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
Mr. Bateman’s views on atmospheric science reflect a laudable success in eliminating CO2 production by the human cortex. If his muscles follow suit, he may become the beau ideal of a WUWT commentor.
Even the “lab experiment” data is problematic. Pure CO2 in a gas flask behaves differently from CO2 thinly dispersed in a thermal mass. To be brief, the energy pathways change drastically.
I’m sorry, I’m not trying to be obnoxious, but a question about wording:
First time through I read this as one bit plus three bits, but:
Which would mean, instead, one bit replaced by three bits except that the one bit is still there and the additional three bits are now only two bits. Not criticizing, just saying that, as is, it doesn’t come across quite right.
‘……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….”
I take it from all the ‘thumbs up’ etc, that you all agree with these points from the article? If not, why not?
If not, why not?
question = I am sure many climate scientists know they are pedaling B S and d,ont know how to get off the gravy train without having a red face and being called a fraud only time will tell, I only hope the world wakes up to the greatest fraud in mankinds history
after all this global warming crap is over ,there should be world trial set up the same as after the 2nd world war and put the fraudsters in jail
A discussion here on the ABC (Adelaide) who for once broadcast both sides of David Evans hot spot argument and more (although neither side was able to explain clearly to me as to what was really happening – moreso Evans rival Barry Brooks). A bit out of date but still relevant. I got the impression that Brooks had a lot more time:
http://blogs.abc.net.au/sa/files/dr_david_evans.mp3
http://blogs.abc.net.au/sa/files/prof_barry_brook.mp3
Ed Dahlgren says:
“…Which would mean, instead, one bit replaced by three bits except that the one bit is still there and the additional three bits are now only two bits.”
———————
The various climate models used have a varying range of warming projected, and the 3 number was just the average amongst them, so whether its 3 or 4, its as high as 6 or more with some of the models, the main idea is that the calculated feedbacks are far higher than the science, through observation, suggests them to be.
The alarmists keep up the pressure: Roger Harrabin BBC’s environmental analyst writes, the BBC website of 11 april 2011, on the next atmospheric pollutant: Nitrogen. mainly caused by agricultural(!) activities costing the EU alone around 320 bn Euro per year. Apparently the intent is to have a stranglehold on all human emissions. Amazing!
I can’t get the link to work to read the full article, both on IE and Firefox. Anyone else, or is it just my computer?
dorlomin says:
April 10, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Did you forget to include some science in your rant. Or you still smarting from being BESTed?
So what science did you have in mind?
This peice is a narrative pointing out the falacy of CAGW. In the begining they knew co2 caused a small amount of warming, this warming would cause extra moisture. What they didn’t know was would this moisture cause +ve feedback by remaining as vapour, or -ve feedback by forming cloud.
They also knew that if it was the former that a moist air warm spot would occur in the trophosphere, it has not ergo no +ve feedback, no CAGW! Its very straight forward, no extra science is needed to explain it, no “peer reveiwed” paper is required, its simply plain for all with any ounce of logical ability to see.
As Feynman said, if your physical theory doesn’t produce results that fit observation of nature, the theory is wrong. Even a single observation outside the theoretical predictions is enough to throw it away and start again.
Perhaps you should start again?
‘……and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.’
The “amplification” is nothing more than an accounting trick. Something you would expect from Enron folks.
At the same time the earth was “heating up” the south pole of Mars was melting. I wonder if it is still melting?
Can’t find the “Hot Spot”, “no problemo”, change the “goal post”- It’ the cooling of the Stratosphere.
Can’t find the “heat in the oceans”-recalibrate the instrument until they match “expected temperatures”.
The atmosphere is”cooling down”?-It must be do to “aerosols”-just add more aerosols “input” to the “climate computers models”.
See how easy it is to “Balance the Books” Enron Accounting 101.
Joe Lalonde says: 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.
No, it’s not like that. The bug on the windshield is held there by air pressure. In a vacuum he would not be held (unless the vehicle was accelerating).
orion says:
April 10, 2011 at 11:50 pm
‘……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….”
I take it from all the ‘thumbs up’ etc, that you all agree with these points from the article? If not, why not?
If not, why not?
Orion, whats your point?
Leif Svalgaard says:
[pat] makes one wonder what they took in college.
[Leif] doesn’t matter much. Read and watch:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/269350/A-Private-Universe
http://www.learner.org/resources/series28.html
I don’t find it surprising that many college graduates don’t know why it’s colder in the winter etc. The “trouble” is (1) that you can pass exams in a narrowly focused way, and (2) that a good deal of understanding comes months or years or many years later, from mulling over and reasoning about what you’ve learned, but most people don’t do any of that.
There are things I wouldn’t know if I weren’t an impractical muller-over (no Richard Muller pun intended). I’ve found that I know some things in subjects in which I was not formally educated which some people who were formally educated in those subjects don’t know, and this is not because I’m a superb auto-didact. Actually I’m lazy.
tango says: question = I am sure many climate scientists know they are pedaling B S and d,ont know how to get off the gravy train without having a red face and being called a fraud only time will tell, I only hope the world wakes up to the greatest fraud in mankinds history.
I’m not informed enough to be sure of it, but I am informed enough that I sure wouldn’t bet against it. 🙂
I blame Lovelock.
All that hippy nonsense about ‘GAIA’ promoted the idea that the Earth has incredible systems that stabilise the climate for the convinience of its inhabitants.
Although to be fair Hutton probably started the uniformitarism belief.
After 6000 years of an incedibly stable climate perhaps mankind is inevitably going to make the assumption that the climate is NOT unstable and capable of rapid and significant change. That there are feedback mechanisms that promoted stasis and stability…
But deeper historical knowledge rather contradicts this. The transition from a glacial period involves warming of several degress in a few centuries and sea level rise of many feet in a few decades.
To claim that the major rise in CO2 to levels unseen since before the ice-ages will have little effect because undefined feedbacks will impose a homestatic process seems a matter of faith trumping reality when there is no good observational evidence for such convenient systems. And the long-term historical record indicates that radical change of the climate is certainly possible.
I prefer the insight that comes from another field of science that investigates complex interactive systems – biological ecologies. I suspect it is equally true for the complexities of the climate system, and precludes any confidence that homeostasis is to be expected.
“You can never change just ONE thing.”
<>
Read all about here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13025304
And now our hated EU masters want us to become vegetarians; but I understood the methane we will emit as a result is a dangerous pollutant.
Population culling will be the next panic measure…
Many thanks to David Evans. That is the most concise explication of the basic scientific problem I’ve ever read.
I was aware that that was the heart of the pseudo-science behind AGW but was having trouble summarising it clearly without going into detail.
As a quote from an authoritative source, I think this one deserves prominent exposure.
Excellent post.
Global warming due to CO2 is a political effect not a scientific one. Hence if we want to “save the planet” we’d do better to look at what is going on in politics than to stare at the sky.
tango says:
April 11, 2011 at 12:14 am
after all this global warming crap is over ,there should be world trial set up the same as after the 2nd world war and put the fraudsters in jail
————-
I don’t think the likes of Monckton should go to jail for rubbish he keeps talking about, he just got it wrong that’s all. Everyone can make mistakes.
oebele bruinsma says:
April 11, 2011 at 12:33 am
OMG! Do you realise that about there’s about 700,000 ppm of nitrogen in the atmosphere already? This far worse than CO2 !
Harrabin has just proved, to anyone who had not already noticed , that he does not understand in the slightest what he is talking about. Please don’t do anything stop him, this is priceless.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13025304
OK, it seems the article is talking about REACTIVE nitrogen , not N2. Oebele bruinsma should probably not have removed that rather important qualifier.
I seems nitrogen will soon mean any molecule containing that element just like “carbon” now seems to embrace the whole of carbon-based, organic chemistry.
Anthony, the poster Dolormin is one of the Moonbat’s ‘attack pack’ who is obviously frustrated that the Grauniad’s CiF has gone a tad quiet over recent weeks on CAGW topics. He is always quick to lash out with gratuitous personal insults but does not read stuff carefully first.
The Moonbat has also caused much angst on the same CiF with his change of heart and mind evidenced in his new and enthusiastic espousing of nuclear generation of electricity, along with other former anti-nuke activists. At least he has had the cojones to admit his past error in one area.
Jim Masterson says:
April 10, 2011 at 10:24 pm
>>
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
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Had that been pointed out to the graduates, no doubt one or more of them would have responded, thats why it is summer in the SH in January!!
What was so depressing about the graduates' answers to the first question was that it was so obvious that the answer could not possibly be correct given that the NH and SH experience opposite summers and winters. Their answer just could not explain the differences between seasons in the SH, equatorial regions and NH.