Carbon warming too minor to be worth worrying about
By David Evans (excerpts from a special to the Financial Post)
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.
Let’s set a few things straight.
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
The disagreement comes about what happens next.
The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.
This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.
Read the full article here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I must disagree on a commenter point. Politicians are indeed scientific dolts, and frequently ignoramuses in general. Ron Paul, Pelosi, Kerry, Waxman, Obama, Durbin, Reid, all show an ignorance of science, mathematics, economics, that boggles the mind and makes one wonder what they took in college.
Making fools out of our politicians? No. They’re all crooks trying to use this issue, one way or the other, to enrich themselves and their cronies at our expense.
Perhaps I am missing something.
CO2 is an absolutely essential gas for life on this planet. Plants eat CO2. Plant growth rates and yield increase roughly 30% to 40% with a doubling of CO2 from the current level of 0.038% to 0.076%.
Increasing CO2 is positive for the biosphere. The Green Party members appear to be incapable of reading and thinking for themselves. (Sheep?) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Commercial greenhouse operator’s inject CO2 at 1000 ppm to 1500 ppm to increase yield and plant growth.
http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm
Plants can make more effective use of water as CO2 levels increase, as they can reduce the number of stomata which reduces water lost to the atmosphere rather than helping the plant grow. Desertification is reduced as CO2 levels increase.
When the planet warms there is more cloud cover and more precipitation.
Most of the warming is at high latitudes where the growing season is restricted by the number of frost free days.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w7gy1cyyr5yey994/
Carbon dioxide effects on stomatal responses to the environment and water use by crops under field conditions
“Reductions in leaf stomatal conductance with rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) could reduce water use by vegetation and potentially alter climate. Crop plants have among the largest reductions in stomatal conductance at elevated [CO2]. The relative reduction in stomatal conductance caused by a given increase in [CO2] is often not constant within a day nor between days, but may vary considerably with light, temperature and humidity. Species also differ in response, with a doubling of [CO2] reducing mean midday conductances by 50% in others. Elevated [CO2] increases leaf area index throughout the growing season in some species. Simulations, and measurements in free air carbon dioxide enrichment systems both indicate that the relatively large reductions in stomatal conductance in crops would translate into reductions of <10% in evapotranspiration, partly because of increases in temperature and decreases in humidity in the air around crop leaves.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090218135031.htm
“Published today in Nature, the 40 year study of African tropical forests–one third of the world's total tropical forest–shows that for at least the last few decades each hectare of intact African forest has trapped an extra 0.6 tonnes of carbon per year.
pat says:
April 10, 2011 at 5:26 pm
makes one wonder what they took in college.
doesn’t matter much. Read and watch:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/269350/A-Private-Universe
http://www.learner.org/resources/series28.html
Anthony,
I have found a great deal of science is just guess work with very little substance.
Interesting how this solar system travels at 300 km/sec in forward motion, yet this is not included in the understanding of gravity. It would be like having a bug(us) on the windshield of a moving vehicle. It would also explain quite a bit on material having a different density that is not magnetic and hence pulled by the Earth’s core.
The evidence I have accumulated is that our atmosphere has stretched due to heat and has changed the sea level atmospheric pressure. In doing so, this explains many of the current atmospheric and planetary activity we are currently experiencing.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 10, 2011 at 5:49 pm
A private universe: A more direct link that works:
http://www.learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=9
jcrabb says:
April 10, 2011 at 4:19 pm
““And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!”
ohoh! tin hats for everyone.”
Be my guest:
http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_kurz_en.pdf
Warning: 6.5 MB download
“World in Transition – A Social Contract for Sustainability”
WBGU – Federal German Advisory Board for Environmental Change
“…The WBGU analysis also shows that current global governance institutions are not very well prepared for the transformation….”
“…It also counts on the cooperation of the international community and the establishment of global governance structures as the indispensable driving force for the intended transformation momentum…”
“…On an international level, central arenas for global governance of energy, urbanisation and land-use would have to be established for the transformation (bundle 10)….”
and so on and son on… Heute dekarbonisieren wir Deutschland, morgen die ganze Welt.
Dave Springer says:
April 10, 2011 at 5:08 pm
“This is also a good opportunity to clarify the difference between quantum and classical mechanics.”……
=====
I’m ready when you are.
Oh, did you just explain it in two paragraphs??
I thought it would be more difficult. 😉
My inner empathet tells me Michael “It’s hocky sticks all the way down” Mann’s feelings are going to be hurt and my inner voices tell me Mr. Evans will be getting a note from Vancouver, courtesy David Suzuki’s deep green pockets.
What is the latest on the hot spot?
The latest I have seen from the Warmists is
(a) it isn’t part of AGW theory, so it doesn’t matter that it isn’t there, and
(b) it is sort of there anyway.
Murray Grainger says:
April 10, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Great article. Does anyone know of any skeptic that has considered the evidence and changed sides to pro-AGW and the alarmist camp?
If you allow that evidence includes the financials you might start your search in the boardrooms of Solar Panel and Wind Turbine manufacturers. Not suggesting anything – just saying…
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 10, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Are you speaking of water & rocks, as in O2 locked in H2O and minerals, as the abundance of O2 on Earth? That oxygen is not free. Unless burning fossil fuels is adding O2 to the atmosphere, there’s no danger that I am aware of.
Slightly off topic… at the top of this comments section I see Canadian politics sneaking in:
“Taking on Climate Change ndp.ca/climate_change Jack Layton will work to fix the environment. Find out how.”
How could this not be featured in an extensive article here? That guy knows how to “fix the environment!” Now that’s significant. What kind of tax would that be?
pat says:
April 10, 2011 at 5:26 pm
“Politicians are indeed scientific dolts… and [it] makes one wonder what they took in college.”
I wonder what Hansen, Mann, Jones et al took “in college.” Not ethics, apparently.
Anything is possible says:
April 10, 2011 at 4:40 pm
If, on the other hand, the science turns out to be wrong, who is going to be slaughtered in the history books? The politicians who trashed previously prosperous economies on the basis of bad scientific advice, or the scientists who gave them that advice.
The scientists who gave that advice will slide under the bus faster than a greased pig through smooth rubber gloves on a hot day. The Politicians will undoubtably make it so.
William says:
April 10, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Perhaps I am missing something.
CO2 is an absolutely essential gas for life on this planet. Plants eat CO2. Plant growth rates and yield increase roughly 30% to 40% with a doubling of CO2 from the current level of 0.038% to 0.076%.
That’s what I remember from elementary school, too bad all of the AGW actors don’t remember as well.
Until we reach some higher standard of transparency regarding climate models, we will never know the real impact Co2 plays at a global level.
As this story suggests here, Main Stream Media is only concerned about pumping out misinformation than reporting the facts.
I had asked about a week ago for some help regarding this exact issue involving media, models and misinformation.
There was a story written in Anchorage Daily News, by Dan Joling, called, Warming brings unwelcome change to Alaskan villages.
The story didn’t sit right with me and I was hoping to find help from some of you more educated types to address this, rather than me.
As it turned out, I think I did ok in my own investigations and proudly posted my story on my blog.
Please, feel free to comment on my story. I would love the feedback.
It’s a story about permafrost, bad journalism, and climate models.
Enjoy !
“That guy knows how to “fix the environment!” Now that’s significant. What kind of tax would that be?”
When I see a link like that, I click on it. Anthony needs the money more than Layton.
Mark Luedtke says:
April 10, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Making fools out of our politicians? No. They’re all crooks trying to use this issue, one way or the other, to enrich themselves and their cronies at our expense.
——————————————————————————————————-
That’s one way of thinking about it…. But it doesn’t let us off the hook for electing them. Considering that an elected government is supposed to be representative of the people who elected them….. The real fools are us then, for choosing them….So lets choose more carefully in future, these representatives we elect to lead us.
“What is the latest on the hot spot?
The latest I have seen from the Warmists is
(a) it isn’t part of AGW theory, so it doesn’t matter that it isn’t there, and
(b) it is sort of there anyway.”
One of the commenters in the FP refers to this to answer the missing hotspot problem:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
Wonderfully informative misdirection!
First, it refers to the evidence stratospheric as the “real” fingerprint for “global warming”. Stratospheric cooling might indeed be a fingerprint for CO2, in that it suggests that more heat is being retained in the lower atmosphere. But as David Evans in his article is correct in pointing out, the lack of an tropical upper tropospheric hotspot suggests that water vapor amplification of CO2 (or any other) induced lower atmospheric warming is small or absent. The main point of Evans’ article is that without water vapor positive feedback, the case for alarmism about CO2 increases is vastly weakened.
The remainder of the quoted rejoinder is a veiled admission of how inconvenient the missing hotspot actually is, and basically claims that their must be something wrong with the observations!!
“It’s not a case of trying to reconcile the observations with climate models, but rather trying to reconcile observational data (which often have well known biases) with our physics-based understanding of the climate system.”
An almost incredible indictment of the “climate science” consensus.
I guess this all boils down in the end to whether you believe in Goldilocks.
I do not think any reasonable observer would contradict the fact that CO2, like water vapour, methane and other gasses have a ‘greenhouse’ effect within the atmosphere. It is a moot point whether the rise in temperature over the last century is empirically well established or statistically significant but let us agrees it is. Let us all agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen, which they have. I presume that we can all agree on the fact that the models of climate change although showing some structural similarities in their output with observed climate changes are ‘running hot’ in their predictions. So the argument boils down to this: are there feedback mechanisms that are likely to enhance the modest warming effect of CO2 or not?
Ice core samples suggest that CO2 has varied over a significant range historically for whatever reason, but what evidence there is suggests that the planet’s overall climate range has remained stable. So, is there a homeostatic factor at work? Is the climate self correcting? Life on planet earth has flourished in all its forms and some would argue that this, with all the inevitable perturbations that the universe can throw at it, is plausible evidence that natural systems are self correcting and tend towards stability. The runaway warming that many climate scientists fear is, as Lindzen says, intuitively implausible.
It appears to me that many climate scientists are pessimists. They are like the old men who used to silently walk the streets of London carrying boards on which was printed ‘repent, the end is nigh’. In their own way they have tried to sustain a theoretical logic within their models which fails to fully capture the crucial homeostatic effects of clouds and precipitation. As I have commented on WUWT before the relationship between changes in temperature and changes in CO2 level is very weak. This suggests that the models are in some fundamental way misspecified. However, if climate scientists ever manage to fully capture the homeostasis in the climate system then I suspect that those models will tell them what wiser – and often older heads have known for a long time – Goldilocks is alive and well.
Ps: if anyone is really confused try the ‘anthropic principle’ in Wikipedia.
Thanks, Kasmir. I had seen the SkepSci article, and it made my non-specialist brain hurt. Hence my summary as (a) and (b). You have made it a lot clearer.
Professor Bob Ryan says:
April 10, 2011 at 8:19 pm
“However, if climate scientists ever manage to fully capture the homeostasis in the climate system then I suspect that those models will tell them what wiser – and often older heads have known for a long time – Goldilocks is alive and well.”
I agree; but IMHO the scientists have no interest in finding negative feedbacks or homeostasis – “no cause for alarm” would mean less funding. Given the armies of climate scientists under pay now, this would result in serious culling. Just a little confirmation bias towards the catastrophic outcomes, and they can all go on happily in their nicely funded positions… and the politicians will continue funding it because it gives them excuses for tax hikes…
Again the Bears asks, if it is all so simple and straightforward, where the hell are the rest (non-climate-change) of the world’s scientists/professional academies in this?
Why are they not shouting this rubbish (if that is truly what it is) down?
Again, please don’t offer excuses along the lines of institutional/funding inertia, etc.
The proportion of the world’s scientists who are not involved in climate-change (or whatever the current PR tag is) far outweigh those who are. What effort is being made to mobilise the gr8 majority of the profession, to, at least, protect the integrity of the scientific method and call time on this nonsesne – again, if that is what it actually is? Do they not realise that by their silence they are taken to acquiesce in this stuff? Or do they not give a stuff.
The Bear remains confused.
>>
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 10, 2011 at 5:49 pm
doesn’t matter much. Read and watch:
<<
It’s a sad commentary on science education. This reminds me of Jay Leno’s Jaywalking bit on the Tonight Show.
The Earth is actually closer to the Sun in January.
Jim