Financial support for the study must be fully disclosed under “Acknowledgments” section.’
As well as this potential ethical breech, a second potential problem with the 1000 Swiss francs is well described at http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55756/
———————-
Smokey says:
April 3, 2011 at 8:32 am
“By applying the scientific method…”, which is something few climate papers do
Carlin’s “scientific method” is to ignore any research that does not agree with his conclusions and accept any “skeptic” talking point however well debunked. Thankfully, few climate papers do this.
Since you can’t credibly debunk Carlin’s paper
Did you not read beyond the first line of my comment? Carlin’s arguments on the atmospheric life-time of CO2 are simply wrong.
Here’s a thought: since you apparently believe you know how the climate works, write an article for WUWT. Let’s see what remains standing at the end of the day.
You are welcome to try your hand at rebutting any of my papers.
richard telford,
First you complain that Carlin may have paid to be published, then you complain that Carlin may have recieved payment — with zero evidence either way. Maybe it’s just your projection, eh? And I note that Jones, Mann and the rest live high on the hog at taxpayers’ expense [something Cuccinnelli is investigating]. But they get paid plenty, and it’s all A-OK with you, as long as they support the CAGW narrative.
Next, you are still dodging the fact that Mann & clique refuse to follow the scientific method. They’re hiding out from the scientific method by their lack of transparency. You can’t seem to understand that simple fact. Explain to us why Mann still refuses to release his data and code, thirteen years after publishing.
Finally, I’ll look at your papers when you provide a link that publicly archives 100% of your raw data, codes, metadata, methodologies, and everything else that you used to arrive at your conclusions.
Post it right here. Until then… Pf-f-f-f-t.
Dave Springer says:
April 3, 2011 at 6:33 am
The Holocene Interglacial has already begun what appears to be it’s rolldown to the Next Ice Age. It could take the form of the Interglacial of 400,000 yrs ago, or it could take the 130,000/240,000/330,000 yr Interglacials. Odds are 3-1 against continuing another 10,000 yrs.
The Warmists are betting against the House. 490,000/570,000/620,000/700,000 and 790,000 yr Interglacials never made it as high as the Holocene.
1/2 of the last 8 Interglacials were duds, meaning that the Holocene has already pushed the luck envelope being on the higher side of cycles.
Smokey says:
April 3, 2011 at 11:47 am
richard telford,
Finally, I’ll look at your papers when you provide a link that publicly archives 100% of your raw data, codes, metadata, methodologies, and everything else that you used to arrive at your conclusions.
Post it right here. Until then… Pf-f-f-f-t.
——————–
Your lucky day!
The code and (most) data are available for my latest paper.
You can find the code at http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/palaeoSig/index.html
The paper is available at
http://tinyurl.com/3mspy8b
What are you waiting for?
richard telford says:
“The code and (most) data are available for my latest paper.”
Michael Mann provided “most” of the data in Mann ’08. What he didn’t make available was hidden away in a file labeled “censored.”
That little omission would have caused his paper to reach exactly the opposite conclusions than what Mann wanted [ie: no hockey stick]. SeewhatImean?☺
The scientific method requires complete transparency.
Smokey says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:25 pm
—————-
Put in a FOI request for any data sets you need. (You don’t need any to evaluate the paper – the conclusions are not dependent on the data used in the examples)
What are you waiting for?
richard telford says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:13 pm
The paper is available at
http://tinyurl.com/3mspy8b
========================================================
We present a method to test the statistical significance of a quantitative palaeoenvironmental reconstruction inferred from biotic assemblages with a transfer function. A reconstruction is considered statistically significant if it explains more of the variance in the fossil data than most reconstructions derived from transfer functions trained on random environmental data. Given reconstructions of several environmental variables from the same fossil proxy, the method can determine which is the best reconstruction, and if there is sufficient information in the proxy data to support multiple independent reconstructions. Reconstructions that fail this test have limited credibility and should be interpreted with considerable caution.
=======================================================
richard telford says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:13 pm
The code and (most) data are available for my latest paper.
========================================================
Richard, you’re quantifying palaeoenvironmental reconstructions…..
and not telling people how you did it?
Are you grading them? and picking the ones you like and don’t like?
Any particular ones you favor, and why?
You start out with the statement that you are “presenting a method to test”
…then not releasing all of your codes and all of your data
It is just as easy to make all of your code and all of your data available.
Why did you not do that?
“The paper is available at
http://tinyurl.com/3mspy8b”
Ah, that’s great, I’d be interested in reading…
“Purchase
$ 35.95”
… never mind.
Smokey says:
April 3, 2011 at 11:47 am
“richard telford,
First you complain that Carlin may have paid to be published, then you complain that Carlin may have recieved payment — with zero evidence either way. Maybe it’s just your projection, eh?”
It’s a technique called mud-slinging.
richard telford says:
Dr. Telford, Bob Tisdale had a substantive criticism for Dr. Carlin to answer and I’ll be very interested to see Dr. Carlin’s (and Joe D’Aleo’s) response. You, on the other hand, posted innuendo. I have no information one way or the other (any more than you do), but my guess is that Dr. Carlin listed no funding sources because he had no funding sources. You posted a link to an article about fraudulent open-access journals that had nothing to do with either Carlin or the journal he published in. You keep making reference to 1000 Swiss Francs…. I may be a bit dim, but I don’t see where that reference came from or why 215.58 yankee green-back dollars makes any difference to this discussion. Character counts, Dr. Telford, and you are no better than any other of the no-name alarmist trolls who turn up here to sneer at the ignorant climate deniers. I’m not wasting my time on your papers because I doubt you have the integrity to provide the facts…. just another hide-the-decliner.
richard telford,
Why should I have to put in an FOI request?? It is YOU who admittedly withheld data. The scientific method is not in your work, and the truth is not in you. IMHO, of course.
richard telford says:
April 3, 2011 at 12:13 pm
The paper is available at
http://tinyurl.com/3mspy8b
…for $35.95! Err…No…
Robert E. Phelan says:
April 3, 2011 at 2:04 pm
richard telford says:
Dr. Telford, Bob Tisdale had a substantive criticism for Dr. Carlin to answer
————–
I also made substantive criticism – his account of the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 being less than a decade is irrelevant to the problem of emissions.
215.58 yankee green-back dollars
———————–
It’s a long time since 215.58 yankee green-back dollars were worth a 1000 CHF.
Latitude says:
April 3, 2011 at 1:02 pm
…then not releasing all of your codes and all of your data
——————-
All the code is available. All my data is available.
Saludos to Mr Carline for having the balls to chime on his own dime.
Problem is though, every time you crazy scientists stray from the rest taking the rational heroic approach it’s feels like watching a classic zombie movie:
He’s going for it! He’s going for it. He’s running like hell, he’s almost there… he’ll make it, he’s almost over the fence.
Oh no, no, no, look at them munching on his brain. :p
God, how refreshing! Thank you, Alan.
An inconsequential paper behind a paywall with incomplete data.
What a breathtaking parry to Mr. Carlin’s massive thrust.
I find myself speechless and cowering in the brightness of Richard Telford’s genius.
Mr. Telford’s criticisms of Mr. Carlin of “may, and could have”, are just unsubstantiated negative opinions from a person where his entire track record here consists of nothing but complaining. Mr. Telford has never had a positive word for anything or anyone here. He’s a chronic downer.
Mr. Telford’s provided link: http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55756/
…is the most pathetic attempt at guilt by association I’ve seen in quite some time.
And Mr. Telford sidestepped my point about the new journal “Nature Climate Change”, their time accelerated publishing schedule, and their $1000 fee for publishing papers.
Nature Chemistry, Nature Physics and Nature Cell Biology I can understand because Chemistry, Physics and Biology are actually branches of science. I could even approve of a journal called Nature Climate Science.
But Nature Climate Change? Surely, the climate changes, but that’s not a science… oh wait, I guess it’s not about science.
The very first technical point made by Carlin is based on Segalstadt’s work on CO2. This work is nonsense. None of the arguments in it makes any sense. The simple fact is that the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere had been stable at 280ppM for thousands of years, until the industrial age began. The fact that industrial emissions are about twice as large as the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, is due to the absorption of the extra human emissions by the environment. People who don’t understand and accept this as fact are simply not thinking clearly. The scientific literature on this leaves no room for doubt. In addition contrary to what Segalstadt claims, the concentration of Carbon isotopes is actually in agreement with the human industrial origin of the excess CO2.
Quoting Segalstadt and ignoring the rest of the scientific literature which overwhelmingly says that humans are responsible is contrary to what true scientific papers are supposed to do.
It is a sham to call this a scientific paper.
REPLY: Eadler, since you haven’t produced anything except complaints against people you disagree with, I suggest you write your own peer reviewed paper, get it published, and then submit it here for us to have a look at. Please apologize to Mr. Carlin for calling this paper a “sham”. You’ve been banned once already for calling Willis Eschenbach a “fraud”, and been forced to apologize for your comments. I relented and reinstated your commenting privileges when you agreed to apologize. Now I’m rethinking the wisdom of that decision. If you don’t wish to apologize then please refrain from commenting at WUWT any further. Your purpose here remains and always has been denigration of others, as demonstrated here again.
You seem to have no ability to contribute here in any sort of a positive way. It’s fine to point out technical issues and disagreements, but Mr. Carlin has borne a heavy load for having the courage to speak out, and unlike you put his full name to his words each and every time he’s written something.
-Anthony Watts
The science of CAGW is being dismantled openly now, the economics are being embarassingly destroyed, the public don’t buy it one little bit and now the politicians are disowning it except for the tax.
Where does it have to go from here? Will we perhaps see some acknowledgements of incorrectness or perhaps even apologies from the AGW industry? Not a chance on this planet.
What needs to happen very quickly is a termination of their funding until some sense is restored to the debate and hysteria allowed to subside.
richard telford says:
April 3, 2011 at 3:14 pm
It’s a long time since 215.58 yankee green-back dollars were worth a 1000 CHF
You’re right of course. I can’t find the actual curency calculator I used, so I have no idea whether the calculator was whacked or whether I selected the wrong currency. I also finally figured out that you were nattering about the publication fee (I’ll attribute that to the onset of mild food poisoning after accompanying some arab students who thought a Japanese/Chinese buffet was the epitome of haught cuisine)… but your attempt to link that fee with the situation described in your link is despicable. I also note that you did not answer Anthony’s question about Nature Climate Change… by your logic they fall into the same category.
As for your “substantive comment”…. go back and compare Bob Tisdale’s with yours:
Carlin’s inability to distinguish between the atmospheric lifespan on a single molecule of CO2 and the speed at which an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations are drawn down rather guts his argument.
Bob Tisdale didn’t sneer and my reading of Carlin’s paper is that he was addressing the issues you claim he wasn’t.
Finally, I really like the way you emphasize that all of your data is available… but not all of the data you used is available? Something, perhaps, about confidentiality agreements? I think it would be quite entertaining, actually, if Steve McIntyre or Ryan O’Donnell took an interest in your work.
eadler,
In order to show that you’re not a climate alarmist promoting your usual disinformation, please provide empirical, testable and falsifiable evidence showing, as you improbably claimed, that “The simple fact is that the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere had been stable at 280ppM for thousands of years, until the industrial age began.” In fact, there are no such facts supporting your bogus assertion.
You cannot provide testable, verifiable facts showing that CO2 levels remained unchanged at 280 ppmv for thousands of years without any change. Beck et al. has shown widely varying CO2 concentrations, measured by numerous internationally esteemed scientists, including several Nobel laureates [when that meant something], in numerous locations including ships transiting the Arctic, Antarctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans; the Sea of Okhotsk, unpopulated mountain peaks, desolate Scottish shores, and other wind-swept locations. They consistently showed CO2 levels far in excess of your claimed steady-state 280 ppmv, and in fact, they showed CO2 levels exceeding current levels in the early 1800’s and in the 1940’s.
The fact is that you have nothing but circular pal-reviewed, hand-waved-through papers, and always-inaccurate computer models as your putative authority. Time and again you have shown yourself to be totally clueless about the scientific method. You are the Barrie Harrop of WUWT. I am calling you out on your deliberate and/or ignorant misrepresentation of the facts:
Show us with empirical, testable, reproducible evidence that CO2 levels have remained at 280 ppmv “for thousands of years,” as you have claimed. Otherwise, admit that you were wrong. Or not; it’s your credibility at stake.
Nothing in the climate remains static for thousands of years, Barrie – except in the minds of climate alarmists with an agenda; people like you, who have never believed in natural climate change. Your mantra is based on Mann’s repeatedly debunked hokey stick, with its straight handle from 1400 AD until the industrial revolution, showing neither a MWP nor a LIA. It is only the climate alarmist crowd that wrongly believes climate change can’t happen naturally.
The fact is that CO2 levels have varied from under 200 ppmv, to almost 20,000 ppmv – at a time when life flourished, and the biosphere was incredibly diverse. You are simply fabricating bogus facts to promote your alarmist agenda, and as a result you have no credibility. Barrie, take your globaloney to echo chamber blogs like realclimate and CP, where they welcome scientific illiterates spreading disinformation. We need verifiable facts here, not alarmist propaganda.
Smokey says:
April 3, 2011 at 10:02 pm
eadler,
In order to show that you’re not a climate alarmist promoting your usual disinformation, please provide empirical, testable and falsifiable evidence showing, as you improbably claimed, that “The simple fact is that the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere had been stable at 280ppM for thousands of years, until the industrial age began.” In fact, there are no such facts supporting your bogus assertion.”
=================
Right, Smokey. I doubt if he/she can provide that type of evidence. [I say he/she because none of us know what an eadler is.]
And that “stable” number of 280 ppm is just 100 ppm greater than the lowest point during the last glaciation….of 180 ppm….NOT an “ideal” number of stability no doubt.
Plant photosynthesis shuts down at 150 ppm. Talk about a disaster.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Bravo !
Folks, it seems that we are again and again going to discuss the same points. Alan Carlin indeed is wrong to quote Segalstad on the point of residence time, because Segalstad talks about residence time of CO2. On that point Telfort and Eadler are right. Which doesn’t make them right on other points or that one should dismiss the rest of the article…
Residence time has nothing to do with how long an excess amount of CO2 above the temperature controlled dynamic equilibrium stays in the atmosphere. The residence time is based on the amount of CO2 which is exchanged between the atmosphere and other reservoirs (oceans and vegetation) over the seasons, thus within a year. Which is about 150 GtC on the 800 GtC in the atmosphere. What is important is how much is removed from the atmosphere after a year, not how much is exchanged within a year. That currently is only 4 GtC from the 800 GtC in the atmosphere. To go back to the pre-industrial 290 ppmv (580 GtC, the dynamic equilibrium CO2 level for the current warm period), would need far more time than the residence time indicates (but far less than the IPCC estimates): about 40 years to halve the difference (if we shouldn’t emit any CO2 anymore!). See:
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
The work of the late Ernst Beck suffers from the same problems as can be (and is) measured today: many of the measurements were taken over land near huge sources and sinks and have not the slightest value for estimating the real average CO2 levels in the bulk of the atmosphere (but the current measurements over land are used to estimate CO2 fluxes over large areas). CO2 levels taken on ships over the oceans and coastal with seaside wind (as is done nowadays for all baseline stations) all were around the ice core CO2 data for the same period of time. There is no peak of CO2 around 1942 in high resolution (8 years average) ice core data or stomata index data or in the 13C/12C ratio from coralline sponges. The 1942 peak in Beck’s analyses is completely based on two series (Poona, India and Giessen, Germany) which show (even today) much too high and highly variable CO2 levels, because of nearby CO2 sources.
Thus sorry, but Carlin is wrong on this point…
[snip] you are welcome to resubmit without accusing me of fraud by using the word. – Anthony
Anthony, I am concerned and confused by your statement that Nature Climate Change charges a $1000 flat publication fee. Please can you advise where you obtained this information from?
From the instructions for authors, “There is a charge of $540 for the first colour figure and $270 for each additional colour figure. Please note that we are unable to offer to publish greyscale in print and colour online. Otherwise, there are no submission fees or page charges.” These are the only charges that I am aware of.
Grace Baynes, Nature Publishing Group
REPLY:Grace, thank you for your note. This came from something from research related to the offer (which was refused me) for a free subscription to Nature Climate Change. This figure was I believe the cost for the average paper submitted, the term flat fee was IIRC discussed, but I’ll see if I can locate the exact source.
While I am doing that…can you explain why the editor of the most viewed climate website on the planet was deemed unfit for a free subscription where some of my regular readers were granted a free subscription? Automatic “denier” disqualification? Here is my screen capture from my application:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/ncc_endcapture.png
And what will be NCC’s policy on the use of that derogatory term, “denier”? Do you have one?
– Anthony Watts
savethesharks says:
April 3, 2011 at 10:50 pm
And that “stable” number of 280 ppm is just 100 ppm greater than the lowest point during the last glaciation….of 180 ppm….NOT an “ideal” number of stability no doubt.
The CO2 levels for the past 800,000 years are directly the result of temperature changes: some 8 ppmv/°C, see e.g. the CO2-temperature ratio for the Vostok ice core (confirmed by the Dome C ice core):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/Vostok_trends.gif
There is a surprisingly near-linear relationship between temperature and CO2 levels. With this in mind, the about 0.8°C temperature rise since the deepest point of the LIA could have given no more than 6 ppmv extra CO2 over the past 400 years, but we see an increase of about 100 ppmv since about 1850 in different ice cores:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_001kyr_large.jpg
That is confirmed by stomata index data for the past century:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/van_Hoof.jpg
and the d13C measurements in coralline sponges (and in ice cores) over the past 650 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
That the “background” CO2 levels at 180 ppmv during glacials is pretty low for a lot of plants is true, but over land, average levels (especially at night and morning hours) are always higher than background. Here the monthly averages measured over land at Kennedy Space Center, compared to background stations:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/month_2002_2006_ken.jpg
Alan Carlin.
Correlation of various physical attributes with global temperatures.
It is very clear that the strongest correlation is between the ocean warming index consisting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation plus the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (PDO + AMO) and temperatures; the next strongest is with total solar irradiance (TSI), and the weakest is with CO2.
fact, CO2 has no explanatory power over 1998–2007 decade according to this analysis.
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/4/985/pdf (page 20/47)
AMO and PDO are calculated in different manner so sums computations give misleading impressions. However AMO and PDO are result of similar physical (but separate and independent) processes, with no correlation between two.
In contrast PDO and ENSO are strongly correlated.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO-ENSO-AMO.htm
AMO on the other hand is correlated to the Arctic temperature, with about 3 year delay; more details: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Grace Baynes,
Thank you for your information. Although it appears to be quibbling over the exact cost, which according to you can be over or under $1,000 depending on the number of color figures, it is best to get the exact numbers from a knowledgeable individual.
Aside from that, perhaps you can either answer the questions raised about the editorial policies of Nature raised here, or direct the questions to someone who can answer them for us.
Those questions are much more important than splitting hairs over what Nature charges authors for the privilege of being published in a somewhat error-prone journal with questionable, confusing, lackadaisical, or even non-existent data archiving requirements.
The scientific method requires reproducibility, which in turn requires full and complete availability of all raw data, methods, metadata and code. In the case of Phil Jones, it appears that Nature simply took Jones’ word for his results. WUWT is not nearly so amateurish, nor as credulous.
Grace Baynes, see reply:
I did trace the $1000 fee back to its origination point, and it is from an email discussion group I subscribe to. The author of that particular email did say “flat fee” but the way it was phrased was misleading.
It was this:
“If you are publishing in the new Nature Climate Change then you can figure on basic fees around $1000 for a typical paper with the color figures and other add on charges. They ought to just make that a $1000 flat fee since most papers are going to have at least a couple of figures….” So it was the key words and a munged recollection.
Seems that one comment of mine still is in the spam filter, but here a short resume:
Smokey, while I admire the tremendous amount of work that the late Ernst Beck has done by digging out a lot of historical measurements, I disagree with his interpretation. Many of the measurements in that time were taken over land nearby huge sources and sinks, with high variability during the day. The 1942 “peak” is mainly based on two series of measurements (Giessen and Poona) which are worthless for general background CO2 levels of that time. At the other end of the world in the US, 1942 levels of 250 ppmv were measured. Also non-background. There is no 1942 peak in high resolution (8 years) ice cores, stomata index data or 13C/12C ratio’s in corraline sponges. And have a look at the modern measurements of Giessen, compared to real background stations during a few days in summer:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/giessen_background.jpg
See more objections of the interpretation of Beck’s historical data at:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
Further, the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere and the time needed to reduce an extra amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are two completely separate things and have nothing to do with each other. The first is only exchange (150/800 GtC back and forth over the seasons) and doesn’t change the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The second is real removal (currently 4/800 GtC/year, but humans add 8 GtC/year), which needs some 40 years half life time if we should stop all emissions today…
Sorry, the spammed comment just appeared (thanks to the moderators)…
It is disappointing to read a few comments about minor points of Alan’s large paper. Alan has a physics degree and a PhD in economics. He certainly has a better grasp of science than Lord Stern whom the British government used a basis for their policy and Garnaut who prepared a report for the Australian government, and further he has a better knowledge of economics than either of these two . Als0, he has a better grasp of the science and economics than anyone in the US EPA. It seems that the (so called) lady who heads the US EPA does not know she breathes out CO2 (or in her terms pollutes the atmosphere). Have a look at the abstract of the paper. It is about economics. He basically says that the economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions have been very much exaggerated, the costs of reducing CO2 has been very much underestimated and that if there is a need to do anything there are better ways.
savethesharks says:
April 3, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Smokey says:
April 3, 2011 at 10:02 pm
eadler,
“In order to show that you’re not a climate alarmist promoting your usual disinformation, please provide empirical, testable and falsifiable evidence showing, as you improbably claimed, that “The simple fact is that the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere had been stable at 280ppM for thousands of years, until the industrial age began.” In fact, there are no such facts supporting your bogus assertion.”
=================
Right, Smokey. I doubt if he/she can provide that type of evidence. [I say he/she because none of us know what an eadler is.]
And that “stable” number of 280 ppm is just 100 ppm greater than the lowest point during the last glaciation….of 180 ppm….NOT an “ideal” number of stability no doubt.
Plant photosynthesis shuts down at 150 ppm. Talk about a disaster.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
I apologize to Mr Alan Carlin for calling his paper a sham. My emotions got the better of me.
It does seem to me that his paper is deeply flawed because it does not discuss the failings of Segalstad’s analysis of CO2, which was pointed out by the EPA, where Mr Carlin used to work, in the blogosphere over and over, as well as the literature which contradicts what he says. A proper scientific paper should do this, if it honestly trying to discuss the evidence.
Here is what the EPA says:
http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/RTC%20Volume%202.pdf
“EPA reviewed the information presented, as well as the work by Segalstad, and finds that it does not address the lifetime of a change in atmospheric concentration of CO2, but rather the lifetime in the atmosphere of an individual molecule of CO2. These are two different concepts. As stated in the First IPCC Scientific Assessment, “The turnover time of CO2 in the atmosphere, measured as the ratio of the content to the fluxes through it, is about 4 years. This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean. This short time scale must not be confused with the time it takes for the atmospheric CO2 level to adjust to a new equilibrium if sources or sinks change.
This adjustment time … is of the order of 50–200 years, determined mainly by the slow exchange of carbon between surface waters and the deep ocean” (Watson et al., 1990). The magnitudes of these large balanced sources and sinks are addressed in response 2-2, and are similar to those represented in the NASA carbon cycle diagram. Newer research has only extended and confirmed this statement from the first IPCC assessment report (Denman et al., 2007). A recent approximation for this perturbation lifetime is sometimes represented as the sum of decay functions with timescales of 1.9 years for a quarter of the CO2 emissions, 18.5 years for a third of the CO2, 173 years for a fifth of the CO2, and a constant term representing a nearly permanent increase for the remaining fifth (Forster et al., 2007).
The “missing sink” that was referred to by a commenter is also addressed in response 2-2, and is now called the “residual land sink.” The magnitude of this sink is about 2.6 Gt of carbon per year, with significant uncertainty. Denman et al. (2007) included a hypothesis that a portion of this sink is due to the increased growth of undisturbed tropical forest due to CO2 fertilization, but the carbon accumulation of natural systems is hard to quantify directly. The uncertainty in determining the size and nature of this residual sink does not contradict the assessment literature conclusions about the perturbation lifetime of CO2 concentration changes in the atmosphere, but is reflected in the carbon cycle uncertainty for future projections of CO2 (see responses regarding carbon cycle uncertainty in Volume 4 on future projections).”
The variation in CO2 reported in older papers were due to flawed chemical analysis methods and sampling locations polluted by local sources and sinks of CO2.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/
The following graph of CO2 over the last 400,000 years is the result of piecing together data from 4 ice cores and the Mauna Loa data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
The stability of the CO2 concentration at 280ppM in the last 1000 years is shown by the red, blue and green lines, which are based on 3 different ice cores. The longer term graph shows that CO2 has been around that value since the last ice age ended.
Ferdinand,
Assuming you are correct [and I accept your experise since Ernst Beck is no longer around to defend his work], then why not take the next logical step, and state whether or not the increase in CO2 is causing measurable problems? We know it is beneficial to the biosphere, but I am unaware of any global damage resulting from the rise. In the past you have occasionally stated that the rise in CO2 is apparently benign, but you add that conclusion to your posts far too infrequently.
Because that is the crux of the matter, is it not? If the increase in CO2 is causing global damage, or runaway global warming, or climate catastrophe, then by all means provide the evidence. But if, as you have commented in the past, CO2 is not causing problems, then that should be added to any comments regarding the human contribution.
Smokey says:
April 4, 2011 at 8:03 am
Agreed, I think that the economic analyses of Alan Carlin is good, as there is a lot of (underestimated) economic cost from reducing CO2, without clear benefits. But it is a pity that he used Segalstad’s work, as that addresses the wrong topic (residence time vs. half life time), which makes that the good things of Carlin’s work are dismissed because of the wrong items…
Smokey says:
April 4, 2011 at 8:03 am
“We know it is beneficial to the biosphere, but I am unaware of any global damage resulting from the rise. ”
Actually, Smokey, I am aware of severe damage to domestic and global economies due to regulating CO2 as a “pollutant” (thereby causing energy and food prices to skyrocket), damage to government budgets due to the ballooning costs of climate science “research” (including the 0.5 billion dollar Glory satellite disaster) and “green” energy boondoggles, and damage to science in general as one crackpot scientist after another blames “anthropogenic” climate change for everything from the destruction of Afghan poppy plants to yellow fever outbreaks…
Ferdinand says:
“Agreed…”
Thank you, Ferdinand, for that comment. The entire basis for the scare over “carbon” [by which they mean carbon dioxide, a trace gas], is the presumption that rising CO2 will damage the planet.
But there is no empirical, testable evidence to support that conjecture. Based strictly on science, the conclusion must then be that more CO2 has been both harmless and beneficial. If evidence appears showing that CO2 is causing identifiable harm to the planet [and a degree or two of warming is beneficial, not harmful], then that global damage must be investigated, and if true, addressed.
So far there is no such evidence. But by continuously demonizing that harmless trace gas, certain groups and individuals are benefitting financially at the expense of everyone else. That is not science; that is using advocacy, cloaked with a veneer of science, to support an unspoken agenda involving political power, control and money.
Over the past year or two you have changed my mind with your patience and reasonable arguments, and convinced me that human activity is responsible for much of the increase in CO2. I would appreciate it if, when making your concluding remarks in future posts, that you would acknowledge what you have occasionally said in the past: that there is no evidence showing that the rise in CO2 is a problem. It is, after all, an essential trace gas that has been many thousands of ppmv higher in the past, at times when life flourished, and when the biosphere was teeming with diversity.
eadler says:
April 4, 2011 at 7:58 am
Thank you for the exposition. That makes things clearer. I may yet have it wrong, but after looking at some of Segalstad’s presentations, he’s not confusing anything, he seems to be arguing for a drastically shorter life time than most others and doesn’t seem to have recanted his position. One of the things I try to impress on my students is that you can always find evidence to support a proposition if you look hard enough for it. I’ve got no idea if Segalstad is a clear-eyed visionary or an eccentric wedded to a, shall we say, unique, theory, but your exposition there did fill in a gap for me, which is so much more productive than the sneering dismissal of certain other commentators.
Ferdinand you state this as fact, I assume you are basing this on CO2 measurements from ice cores. How do you know that these are accurate? I think having to make an 80 year adjustment to get anything to line-up seriously puts into question the validity of icecores for that purpose.
Smokey says:
April 4, 2011 at 8:03 am
Ferdinand,
Assuming you are correct [and I accept your experise since Ernst Beck is no longer around to defend his work], then why not take the next logical step, and state whether or not the increase in CO2 is causing measurable problems? We know it is beneficial to the biosphere, but I am unaware of any global damage resulting from the rise. In the past you have occasionally stated that the rise in CO2 is apparently benign, but you add that conclusion to your posts far too infrequently.
Because that is the crux of the matter, is it not? If the increase in CO2 is causing global damage, or runaway global warming, or climate catastrophe, then by all means provide the evidence. But if, as you have commented in the past, CO2 is not causing problems, then that should be added to any comments regarding the human contribution.
Smokey,
You are responding to a straw man argument. The phenomena that climate scientists have observed, that are claimed to be a result of CO2 induced climate change, are not yet catastrophic. Past damage is not what drives scientists, who are concerned about global warming .Climate Scientists are struggling to determine how much to attribute damage from floods, and droughts to CO2 induced climate change that has occurred to date associated with temperature rises ~ 0.7C. It is the future that concerns them.
In fact according to the IPCC report, as far as humans are concerned there may as many winners as there are losers until global average temperature rise exceeds 2C.
In fact in past times, climate change has forced humans to migrate . Since humans were not numerous, there was land available for resettlement. With the human population at around 7B and expected to rise above that, the problems associated with the rapid development of chronic drought and flooding can create catastrophes in some of the heavily populated areas of the world, with 10’s of millions of people having no place to go.
In modern society, projections of the future are used to make plans about what to do, and whether to take preventive measures that pay off economically. That is what is driving Carlin’s paper. A priori, Carlin’s projections aren’t any better than others.
Since Carlin makes arguments about the origin of the rise in CO2, that have been known to be wrong, from the time that the articles he is quoting first appeared, there is ample reason to question whether he knows what he is talking about, in the rest of his paper, as Fredrick Englebeen has pointed out. Further examination of his climate science arguments shows that their quality continues to be poor, beyond what he says about the origins of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
Another incorrect argument is hos figure 3, where he claims that only 4% of CO2 in the atmosphere arises from burning of fossil fuel. That is the annual contribution, to the amount emitted, but over the years this annual contribution has built up to 110ppM, which is a 40% increase in CO2 concentration since the industrial age began and represents 28% of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere. This is not a subtle scientific point, and is another example of an elementary point that he got wrong.
His claim that strong positive feedback is “assumed” by the IPCC and most climate models is wrong. The feedback is not assumed. It arises out of the basic physics of evaporation, radiation, and observations of water vapor, and clouds during the past and present day evolution of weather and climate.
He quotes Lindzen’s 1997 talk about low climate sensitivity deduced from volcano eruption data, without reference to the fact that over a dozen papers have been written on this subject, and there is no consensus on how to deduce climate sensitivity from data on volcanic eruptions. A paper written 10 years after Lindzen’s talk, which examines the results of 10 models in an attempt to determine climate sensitivity from the Mt Pinatubo eruption gives a 1 sigma figure of 1.7 to 4.1C, which is pretty close to the nominal figure of 3C given by the IPCC.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:2GWvb1eKP4EJ:www.misu.su.se/~frida/benderetal10.pdf+effect+volcanoes+climate+sensitivity+models+pinatubo&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgQHSOL8e3B_vjpoevWtf3pdvX-FSlx4kwOHgtocNlHC8dB_NAD5SsGUXjYmDRWezloFhslFRtxjJ4YgraAQO5jdkkCilKUbM2VTKmOeJW86uLLAid4Y9Vq9-rmktzA0dCR4t-7&sig=AHIEtbQKstPm05ACgBnjgvliQIDrxFvRWw
As I continue to read through the scientific basis of this paper, there is a real lack of scientific thoroughness, and the citations of research are so biased, one sided, and limited, that the author’s claim that he is looking for valid science seems hollow. If the the majority of posters on this web site are real “skeptics” I would expect to see more criticism of this paper.
does anyone know if CO2 absorbtion by sinks is a linear or fixed function ? i.e. does the same sink absorb a fixed amount iof CO2 or is its absorbtion a % of the total ? and if it is a percentage is it linear ?
seems to me that the vegetation sink is not linear and may increase with higher CO2 concentrations … given that much of the oceans sink is not simply water but flora and fauna I would guess that it is non linear as well, i.e. higher concertations of CO2 means higher sink rates …
Robert E. Phelan says:
April 4, 2011 at 9:40 am
eadler says:
April 4, 2011 at 7:58 am
Thank you for the exposition. That makes things clearer. I may yet have it wrong, but after looking at some of Segalstad’s presentations, he’s not confusing anything, he seems to be arguing for a drastically shorter life time than most others and doesn’t seem to have recanted his position. One of the things I try to impress on my students is that you can always find evidence to support a proposition if you look hard enough for it. I’ve got no idea if Segalstad is a clear-eyed visionary or an eccentric wedded to a, shall we say, unique, theory, but your exposition there did fill in a gap for me, which is so much more productive than the sneering dismissal of certain other commentators.
If you were as familiar with the subject, and you would realize that Segalstad is confusing residence time, which is based on the ratio of total annual flux of CO2 removed from the atmosphere on an annual basis, to the amount in the atmosphere, and the net rate of change of the amount in the atmosphere, which is the difference between the influx and removal of CO2. The difference is what determines the net rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere, not simply the total removal rate, which is all that Segalstad is dealing with when he discusses residence time . It is net rate of change which determines how long the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will remain high, not the residence time. From your comment, I conclude that you haven’t really grasped this principle. I urge you to rethink.
The sneering dismissal on the part of other commentators, that you sense, is a result of the confusion in Segalstad’s mind. The EPA explanation, which I quoted, has to be more polite, than the usual bloggers, because they are an agency that serves the public, and doesn’t want to insult anyone.
Jeff Carlson says:
April 4, 2011 at 1:10 pm
does anyone know if CO2 absorbtion by sinks is a linear or fixed function ? i.e. does the same sink absorb a fixed amount iof CO2 or is its absorbtion a % of the total ? and if it is a percentage is it linear ?
It is surprisingly linear as percentage of the accumulated emissions, even if a lot of underlying reactions are far from linear, see the cumulative emissions vs. the accumulation in the atmosphere over the past 100+ years (the first part until 1959 from ice cores, from 1960 on direct measurements):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_2004.jpg
Maybe a matter of slightly non-linear increasing emissions which drives the partial pressure difference between CO2 in air and the ocean surface (and vegetation alveoles) up with the exact rate to make that the result is a quite constant ratio with the emissions.
hum says:
April 4, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Ferdinand you state this as fact, I assume you are basing this on CO2 measurements from ice cores. How do you know that these are accurate? I think having to make an 80 year adjustment to get anything to line-up seriously puts into question the validity of icecores for that purpose.
The “80 years adjustment” comes from Jaworowski (and Segalstad?) 1992, repeated many times after that, even recently. But Etheridge already in 1996 refuted all of Jaworowski’s objections with his work at the three Law Dome ice core drillings.
In all scientific literature, one assumes that there is a difference between the age of the ice and the average age of the inclused air, mostly based on gas diffusion models. Not so for Jaworowski. He says that that is just an assumption and that there is no difference in age.
What Etheridge did do is measuring CO2 in the firn top down in the drilling hole from the still open pores layer by layer until the start of the first complete closing of the air bubbles at 72 meter depth. The results:
1. The ice at 72 meter depth was 40 years old (40 layers counted).
2. The air composition was average 7 years older than at the surface.
3. The CO2 level in the still open pores was the same as in the already fully closed bubbles.
That means that at closing depth (72-80 meter), the average air age in firn and ice was about 30 years younger than the age of the ice layers at the same depth. And that Jaworowski was/is completely wrong on that point. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_overlap.jpg
The ice age – gas age difference is dependent of the accumulation rate of snow at the place where is drilled (or upstreams for slopes). For fast accumulating ice cores like Law Dome (2 out of 3 drillings) it is only 30 years (1.2 m ice equivalent per year snow), for inland cores like Vostok and Dome C, it can be thousands of years (a few mm per year ice equivalent). In all cases (if there is no summer melting which isolates the different layers), there still is exchange of air and its componenents between the pores in the ice and the atmosphere, slower with depth as the ice is compacting and the pores become smaller.
eadler says:
April 4, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Climate Scientists are struggling to determine how much to attribute damage from floods, and droughts to CO2 induced climate change that has occurred to date associated with temperature rises ~ 0.7C.
Even if there are winners and losers (as always) from a rise in temperature, in general with not too extreme outliers, the benefits of an increase in temperature by far outweigh the drawbacks. The hottest places on earth, around the equator, don’t increase much in temperature and the extra water vapour translates into more rain in dry countries (see the Sahel greening in the past decade). The colder places up to the poles benefit from longer, warmer summers… There are no more extreme weather events found in the VS (neither in Europe) because of warmer temperatures.
The main problem for politicians is that they should plan for the future, but the current climate models are far too uncertain to be based on, and as is meanwhile proven, way to alarmist: the real temperature increase is less that the lower no-CO2-emissions-increase scenario, while the real CO2 emissions follow the “bussiness as usual” scenario of increasing emissions (despite the economic crisis).
Thus based on reality until now (less huricanes, no water vapour feedback in the upper troposphere, hence no hotspot in the tropics, no accellerated sealevel increase, no heat in the pipeline in the oceans) doing nothing currently is the best and most economical option. Of course it is prudent to invest a lot in research for alternatives for fossil fuels (and massive storage of power), but CO2 reduction today is only a waste of money.
eadler says:
“You are responding to a straw man argument.”
No, I am not. And I don’t think Ferdinand’s argument is a strawman — but yours certainly is. You say:
“Since Carlin makes arguments about the origin of the rise in CO2…”
FYI, I’ve not gotten around to reading Carlin’s paper; I have never commented on his methodology, data, etc., but you’re arguing as if I had, trying to re-frame the debate away from my pertinent question. That’s a strawman argument, so it fails.
My comment was: “If the increase in CO2 is causing global damage, or runaway global warming, or climate catastrophe, then by all means provide the evidence.”
As usual you provided no testable, reproducible, empirical evidence showing that the rise in CO2 is causing any global problems. Instead, you just do a lot of vague “What if” arm-waving.
Even though CO2 is a very minor trace gas, measured in parts per million, a ≈40% rise is considered substantial. So IF CO2 had caused global harm, solid evidence of the damage caused would have appeared by now. But it hasn’t. [I fully expect, however, that the alarmist crowd that depends on keeping their grant gravy train on track will gin up some bogus “evidence” in the near future.]
Based on the complete dearth of any such verifiable evidence, any rational person would conclude that the “carbon” scare is baseless. There’s no ‘there’ there, and it is past time to stop wasting taxpayers’ money promoting “carbon” alarmism.
Finally, I note many of the usual suspects in the bibliography of the grant trolling paper you linked to: “A paper… which examines the results of 10 models… is pretty close to the nominal figure of 3C given by the IPCC.”
Well, no kidding, Sherlock. Your paper repeatedly cites the IPCC as their authority. What are they going to do, bite the hand that feeds them?
Smokey,
You say,
Even though CO2 is a very minor trace gas, measured in parts per million, a ≈40% rise is considered substantial. So IF CO2 had caused global harm, solid evidence of the damage caused would have appeared by now. But it hasn’t. [I fully expect, however, that the alarmist crowd that depends on keeping their grant gravy train on track will gin up some bogus “evidence” in the near future.]
You are repeating the argument that I said was a straw man. You are talking of CO2 damage that should have appeared by now.
The fact is that this is not a necessary condition for damage to appear in the future, which is what the attempt to limit CO2 emissions. In addition, Your argument does not include the time lag between CO2 increase and temperature increase, which tends to push the damage into the future.
Your argument also assumes that the desire to get grants is the driving force for getting results. I have seen is no real evidence presented for. This is only an assumption on the part of some global warming “skeptics”.
In fact some results which make the effects of global warming less severe are uncovered by scientists using the same grant structure are featured on WUWT.Two recent posts come to mind: Phil Jones has found the UHI is a real phenomenon and climate scientists have found that ice bergs improve the ability of southern oceans to absorb CO2 . They are eagerly seized upon as evidence the global warming is not as bad as it has been made out to be.
In fact individual scientists do not earn great amounts of money from doing science. It is a comfortable living, but there is no evidence that they profit from it any more than scientists in other fields. They are in it because it interests them, the same motivation driving other scientists. If you want to argue that all professional scientists are charlatans, seeking to make a dollar and don’t care about the validity of what they are doing go ahead. That is the logical argument that you are making.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
April 4, 2011 at 2:35 pm
eadler says:
April 4, 2011 at 1:07 pm
“Climate Scientists are struggling to determine how much to attribute damage from floods, and droughts to CO2 induced climate change that has occurred to date associated with temperature rises ~ 0.7C.
Even if there are winners and losers (as always) from a rise in temperature, in general with not too extreme outliers, the benefits of an increase in temperature by far outweigh the drawbacks. The hottest places on earth, around the equator, don’t increase much in temperature and the extra water vapour translates into more rain in dry countries (see the Sahel greening in the past decade). The colder places up to the poles benefit from longer, warmer summers… There are no more extreme weather events found in the VS (neither in Europe) because of warmer temperatures.
Your statement is contradicted by the prevailing opinion of climate scientists, and here is an example.
http://acacia.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/EHShsa211.pdf
There is a direct influence of global warming on changes in precipitation and heavy rains. Increased heating leads to greater evaporation and thus surface drying, thereby increasing intensity and duration of drought. However, the water-holding capacity of air increases by about 7% per 1 ◦C warming, which leads to increased water vapor in the atmosphere, and this probably provides the biggest influence on precipitation. Storms, whether individual thunderstorms, extratropical rain or snow storms, or tropical cyclones and hurricanes, supplied by increased moisture, produce more intense precipitation events that are widely observed to be occurring, even in places where total precipitation is decreasing. In turn, this increases the risk of flooding. Patterns of where it rains also have been observed to change, with dry areas becoming drier (generally throughout the subtropics) and wet areas becoming wetter, especially in mid to high latitudes. This pattern is simulated by climate models and is
projected to continue into the future. Since more precipitation occurs as rain instead of snow with warming, and snow melts earlier, there is increased runoff and risk of flooding in early spring, but increased risk of drought in deep summer, especially over continental areas.
The main problem for politicians is that they should plan for the future, but the current climate models are far too uncertain to be based on, and as is meanwhile proven, way to alarmist: the real temperature increase is less that the lower no-CO2-emissions-increase scenario, while the real CO2 emissions follow the “bussiness as usual” scenario of increasing emissions (despite the economic crisis).
Thus based on reality until now (less huricanes, no water vapour feedback in the upper troposphere, hence no hotspot in the tropics, no accellerated sealevel increase, no heat in the pipeline in the oceans) doing nothing currently is the best and most economical option. Of course it is prudent to invest a lot in research for alternatives for fossil fuels (and massive storage of power), but CO2 reduction today is only a waste of money.
The reality the you discribe is contradicted by a lot of evidence that is easy to find.
I don’t think your prognosis about tropical storms is in agreement with the scientific concensus.
The IPCC (2007) also concludes that future tropical
cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will likely become more
intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy
precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical
SSTs. Since an intense tropical cyclone takes heat out of the
ocean and mixes the ocean, leaving behind a much stronger
cold wake than a more modest storm, there may be fewer
tropical cyclones as a whole. Possible increases in static
stability also lead to fewer tropical cyclones. Nonetheless,
increased risk of flooding is a likely outcome from landfalling
tropical storms.
Also water vapor measurements in the upper troposphere are still problematic and require substantial corrections and checking to avoid underestimation of moisture in the upper troposphere, according to recent studies:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JAMC2250.1?journalCode=apme
…Comparisons showed that Vaisala RS80-H radiosondes and Meteolabor Snow White chilled-mirror dewpoint hygrometers are systemically drier in the upper troposphere by 30%–40% relative to the GOES-8 measured upper-tropospheric humidity (UTH). By contrast, two ground-based Raman lidars (Cloud and Radiation Test Bed Raman lidar and scanning Raman lidar) and one airborne differential absorption lidar agree to within 10% of the GOES-8 measured UTH. These results indicate that upper-tropospheric water vapor can be monitored by these lidars and well-calibrated, stable geostationary satellites with an uncertainty of less than 10%, and that correction procedures are required to rectify the inherent deficiencies of humidity measurements in the upper troposphere from these radiosondes.
Overall there is strong evidence for positive feedback due to water vapor in clear air situations:
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2008/2008GL035333.shtml
Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA’s satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response. RH increased in some regions and decreased in others, with the global average remaining nearly constant at most altitudes. The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of λ q = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models. The magnitude is similar to that obtained if the atmosphere maintained constant RH everywhere.
Looking at 20 year averages, it is found that sea level increased at an accelerating rate since 1980, from 1mm/yr to 3mm/yr, after a deceleration of the rate sea level increase due to global dimming that started in the 1950’s and was checked by regulation in the late 1970’s. Check out figure 3B in the following paper.
http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf
Finally the ocean heat has been accelerating since 1980 as well, despite some temporary pauses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Ocean_Annual_Heat_Content_%280-700m%29.png
eadler,
You’re putting words in my mouth that I never said, eg: “If you want to argue that all professional scientists are charlatans, seeking to make a dollar and don’t care about the validity of what they are doing go ahead. That is the logical argument that you are making.”
I never said that, or anything like it. I was referring to your heroes as scientific charlatans who ignore the scientific method. They are the people found in the Climategate emails, and the Harry_Read_Me_File — in which the programmer stated as a matter of fact that he was fabricating the climate data as he went along. Years of data! That is the kind of “data” that the global warming alarm is based on. Recall that Phil Jones ‘lost’ the original raw data.
Climategate is the primary reason the Copenhagen plan to redistribute the world’s wealth based on the “carbon” scare was derailed. It became clear to everyone overnight that the great global warming swindle was based on smoke and mirrors.
And now your fallback position is that the supposed damage from CO2, which has never appeared as repeatedly predicted, is still lurking somewhere out there in the misty future. Well, so are pink unicorns. But we don’t waste $billions every year chasing them.
Smokey,
I’m afraid you are casting your pearls before swine…trying to reason with eadler.
That person is incapable of reason [Hey eadler….prove me wrong!]
But Smokey, you are better off taking the fight to those with skin in the game….and those who actually want the TRUTH without presupposition [like Ferdinand].
Ferdinand is a true scientist, and when he speaks, he commands attention and those rational are inclined to listen.
Some of these others on here, however, with their incessant bleats [no names named lol]…achieve the opposite effect.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Whoops dear mods I am afraid my last post might have gone to spam because it disappeared. Please check. Thank you.
Smokey says:
April 4, 2011 at 6:54 pm
eadler,
You’re putting words in my mouth that I never said, eg: “If you want to argue that all professional scientists are charlatans, seeking to make a dollar and don’t care about the validity of what they are doing go ahead. That is the logical argument that you are making.”
I never said that, or anything like it. I was referring to your heroes as scientific charlatans who ignore the scientific method. They are the people found in the Climategate emails, and the Harry_Read_Me_File — in which the programmer stated as a matter of fact that he was fabricating the climate data as he went along. Years of data! That is the kind of “data” that the global warming alarm is based on. Recall that Phil Jones ‘lost’ the original raw data.
Your claim was that their motivation was money, for instance your phrases, . “keeping the gravy train on track” and “grant trolling paper”.
The main problem brought out in the climate gate emails was that the researchers were being pestered by frivolous FOIA requests that were time consuming and in some respects were asking for data that was already publicly available.
Your claim, that some data that Phil Jones allegedly lost, but is actually still archived, was the underpinning of global warming, and that the whole idea of global warming would fall apart, if the lost data was brought to light, is clearly ludicrous. The researchers at BEST have 1.6 billion pieces of data from 39,390 stations, are analysing it, and the preliminary results look just like GISS, CRU and NCDC. It seems that no argument is too stupid for you to try, if it claims to deny the existence of AGW.
Eadler
“Your claim was that their motivation was money, for instance your phrases, . “keeping the gravy train on track” and “grant trolling paper”.
The main problem brought out in the climate gate emails was that the researchers were being pestered by frivolous FOIA requests that were time consuming and in some respects were asking for data that was already publicly available. ”
Its always said for those who don’t believe in CAGW to follow the money and see where they are getting it. The same applies to the believers in the religion. They don’t wish to lose their gravy train.
As for data that was publicly available it is not all available. There were no frivolous requests. The CRU continues to deny they have certain data even after it was said they didn’t delete information.
Bob says:
April 5, 2011 at 9:38 am
Eadler
“Your claim was that their motivation was money, for instance your phrases, . “keeping the gravy train on track” and “grant trolling paper”.
The main problem brought out in the climate gate emails was that the researchers were being pestered by frivolous FOIA requests that were time consuming and in some respects were asking for data that was already publicly available. ”
Its always said for those who don’t believe in CAGW to follow the money and see where they are getting it. The same applies to the believers in the religion. They don’t wish to lose their gravy train.
As for data that was publicly available it is not all available. There were no frivolous requests. The CRU continues to deny they have certain data even after it was said they didn’t delete information.
Whatever the merits of the FOIA kerfuffle at the CRU, BEST was able to get data from 39,390 statitions and a total 1.6B readings. You don’t hear them complain about not having the data that they need.
How much can some data that was supposed to have been withheld or lost by Phil Jones, really matter? How many stations and readings are involved? Can we expect that data to have made a difference in how much warming there has been?
So far BEST has validated the analysis of CRU, GISS and NCDC. Why not concede that the earth has warmed by about 0.74C and discuss the real questions about global warming.
Anthony, Thanks for your courteous reply to my comment. I didn’t mean to split hairs, and I hope you and your readers can accept that my motivation was genuine concern that there was confusion. You’re right that it is quite possible that an average colour charge fee of about $1000 (based on 3 colour figures) has been quoted somewhere. Anyway, for those who are interested, here’s the link to the instructions for authors to confirm: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/authors/gta/submit/index.html
I’ll check about the subscription and come back to you.
I can’t comment on editorial policy, as I’m not an editor, but I will flag your questions and those from Smokey to my colleagues.
In reply to Grace Baynes, regarding Nature Climate Change publications this note:
I did trace the $1000 fee back to its origination point, and it is from an email discussion group I subscribe to. The author of that particular email did say “flat fee” but the way it was phrased was misleading.
It was this:
“If you are publishing in the new Nature Climate Change then you can figure on basic fees around $1000 for a typical paper with the color figures and other add on charges. They ought to just make that a $1000 flat fee since most papers are going to have at least a couple of figures….” So it was the key words and a munged recollection.
I should note that she was very helpful in helping to rescue my application for a subscription to Nature Climate Change. I have access, and I thank her for her efforts. – Anthony
Ferdinand Engelbeen makes the following valid points:
“…the benefits of an increase in temperature by far outweigh the drawbacks…. the current climate models are far too uncertain to be based on, and as is meanwhile proven, way too alarmist…. based on reality until now (less huricanes, no water vapour feedback in the upper troposphere, hence no hotspot in the tropics, no accelerated sea level increase, no heat in the pipeline in the oceans), doing nothing currently is the best and most economical option… CO2 reduction today is only a waste of money.”
Those facts argue strongly against a continuation of the $6 – $7 billion currently being spent every year promoting AGW climate alarmism. Everything occurring today is fully explainable by natural variability; the exact same [very mild] temperature rises, trends, and rates of increase have happened repeatedly in the past. This is not to argue that CO2 has no effect, but the claimed effect of AGW is certainly exaggerated. And there is absolutely no evidence for catastrophic AGW. None at all.
Also, eadler preposterously claims that the recent [mostly natural] temperature rise can actually be measured to a hundreth of a degree [“0.74C”]. The fact that many rural temperature records show essentially no increase makes even the claimed 0.7°C rise questionable. There is very little supporting evidence for that number that has not been somewhat to completely corrupted, but by incessantly repeating it, the number has come to be unquestioningly accepted by most people.
Even so, more warmth is clearly beneficial: in the geologic past, a decline of 5°C has caused mass extinctions, while a rise of 5° has never caused an extinction event. In fact, the biosphere has flourished whenever global temperatures have risen several degrees.
Next, eadler once again attempts to re-frame this debate, because he cannot refute what I actually wrote. Adler says:
“The main problem brought out in the climate gate emails was that the researchers were being pestered by frivolous FOIA requests that were time consuming and in some respects were asking for data that was already publicly available…. It seems that no argument is too stupid for you to try, if it claims to deny the existence of AGW.”
That is not “the main problem.” The main problem concerns the admission by Harry the programmer that they were fabricating years of temperature station data, and that Mann’s clique was bullying and threatening climate journals, causing mass resignations. He is quoted as saying that to keep skeptics from being published, he would re-define what peer review means, and he threatened to blackball journals that didn’t toe his CAGW line.
Finally, I have never ‘denied the existence’ of AGW. That is eadler’s constant misrepresentation, for which I have corrected him in the past. My position has always been that AGW is vastly overstated. Muller claims that 0.6°C out of 0.7°C is due to AGW. I strongly disagree with that because it ignores the fact that the planet is still emerging from the LIA, and it discounts other cyclical causes of [beneficial] global warming. The much more serious concern, as always, is global cooling.
Smokey says:
April 5, 2011 at 11:04 am
Ferdinand Engelbeen makes the following valid points:
“…the benefits of an increase in temperature by far outweigh the drawbacks…. the current climate models are far too uncertain to be based on, and as is meanwhile proven, way too alarmist…. based on reality until now (less huricanes, no water vapour feedback in the upper troposphere, hence no hotspot in the tropics, no accelerated sea level increase, no heat in the pipeline in the oceans), doing nothing currently is the best and most economical option… CO2 reduction today is only a waste of money.”
Those facts argue strongly against a continuation of the $6 – $7 billion currently being spent every year promoting AGW climate alarmism. Everything occurring today is fully explainable by natural variability; the exact same [very mild] temperature rises, trends, and rates of increase have happened repeatedly in the past. This is not to argue that CO2 has no effect, but the claimed effect of AGW is certainly exaggerated. And there is absolutely no evidence for catastrophic AGW. None at all.
I have already pointed to the evidence that what you call Ferdinand Englebeen’s valid points are not correct. The recent rise in average global temperature is not explainable by natural variation when real models are used, rather than handwaving. Most climate scientists and even the good professor Muller, who attacked Mann and the Hockey Stick accepts that.
Also, eadler preposterously claims that the recent [mostly natural] temperature rise can actually be measured to a hundreth of a degree [“0.74C”]. The fact that many rural temperature records show essentially no increase makes even the claimed 0.7°C rise questionable. There is very little supporting evidence for that number that has not been somewhat to completely corrupted, but by incessantly repeating it, the number has come to be unquestioningly accepted by most people.
I never made any claims about an accuracy of 0.01 degree.
In fact studies of the temperature records show rural temperatures have gained as much as city temperatures.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-Urban-Heat-Island-effect-add-to-the-global-warming-trend.html
Even so, more warmth is clearly beneficial: in the geologic past, a decline of 5°C has caused mass extinctions, while a rise of 5° has never caused an extinction event. In fact, the biosphere has flourished whenever global temperatures have risen several degrees.
Another incorrect non factual statement. It seems you are an inexhaustible fountain of incorrect, non factual statements, which you constantly recycle to support your beliefs. The Permian Extinction, 250 Million years ago was a result of CO2 emissions from volcanoes in Siberia, which over a long period of time, warmed the earth’s oceans, causing additional release of CO2 and methane which were sequestered in colder parts of the ocean. There was loss of ocean oxygen, and 95% of all species became extinct.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48776605/The-Siberian-Traps-and-the-End-Permian-mass-extinction-by-Andy-Saunders-Marc-Reichow-2009
Next, eadler once again attempts to re-frame this debate, because he cannot refute what I actually wrote. Adler says:
“The main problem brought out in the climate gate emails was that the researchers were being pestered by frivolous FOIA requests that were time consuming and in some respects were asking for data that was already publicly available…. It seems that no argument is too stupid for you to try, if it claims to deny the existence of AGW.”
That is not “the main problem.” The main problem concerns the admission by Harry the programmer that they were fabricating years of temperature station data, and that Mann’s clique was bullying and threatening climate journals, causing mass resignations. He is quoted as saying that to keep skeptics from being published, he would re-define what peer review means, and he threatened to blackball journals that didn’t toe his CAGW line.
Finally, I have never ‘denied the existence’ of AGW. That is eadler’s constant misrepresentation, for which I have corrected him in the past. My position has always been that AGW is vastly overstated. Muller claims that 0.6°C out of 0.7°C is due to AGW. I strongly disagree with that because it ignores the fact that the planet is still emerging from the LIA, and it discounts other cyclical causes of [beneficial] global warming. The much more serious concern, as always, is global cooling.
In fact you said the following:
“..the Harry_Read_Me_File — in which the programmer stated as a matter of fact that he was fabricating the climate data as he went along. Years of data! That is the kind of “data” that the global warming alarm is based on. Recall that Phil Jones ‘lost’ the original raw data.
This claims that global warming alarm is based on fabricated and lost data. I used the word underpinning, which is a synonym for “based on”. In fact, the BEST data base, consisting of 1.6B measurements of 39,390 measurement stations, has shown on the basis of a 2% sample, and is expected to show when all is said and done, the same amount of warming that has been shown by the GISS, CRU, and NCDC data bases. The kerfuffle over purloined emails is a diversion.
There is no meaning to the phrase “emerging from the Little Ice Age” unless you show that the forces which lead to the emergence are continuing at the present time.
This has not been shown, and the situation is precisely the opposite. We are no longer emerging from the little ice age, because the forces governing that emergence are no longer operating.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm
The main driver of the warming from the Little Ice Age to 1940 was the warming sun with a small contribution from volcanic activity. However, solar activity leveled off after 1940 and the net influence from sun and volcano since 1940 has been slight cooling. Greenhouse gases have been the main contributor of warming since 1970.
Having gone through most of the above exchange re CO2 residence time, I would like to say that I think this is the biggest red herring in a field swarming with red herrings. Both sides are correct within their own narrow definitions, and what they are really arguing about is which matters, residence time (for a single anthropogenic molecule) or persistence (of elevated CO2 levels in general).
Well I say, WHO CARES?. We know what the current CO2 level is, and for the past 54 years thanks to Dr Keeling, and it seems to be rising, slowly but steadily. The question should be, so what? As is well documented, increased CO2 levels are positively beneficial for the biosphere, whereas the supposed dangers of increased CO2 are entirely hypothetical, and at increasing apparent odds with observed reality.
This is the important “take home message” from this part of Carlin’s report, and is utterly unaffected by all this petty quibbling about how long CO2 levels will take to fall again, should we cease all emissions tomorrow. We won’t, CO2 levels will continue to rise, and only good will come of it.
Isn’t eadler cute? If it weren’t for psychological projection, he wouldn’t have much to say. But I enjoy deconstructing his rants, so herewith:
Adler says: “The recent rise in average global temperature is not explainable by natural variation when real models are used…” heh <—[sufficient deconstruction of model use versus reality.☺] What is the difference between "real" models and other models? And of course the question is regarding evidence, and models are not evidence.
Next, Adler says: "I never made any claims about an accuracy of 0.01 degree." Of course he did, by quoting an impossibly precise "0.74°C" temperature rise — without giving a starting date.
Next, Adler quotes the propaganda blog Skeptical Pseudo-Science, which he runs back to in order to load up on the latest globaloney talking points, which he brings back here and expects intelligent, educated WUWT readers to blindly accept. As if.
Next, in response to my obvious point that warmer temperatures have never caused an extinction event, eadler once again moves the goal posts, saying: "Another incorrect non factual statement. It seems you are an inexhaustible fountain of incorrect, non factual statements, which you constantly recycle to support your beliefs. The Permian Extinction, 250 Million years ago was a result of CO2 emissions from volcanoes in Siberia, which over a long period of time, warmed the earth’s oceans, causing additional release of CO2…" & blah, blah, etc.
Who said anything about CO2 suffocation? That's just an evasion. My comment was specifically that warmer temperatures have never caused an extinction event, but cold temperatures have. Re-framing the argument like this, with an invented strawman such as volcanic activity does nothing to negate my assertion that warmer temperatures have never caused an extinction event [Bill Illis chart]. Strawmen are the basis of eadler’s responses.
Next, I stated that Harry the programmer admitted that he was fabricating the temperature data as he went along. That is a fact that the fact-challenged eadler cannot refute. So what does he do? Why, move the goal posts, of course, by changing the subject. Adler’s response: “I used the word underpinning, which is a synonym for “based on”. In fact, the BEST data base, consisting of 1.6B measurements of 39,390 measurement stations…” & blah, blah, etc.
Next, eadler says: “The kerfuffle over purloined emails is a diversion.” Misrepresentation at best. The Climategate emails and the Harry_Read_Me file were not a minor “kerfuffle,” they were a major revelation that singlehandedly derailed COP-15, and showed the world that the climate clique identified in the Wegman Report were petty connivers corrupting climate journals, threatening to “re-define peer review,” assassinating the characters of honest scientists who didn’t go along with their schemes, threatening to blackball journals that didn’t go along, and gaming the system for their own benefit and aggrandizement by fabricating years of temperature data.
Next, Adler incorrectly says: “There is no meaning to the phrase ’emerging from the Little Ice Age’ unless you show that the forces which lead to the emergence are continuing at the present time.” Wrong. To make it that sentence factual, Adler’s wording would have to be changed to: “…unless you show that the forces which led to the emergence
are continuinghave stopped…” Adler believes he’s entitled to make up his own facts.Finally, eadler opines: “Greenhouse gases have been the main contributor of warming since 1970.” Oh, really? It all started in 1970? I wonder what the color of the sky is on Adler’s home planet.☺
Adler’s rants really make these deconstructions is too easy.
Smokey says:
April 5, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Isn’t eadler cute? If it weren’t for psychological projection, he wouldn’t have much to say.
===================
No. Not cute. Even in the face of projection.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Smokey says:
April 5, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Isn’t eadler cute? If it weren’t for psychological projection, he wouldn’t have much to say. But I enjoy deconstructing his rants, so herewith:
Adler says: “The recent rise in average global temperature is not explainable by natural variation when real models are used…” heh <—[sufficient deconstruction of model use versus reality.☺] What is the difference between "real" models and other models? And of course the question is regarding evidence, and models are not evidence.
Models are the way science is done. Models are the only method by which it is possible to attribute a cause to an effect. You have no evidence without real models, only nonscientific ranting.
Next, Adler says: “I never made any claims about an accuracy of 0.01 degree.” Of course he did, by quoting an impossibly precise “0.74°C” temperature rise — without giving a starting date.
Quoting a figure does not imply accuracy at all.
Next, Adler quotes the propaganda blog Skeptical Pseudo-Science, which he runs back to in order to load up on the latest globaloney talking points, which he brings back here and expects intelligent, educated WUWT readers to blindly accept. As if.
I expect intelligent well educated readers to examine it seriously and look into the peer reviewed literature which backs up their statements if they have any doubts.
If they have other sources or arguments to contribute, I welcome it.
If people refuse to do that, they are not intelligent or well educated.
Next, in response to my obvious point that warmer temperatures have never caused an extinction event, eadler once again moves the goal posts, saying: “Another incorrect non factual statement. It seems you are an inexhaustible fountain of incorrect, non factual statements, which you constantly recycle to support your beliefs. The Permian Extinction, 250 Million years ago was a result of CO2 emissions from volcanoes in Siberia, which over a long period of time, warmed the earth’s oceans, causing additional release of CO2…” & blah, blah, etc.
Who said anything about CO2 suffocation? That’s just an evasion. My comment was specifically that warmer temperatures have never caused an extinction event, but cold temperatures have. Re-framing the argument like this, with an invented strawman such as volcanic activity does nothing to negate my assertion that warmer temperatures have never caused an extinction event [Bill Illis chart]. Strawmen are the basis of eadler’s responses.
That is right.Who said anything about CO2 suffocation. It is the warming due to GHG emissions that caused the extinction. You just didn’t read my link:
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Essays/wipeout/default.html
Oxygen isotopes are used as a palaeothermometer. Oxygen occurs in two forms, oxygen-16 and oxygen-18. These are incorporated into the calcite skeletons of marine creatures at different rates depending on the water temperature, more oxygen-18 at low temperatures, and more oxygen-16 at high. At the base of bed 25, the main mass extinction level, there was a sudden shift in the oxygen isotope ratios indicating a worldwide rise in temperature of 6 °C. This may not sound much, but it would have a profound effect on the world’s ecology. Climatologists have been getting very excited recently about a half-a-degree rise in global temperatures.
The carbon isotopes suggest what might have caused the temperature increase. They show a massive shift towards the light isotope, carbon-12, exactly at the time of the big extinction. Pulses of carbon-12 in the geological record are usually indicative of a volcanic eruption or a large die-off (plants, animals and bacteria concentrate carbon-12 in their bodies and release it when they die). Both certainly happened at the end of the Permian. But the carbon-12 pulse is far too big to be explained by these mechanisms alone. Calculations of global carbon budgets have suggested that, even if every plant, animal, and microbe died and was buried, altogether they would only account for about one-fifth of the observed carbon shift. The Siberian Traps would have added another fifth. Where did the remaining three-fifths come from?
The extra carbon-12 was probably buried, frozen deep under the oceans in the form of gas hydrates. These are extraordinary accumulations of carbon-12-rich methane locked up in cages of ice at very high pressure. If the atmosphere and oceans warm up sufficiently, these gas reserves can suddenly melt and release their contents in a catastrophic way. The explosion of gas through the surface of the oceans has been termed a “methane burp”. A very large methane burp at the end of the Permian could have produced enough carbon-12 to make up the deficit.
The cause of the burp was probably global warming triggered by huge releases of CO2 from the Siberian Traps. Methane is a greenhouse gas too, so a big burp raises global temperatures even further. Normally, long-term global processes act to bring greenhouse gas levels down. This kind of negative feedback keeps the Earth in equilibrium. But what happens if the release of methane is so huge and fast that normal feedback processes are overwhelmed? Then you have a “runaway greenhouse”. This is a positive feedback system: excess carbon in the atmosphere causes warming, the warming triggers the release of more methane from gas hydrates, this in turn causes yet more warming, which leads to the release of more methane and so on. As temperatures rise, species start to go extinct. Plants and plankton die off and oxygen levels plummet. This is what seems to have happened 251 million years ago.
Next, I stated that Harry the programmer admitted that he was fabricating the temperature data as he went along. That is a fact that the fact-challenged eadler cannot refute. So what does he do? Why, move the goal posts, of course, by changing the subject. Adler’s response: “I used the word underpinning, which is a synonym for “based on”. In fact, the BEST data base, consisting of 1.6B measurements of 39,390 measurement stations…” & blah, blah, etc.
I don’t think it is worth my time getting into a side issue regarding emails and comments in software, which have little bearing on the scientific issues. There is plenty of data in the public domain which allows people to do their own analysis of and the BEST project is a demonstration of that.
Next, eadler says: “The kerfuffle over purloined emails is a diversion.” Misrepresentation at best. The Climategate emails and the Harry_Read_Me file were not a minor “kerfuffle,” they were a major revelation that singlehandedly derailed COP-15, and showed the world that the climate clique identified in the Wegman Report were petty connivers corrupting climate journals, threatening to “re-define peer review,” assassinating the characters of honest scientists who didn’t go along with their schemes, threatening to blackball journals that didn’t go along, and gaming the system for their own benefit and aggrandizement by fabricating years of temperature data.
No one has been cited for scientific misconduct as a result of impartial investigations arising from the “ClimateGate” emails.
It has been demonstrated that the Wegman report was a sloppy piece of crap. The right wing administration of George Mason U is dragging its feet on the investigation of Wegman’s conduct in the preparation of his report.
Next, Adler incorrectly says: “There is no meaning to the phrase ‘emerging from the Little Ice Age’ unless you show that the forces which lead to the emergence are continuing at the present time.” Wrong. To make it that sentence factual, Adler’s wording would have to be changed to: “…unless you show that the forces which led to the emergence are continuing have stopped…” Adler believes he’s entitled to make up his own facts.
There is no logic to your argument. The opposite of “continuing” is “have stopped”.
Finally, eadler opines: “Greenhouse gases have been the main contributor of warming since 1970.” Oh, really? It all started in 1970? I wonder what the color of the sky is on Adler’s home planet.☺
Adler’s rants really make these deconstructions is too easy.
Declaring victory is what is easy for you. You do it all the time. It is your substitute for real arguments.
REPLY: OK – BOTH of you, kindly just stop. Eadler, stop baiting people with your SS stuff, Smokey, stop responding to him. Any further posts on this argument from either of you will be deleted. Eadler, learn to make shorter posts, the lengths of your post is becoming ridiculous. You are on the fast track for permanent deletion anyway, since you’ve now had two strikes. Don’t give me reason for a third. – Anthony