Bring it, Mr. Wirth – a challenge

UPDATE (Sunday 6/26 8:30AM): After choosing the quote of the week this week (see above here) I’ve come to the conclusion that former Senator Wirth is mentally incapable of debating the issue in a rational manner, would likely not respond, and thus there is no point in keeping this as a top post. – A

Former Senator Tim Wirth invoked the nuclear option yesterday. Small mushroom clouds are now appearing across the world as people read what he said. This is my response to him. It will remain the top post for the next few days or until Mr. Wirth responds to the offer made below.

I got the email about this bit of climate ugliness just after having dinner Friday night. I couldn’t do anything about it while I was driving home from Sacramento then, and it is a good thing, because it made me quite angry. The hour long drive gave me time to think about it and remember what the world was like before global warming supposedly made the weather worse.

First, let me remind everyone who former Senator Tim Wirth is. For that, we have to go back to June 1988. Dr. James Hansen is getting ready to testify before the Senate on what he thinks is a serious problem, global warming. The sponsor for Dr. Hansen? Senator Tim Wirth.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/hansen_1988_congress.jpg?w=640
Dr. James Hansen testifies on global warming, June 1988

If we left it there, there would really be nothing to say beyond the fact that he’s the guy who put Hansen in front of the Senate and launched the cause. But Senator Wirth was culpable in foisting stagecraft onto the Senate to make them “feel” the problem in the form of a well crafted lie.

If any of you have ever been in Washington DC during the summertime, you’ll be able to relate to this. Senator Timothy Wirth made sure that room was “steamy”. This transcript excerpt is from PBS series Frontline which aired a special in April 2007. Here he admits his stagecraft in his own words:

TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.

DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?

TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.[Shot of witnesses at hearing]

Watch the Frontline video here. [UPDATE: The Frontline video has gone missing, but here it is on YouTube]

So it goes without saying, that if the case Dr. Hansen was to make before the Senate was so strong, why did Senator Wirth need to make use of cheap stage tricks?

And, why would anybody trust this man’s opinion on climate today, knowing this?

Well yesterday, the former senator insulted the Jewish race people with the tired old “denier” label, then set his foot on fire, then stuck it in his mouth trying to tell about half of the US population (according to recent polls) that he’s “coming after them” because they don’t share his opinion.

From CNS News, an extraordinary story coming out of a UN press briefing Wirth participated in, here’s the relevant portions:

Former Dem Senator: Climate Change Caused U.S. Floods, Fires; We Need ‘Aggressive Campaign To Go After’ ‘Deniers’

Friday, June 24, 2011

By Michael W. Chapman

Sen. Wirth said: “Well, Barbara, that’s again, back to the major question we’ve been talking about. First, you and I know that while you can’t predict exactly from the climate models what’s going to happen, we know that the overall trend is going to be increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires – and we’re seeing exactly that sort of thing in the United States today with increased flooding this last year, with the fires that have swept, raging through Arizona and western New Mexico and Texas, the kind of dramatic climate impact that we have seen in the United States already. Slowly but surely, people are going to connect the dots. They’re gonna’ understand that this is precisely the kind of significant change that has been predicted and that we’re slowly but surely seeing.

“Happily, there are people like those in, the weather forecasters who’ve come together, you know, into a major group to try to discuss and to understand the impacts and how to explain climate change and climate impacts when they’re doing the evening news and talking about the weather, which is where most people in the United States get their information. That’s going to be, I think over a period of time, an extremely important set of steps to take.

“We also have to do a better job of having the scientific community being able to explain what they’re doing and how they’re doing it and why they’re doing it in very clear terms that are understandable to 300 million Americans.

“Third, we have to, I think, again as I’ve suggested before, undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it.  They’ve had pretty much of a free ride so far, and that time has got to stop.

Here’s the audio clip, Wirth’s remarks are at about the 3 minute mark.

==================================================================

I can’t print my initial reaction.

First let’s address Mr. Wirth’s claims of “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires”.

To do that, we have to assume his claim relates to Dr. Jim Hansen’s warning in 1988 that increased CO2 in the atmosphere from the then 350 parts per million, to the now 390 parts per million made the claim of “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” happen.

Wirth probably isn’t familiar with the revolutions in technology making worldwide reporting a nearly instantaneous event. I address that issue here: Why it seems that severe weather is “getting worse” when the data shows otherwise – a historical perspective.

It seems like we get more of these things because news media and social media and people with cameras and cell phones are everywhere. Take for example the train crash today in the desert east of Reno, NV, which was covered mostly by citizens on the scene. Hardly anything escapes electronic notice anymore.

Second, Wirth’s hero, Dr. James Hansen, claims that we need to return to 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere to keep the Earth “safe” and avoid what Wirth claims we are seeing. An entire cult following has developed around this number, thanks to Bill McKibben and his 350.org eco-worriers.

That 350 number isn’t based on peer reviewed science. Hansen’s 2008 paper citing the 350 number was NOT peer reviewed, nor even published in a journal at the time. he just foisted it onto his website and a compliant press distributed it without question. No, that 350 number is based on the fact that was the value of CO2 when Jim Hansen and Wirth set this story loose in the Senate with the stagecraft. As Andy at NYT says “Back to 1988 on CO2, Says NASA’s Hansen

1987   348.99

1988   351.44

1989   352.90

Source: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

So if what Wirth says is true, we probably didn’t have much in the way of ” increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” back around the time of that magic 350 ppm number right?

Let’s have a look:

Drought:

The most severe drought in California’s history was the 1987-1992 drought. It is the drought Californians are most familiar with due to its recency and severity.

North America as a whole has experienced numerous droughts. When pioneers first began settling the Great Plains, they were told that “rain follows the plow.” However, it was an unusually rainy period. In the late 1880s drought struck and over half of the settlers lost their land. Many people are familiar with the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the lesser drought of the 1950s. What many people don’t recognize, however, is that over the past 400 years droughts equivalent to the 1950s drought have occurred several times per century (Priest et al., 1993; NOAA Paleoclimatological Program, 2000).

Source: College of the Siskiyous

And it wasn’t just California, it seems India was hit hard in 1987, when CO2 was 349 ppm.

India’s Drought Is Worst in Decades

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN, Special to the New York Times

Published: August 16, 1987

”I am 75 years old, and I have never seen anything this bad,” said Naufat Mohammed, a white-bearded farmer, looking at the cracked earth around a well. ”This is God’s will, but God is angry with us.”

The drought, which Government officials say is unprecedented in intensity, has already spread through most of the country, hitting hardest in the northern grain belts. There wells, reservoirs and water tanks are running at dangerously low levels or are already dry. Rain 75% Below Normal

No mention of CO2 or global warming in that article, they just blame God. It works  just as well.

It seems the drought continued in the USA though summer 1988. Just a few weeks after Jim Hansen and Tim Wirth scared the bejesus out of a bunch of sweaty senators, Time Magazine put up this cover story:

Time, July 4th, 1988 CO2 at 350 ppm

Of course, in the US, drought was worse in 1934 when CO2 was at something around 290 ppm

The extent and severity of the driest year of the Dust Bowl in the United States, 1934

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000

====================================================================

Flooding:

One only has to look at Dartmouth’s 1988 Global Register of Extreme Flood Events to see that 1988 was a busy year in flooding globally while CO2 was at 350 ppm.

Bangladesh got the worst of it that year.  Monsoon rains flooded about two-thirds of Bangladesh in 1988, killing nearly 5000 people and destroying farm animals and crops.

www.itnsource.com

But even though much of the USA had drought conditions in 1988 when CO2 was at a “safe” level of 350 ppm, there were still some significant flood events:

U.S. Floods of 1988

By C.A. Perry, B.N. Aldridge, and H.C. Ross of the USGS

Many areas throughout the United States were affected by drought conditions in 1988. There were few significant widespread floods. A few flash floods occurred during the summer months due to localized, intense rains from thunderstorms. Several flash floods occurred during the summer.

On April 1 and 2, southern Kansas received 3 to 7 in. of localized rain, which caused flash floods. New Orleans, Louisiana, received 7 to 9 in. of rain on April 1 and 2 . Severe flooding occurred, and $18 million in damages resulted. Albuquerque, New Mexico, had $3 million in damages as a result of flash flooding on July 5-9.

Tropical Storm Beryl hit Louisiana and Mississippi in early August. The storm brought as much as 15 in. of rain to coastal counties of Mississippi. Significant flooding occurred on the Biloxi River in Mississippi.

Hurricane Gilbert, the first category five hurricane to make landfall since 1969, struck Louisiana and Texas on September 15 through 19. The storm caused coastal floods in Louisiana and produced excessive rains across Texas and Oklahoma.

=====================================================================

Fires:

Fires approach the Old Faithful Complex on September 7, 1988.

Well, who could forget the year of fires in 1988, especially at Yellowstone just three months after the Jim and Tim show before the Senate? The Yellowstone fires of 1988 together formed the largest wildfire in the recorded history of the U.S.’s Yellowstone National Park.

The Yellowstone fires of 1988 were unprecedented in the history of the National Park Service, and many questioned existing fire management policies.

California and Texas had major wildfires in 1988 too, with Texas having in March the Big Country Fire burning 366,000 acres. In 1988, while CO2 was at that “safe” 350 ppm level there was also the Great Lashio Fire, Lashio, Myanmar, with 134 killed , and 2000 buildings destroyed. I’ll bet Mr. Wirth, you never heard about that one.

===============================================================

So with all these horrible disasters happening in 1988 while Jim and Tim were turning off the AC and opening windows in the Senate hearing room to get all those senators hot and bothered over global warming at 350 ppm of CO2 concentration, the world went on as usual with droughts, fires, and floods, just like it is doing today.

But our former senator Wirth “knows” that the present batch of drought, floods, and fires are caused by that 40 parts per million increase since 1988. Those same events in 1988 must have had another cause because CO2 was at the “safe” 350 ppm level back then.

So Mr. Wirth, I call BS on your statement, and in my opinion, your opinion on the matters of “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” is what I would describe as not grounded in historic reality, or henceforth to be known as wirthless.

And yet, you say “…as I’ve suggested before,undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it.

Alrighty then. Mr. Wirth, let me give you the perfect venue by which to challenge skeptics, a “target rich environment” if you will. It’s right in your old stomping grounds in Washington DC, so it should be no trouble for you.

Next week, on June 30th and July 1st, hundreds of skeptics, including me, will be in Washington for a conference.

6th International Conference on Climate Change: June 30-July 1

The Sixth International Conference on Climate Change will be held in Washington, DC on June 30 – July 1, 2011 at the Mariott Wardman Park, 2660 Woodley Road NW. Timothy Ball, Ph.D., Larry Bell, Ph.D., Robert “Bob” Carter, Hon. FRSNZ, Steve Goreham, S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., and Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. are among the confirmed speakers.

STANDING OFFER TO TIM WIRTH:

Federal and state elected officials can attend ICCC6 for free, but I’m sure Heartland will also open that offer to you as a former elected official.

I’m the first session speaker on June 30th, and to give you ample opportunity to tell the worldwide skeptic community what your plan is to “go after” us and “make a battle of it”  I yield my 15 minutes to the former Democratic Senator from Colorado.

I’ll sit quietly and respectfully during that 15 minutes sir, and then it will be our turn to tell you what we know.

Mr. Wirth, this offer is genuine.

If your intent is genuine, bring it. I’ll expect to see you there, as you won’t find a better venue or opportunity to make good on your threats. You may find though, that skeptics won’t threaten you back, but will engage you in a factual discourse if you are up to it. I predict though you have not the intestinal fortitude. Prove me wrong.

You can contact me at this web link, or contact Heartland directly here. Given their longstanding policy of inviting the opposition, I’m certain they’ll work to make it happen and I’ll gladly assist.

– Anthony Watts

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans."
0 0 votes
Article Rating
356 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mac the Knife
June 26, 2011 12:54 am

Anthony,
Sincerely, what can I do to help? How can I, and perhaps more of the legion of rational ‘deniers’, assist you in applying this desperately need application of the mailed glove to both upper cheeks (and a hard boot to both lower cheeks!) of Mr. Wirth? You have issued a direct challenge to the opposition, an overt offensive action, and I very much want to help make your challenge successful! I’m bloody sick of playing defense!
Can we make this a team effort? Please, Let Us Help !!!!! Call it the Scientific Method Action Crew, for Evolved HuManity (SMAC EHM!). We can provide manpower and funds …. for strategically placed ads in mainstream media, including Mr. Wirth’s home town newspapers…. and strategically placed web ads on social and scientific web sites inviting Mr. Wirth to ‘Put Up or Shut Up’!. We could identify a multitude of websites, scientific, news, and social media, and politely invite the WUWT audience to use them all to publicly challenge Mr. Wirth to test, in open forum, if his AGW (nit)wits are sufficient to back up the BIG check his mouth has written. All thoughtfully provided with links back to WUWT, of course! I’m sure the wonderfully creative WUWT participants can think of many more grassroots ways to make this challenge sooooo high profile and hugely public that Mr. Wirth cannot sidestep it, lest he be shown to be a political and personal charlatan. Let’s ALL Go On Offense!!!
I’m not married to a wealthy heiress or the recipient of east coast ‘old money’ like Mr. Wirth, but I’ll put my hard earned money where my mouth is. If you think this approach has merit, I’ll pledge $200 US to kick it off. You have my email address, Anthony…. let me know how I can help. mtk

June 26, 2011 1:10 am

Senator Wirth, if CO2 causes forest fires fires how come they put it in fire extinguishers?

tallbloke
June 26, 2011 2:19 am

R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 7:42 pm
IPCC projections and GCM’s do not yet fully take into consideration the either the UV effects on the upper atmosphere nor of course the GCR/cloud effect as neither of these are known quantities. Even if and when they are, I seriously doubt the anthropgenic effects related to CO2 will ever be seen as fictional nonsense. CO2 is too important a GH gas to be able to vary by 40% without some effect on the climate system.

You are avoiding the question I asked, which was:
“So he will agree with me that for the IPCC to account only for the raw wattage of the suns output radiative terms, and ignore the effects of it’s variation on atmospheric and oceanic inorganic and organic chemistry makes it’s claimed certainty levels on attribution of warming to human emission of co2 a fictional nonsense.
Won’t you R. Gates?
And while we are on the subject of avoided questions, you haven’t responded to this:
“You are also persisting in trying to claim the secular rise in surface T since the Little Ice Age for co2, when you (hopefully) know that the vast majority of the increase in co2 took place after 1900.”
Or this:
“I don’t know whether Earth would be an ice planet without co2. Neither do you. Nor does anyone else. It all depends on which assumptions you plug into models.”
Answer the points R. Gates.

R. de Haan
June 26, 2011 2:42 am
Kev-in-Uk
June 26, 2011 2:57 am

davidmhoffer says:
June 25, 2011 at 10:58 pm
absolutely!
And of course, the crazy exponential type graph of CO2 rises cannot be correlated to similar exponential type rises in temps. Nevertheless, the warmists and alarmists continue to use the CO2 graph as illustrative (in the alarmist sense) of mans CO2 emittive destructive nature – ignoring any non-linear relationship (if indeed there is any significant relationship between CO2 and temp at the levels of changes observed!) and ignoring any ‘limit’ or ‘saturation’ effects. The CO2 graph is the primary tool in the warmist armoury because it is so dramatic! Hence, the need for the false hockey stick type correlation to drive home the false message and hence the further need to dfend the HS to the hilt.
If R Gates was remotely sceptic – he/she would note the lack of any clear relationship/correlation and start to ask more pertinent questions instead of providing dogmatic tantric chanting type repitition of false analysis.
I am more than happy to accept that CO2 is potentially causing some warming, even though I don’t agree with the ‘quantitative’ assessment as provided by the peddlars and shysters at the IPCC. To my immediate knowledge, there is no absolute accepted or demonstrable (proven – if you prefer) quantitative link between CO2 and temps. If there was, and I don’t mean models here, this whole debacle of AGW would not be the subject of debate! Even the qualitative relationship is ‘ropey’ when we review the longer term palaeoclimate reconstructions and the simple fact of earths natural climatic variation.
Any idiot can look at the CO2 graph and note the rises. But, even with all the ‘fudging’ and station drop outs, UHI, etc – nobody can look at the global temp anomaly and say there is a direct correlation – because it simply isn’t there in the data. The alarmists are on the run – because their esteemed CO2 graph keeps rising but the temperatures do not reflect the same inexorable rise. So its ‘excuse this’, and ‘ignore that’, etc, etc . But even a 10 year old child could ‘review’ the AGW CO2 hypothesis from the CO2 and Temp graphs and OBSERVE that it is NOT proven and moreover, with a little thinking – would then dismiss the alarmists ‘sky is falling’ claims out of hand!.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 26, 2011 3:10 am

Back On Topic (or close enough):
Warning: Foul Offensive Language alert! (highlighted in bold in body of text below)
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ted-turner-climate-change-most-serious-m
(Note: I just noticed R. de Haan’s new comment mentioning the article when I was just about to post. This is about something besides Turner found in the article.)

Ted Turner: Climate Change ‘Most Serious … Problem Humanity Has Ever Faced’
Friday, June 24, 2011
By Pete Winn
(CNSNews.com) – Media mogul Ted Turner says climate change is “probably the most serious–and, in all fairness, the most complex–problem that humanity has ever faced.”
He added: “It is really easy to understand how some people don’t get it, because it’s so complex and complicated.”

His comments came in response to a question posed by reporter Sunny Lewis of the Environment News Service about how to change the minds of climate change skeptics.
“A few climate skeptics and deniers seem to be holding up action to curb climate change,” Lewis said. “What can be done to convince and persuade these holdouts as to actually realize what so many scientists know and are telling us in urgent terms?”

Ted Turner wisely did not use the “d-word,” that was egested from “reporter” Sunny Lewis. See the “About” page for “Environment News Service”:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/about.asp

The Environment News Service is the original daily international wire service of the environment. Established in 1990 by Editor-in-Chief Sunny Lewis and Managing Editor Jim Crabtree, it is independently owned and operated.

Thus this is not some mere hack enviro-reporter using the Foul Offensive Word, but the Editor-in-Chief, showing that not only is such language condoned at ENS but it is implicitly encouraged (do what the boss does).

The Environment News Service (ENS) exists to present late-breaking environmental news in a fair and balanced manner.

The presentation leaves something to be desired. Like fairness and balance.
Of course this Lewis person (Ms, or perhaps Mr? Anyone here know for sure?) has an interesting record with “fairness and accuracy,” as can be seen with this listing of stories by that author (all but one sourced from ENS) found on AlterNet. Here’s a beauty from 2004 about the planned “Cape Wind” project off of Cape Cod:
http://www.alternet.org/story/20502/where_the_wind_blows/

The first off-shore wind farm in the U.S. will produce clean energy, lower electricity prices, create jobs and harm no animals, birds or fish. So what if it blocks the view.

philincalifornia
June 26, 2011 3:33 am

Moderate Republican says:
June 25, 2011 at 9:51 pm
savethesharks says June 25, 2011 at 8:27 pm
You seem awfully fixated with R. Gates – maybe because his point is a simple and elegant one. A 40% increase in a forcer is going to have an impact. Lovelock said it elegantly as well “You can’t put something like a trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without something nasty happening.”
And please don’t launch into the typical Smokey “but we don’t have proof” non-sense.
The only proof you’ll die jumping off a bridge is doing it and dying from it, does that mean you’ll tell your kids “sure, jump off the 20 story tall bridge on to the pavement because I don’t have scientific proof you’ll die”? Word games – or confirmation you don’t understand the basics if the science you try to criticize….
==========================================
Cringeworthy, from top to bottom.
I think you’re past your expiry date MR.

Myrrh
June 26, 2011 3:34 am

R.Gates – I have read it, it appears to me you haven’t. If you think it has already answered my questions, then please, find the exact references for me.
Because it claims that it “explains how the CO2 thermostat works”, doesn’t mean it actually does. In fact, it doesn’t. It just keeps repeating that it is the thermostat and that is not an explanation of “how”.

James Sexton
June 26, 2011 3:54 am

Moderate Republican says:
June 25, 2011 at 9:51 pm
savethesharks says June 25, 2011 at 8:27 pm
You seem awfully fixated with R. Gates – maybe because his point is a simple and elegant one. A 40% increase in a forcer is going to have an impact. Lovelock said it elegantly as well “You can’t put something like a trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without something nasty happening.”
=================================================================
MR, CO2 is a good thing. yes, you can put a trillion tons of CO2 without something nasty happening. It is beneficial to all of the flora and fauna of this earth. What you stated is analogous to having too much food supply or fresh water. Its a ridiculous posit. Have you checked out the biosphere lately?

June 26, 2011 4:32 am

Fascinating thread. A few people picked up on Anthony’s odd “Jewish race” phrasing, but nobody seems to have noticed that he’s distorted what Wirth was suggesting, or the double standard.
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2011/06/25/anthony-watts-phony-selective-outrage/

jaymam
June 26, 2011 4:44 am

Andy G55 says:
“Many eons ago, when the Earth was much younger than to day, a life-form , called plants came into being.
This life-form used the precious life giving gas in the atmosphere to produce its very structure.”
The plants eventually used up over 90% of the precious life giving gas and buried it in deposits where it was inaccessible.
Fortunately humans eventually evolved. In the nick of time just before plants were becoming stunted from the shortage of the life giving gas, man learned how to replenish that gas by digging down to get coal and oil, and burning the same. Unwanted trees and vegetation was also burned.
Slowly the life giving gas increased in the atmosphere, allowing useful plants to grow at their best potential once again.

DCC
June 26, 2011 5:17 am

Why spend any time on this clown? You might as well challenge Al Gore to a shouting match.

June 26, 2011 5:20 am

Keith Kloor, you are truly pathetic. Your comment and the rabble-rousing you stir up in your blog cannot find anything to dispute the skeptical position that the “carbon” scare is trumped up and fed with public grant money, so you fall back on the racism canard. No wonder the traffic at your blog is minuscule. Really, you’re almost as pathetic as Joe Romm.

R. Gates
June 26, 2011 5:31 am

Davidmhoffer,
By your reasoning, CO2 could go to 3000 ppm or even 10,000 ppm with very little commensurate warming. What you fail to take into consideration is the additional positive feedback effects that additional amounts of CO2 bring. It is, and always has been, the positive feedbacks created by additional CO2, that have been the biggest concern and have clearly been seen in GCM’s, and appear to be clearly occurring in areas like the arctic and with global humidity levels. It is very good that you finally answered my question about the downward range of CO2 as we can begin to have an honest dialog now. You’ve admitted, quite correctly, that changes in CO2 do in fact create swing in earth’s temperature. The issue now is one of sensitivity. What we need to discuss now is feedback effects and what additional forcings may be created by a warmer world. No climate scientist would deny that the raw effect of CO2 is logarithmic, for this is basic physics, but rather, what additional positive feedbacks are kicked in at various levels of CO2? This goes right to the issue that the majority of climate scientists care about– the issue of sensitivity.

June 26, 2011 5:42 am

Mr. Sowell, thanks for the response, but you didn’t answer any of my questions including why the existence of weather in the past precludes climate change from taking place in the present.
Mr. Sowell, I’m unsure why you think petrified trees in Arizona means there was climate change in the past.

Latitude
June 26, 2011 5:46 am

Moderate Republican says:
June 25, 2011 at 9:51 pm
You seem awfully fixated with R. Gates – maybe because his point is a simple and elegant one. A 40% increase in a forcer is going to have an impact.
===================================================================
Our atmosphere is buffered by nitrogen, nitrogen is ~70% of our atmosphere.
Dry air contains roughly ~ 78.09% nitrogen, ~21% oxygen, ~1% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and extremely small amounts of other gases.
……we are talking about CO2, increasing it 40%, which is going from 0.028 to 0.039..
…and increase of “forcer” of only 0.011
I’m sorry, but CO2 is not that powerful.
CO2 was 0.028 in 1700, that did not stop the planet from going into the Little Ice Age……
….a increase of “forcer” by 0.011 will not do it either
CO2 levels of ~2000 ppm to ~4000 ppm, did not even stop the planet from going into ice ages.
It makes no sense to say a CO2 increase of 0.011 is going to cause run away global warming,
When 4000 ppm can not stop an ice age……….

June 26, 2011 5:52 am

Mr. Steve Oregon, ” I’d like to hear what makes you think any of the current weather events (changes) are anything more than weather events (changes) in the past 100s or 1000s of years and have nothing to do with CO2?”
I don’t think this. You are confused. Thank you though for the insults. Do you feel climate plays any role in weather?

June 26, 2011 5:57 am

Gates, climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 is extremely small, ranging from zero [Miskolczi] to 0.46 [Spencer] to ≤1.0 [Lindzen]. Thus, a doubling of CO2 is nothing to get alarmed about. The world would be a warmer, healthier place if CO2 doubled – which would still leave it firmly in the “trace gas” category [eg: argon is ≈1% of the air, while CO2 is less than 4/100ths of the atmosphere].
If climate sensitivity to CO2 was higher, then temperature would closely track changes in CO2. But it doesn’t.
Admit that CO2 is harmless and beneficial, or we will see that you are intentionally raising a false alarm over a harmless trace gas that is essential to the biosphere.

R. Gates
June 26, 2011 6:05 am

tallbloke says:
June 26, 2011 at 2:19 am
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 7:42 pm
IPCC projections and GCM’s do not yet fully take into consideration the either the UV effects on the upper atmosphere nor of course the GCR/cloud effect as neither of these are known quantities. Even if and when they are, I seriously doubt the anthropgenic effects related to CO2 will ever be seen as fictional nonsense. CO2 is too important a GH gas to be able to vary by 40% without some effect on the climate system.
You are avoiding the question I asked, which was:
“So he will agree with me that for the IPCC to account only for the raw wattage of the suns output radiative terms, and ignore the effects of it’s variation on atmospheric and oceanic inorganic and organic chemistry makes it’s claimed certainty levels on attribution of warming to human emission of co2 a fictional nonsense.
Won’t you R. Gates?
And while we are on the subject of avoided questions, you haven’t responded to this:
“You are also persisting in trying to claim the secular rise in surface T since the Little Ice Age for co2, when you (hopefully) know that the vast majority of the increase in co2 took place after 1900.”
Or this:
“I don’t know whether Earth would be an ice planet without co2. Neither do you. Nor does anyone else. It all depends on which assumptions you plug into models.”
Answer the points R. Gates.
————–
1. The fact that the IPCC has not taken taken all (so far unquantified) forcings into account does not make their certainty levels “fictional nonsense”. We simply don’t know at this point what these unknown and so far unquantifed forcings may or may not mean. How could we?
2. I have issues with many of the ways the IPCC has conducted business, and I do believe there will be additional forcings identified and eventually quantified and put into future climate models such as UV and potentially GCR/cloud effects, but I think the basic tenets of CO2 leading the way to a warmer planet are quite solid.
3. I use 280 ppm as my baseline level at which anthropogenic additions to this level begin to kick in around the year 1750. Yes, the growth was slow at first, and yes, the majority of the growth of CO2 (and the warming) has come in the past 100 years, but it began around 1750 with industrialization. So, given that we are now about 114 ppm over that 280 ppm, that would be just over 40%.
4. In in regards to lower or no CO2 levels leading to an ice-planet— of course I don’t know this for a certainty, but if you told me you were going to transport me to a planet just like earth in every way but with no CO2, I’d kindly ask for some very good cold weather gear and a good pair of sun goggles and prepare for existence in a place much like Antarctica…very cold, very icy, with low humidity and little precipitation.

R. Gates
June 26, 2011 6:18 am

Smokey says:
June 26, 2011 at 5:57 am
“Admit that CO2 is harmless and beneficial, or we will see that you are intentionally raising a false alarm over a harmless trace gas that is essential to the biosphere.”
——–
How many times do we have to go over this?
WITHIN A RANGE CO2 is beneficial. Go outside that range, and it could have very harmful effects to life and ecological systems as we’ve come to know them.

fredb
June 26, 2011 6:20 am

Smokey: that’s too simplistic an answer. It assumes the system energy changes from increased CO2 all goes into surface air temperature — it obviously doesn’t. It also goes into energy to melt ice, into increased atmospheric humidity, and into the deep ocean, etc — all of which are changes that are observationally seen. Hence the climate sensitivity can easily be higher than the low figures you quote.
To paraphrase yourself: “Admit that increased CO2 concentrations are not necessarily harmless and are problematic, or we will see that you are intentionally denying a potentially problematic increase over a key trace gas that is essential to keeping the biosphere as warm as it is”
🙂

June 26, 2011 6:21 am

Mr. Watts, “To do that, we have to assume his claim relates to Dr. Jim Hansen’s warning in 1988 that increased CO2 in the atmosphere from the then 350 parts per million, to the now 390 parts per million made the claim of “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” happen.”
To make this assumption you have to also assume that all effects of the increase up to 350 ppm had been fully realized. Is this really your understanding of the science of climate Mr. Watts, that all effects of a forcing are instantly fully realized? Do you think this is a proper understanding to teach your followers?

Pamela Gray
June 26, 2011 6:25 am

Roger, as always, provides the meat of the debate. “’Can we know that droughts, floods, and fires are continuing along as always?’ That’s not the right question, as it is irrelevant. A better question is, since droughts, floods, and fires have occurred many times in the past, long before CO2 rose in the industrial age, what caused those events?” 4 marks Roger.
The 40% statistic is nothing but conjecture as to its potential to drive a change in weather pattern variation. To take it back a step, it must not drive the weather event itself, the weather event is just the symptom of a change in what drives the weather event. To prove that a 40% increase in CO2 is now in charge of weather pattern change, it must have the ability to change the parameters of weather events, even to counteract those natural parameters of weather events. It must be able to show, for example, that in the presence of the parameters typical of bringing about a cold front, the temperature is abnormally hot given the cold front’s existance. And it must continue to show this ability in increasing potential. Otherwise you have two equally competing parameters: change in CO2 and natural parameters. Meaning the null hypothesis stands.
If natural parameters can explain the weather event, you cannot, using gold standard and unimpeachable scientific methods, ascribe it to CO2. Which is exactly what both NOAA and NASA have done in their reports of recent weather events. End of debate.

June 26, 2011 6:36 am

Gates says:
“WITHIN A RANGE CO2 is beneficial. Go outside that range, and it could have very harmful effects to life and ecological systems as we’ve come to know them.”
CO2 has been almost twenty times the current concentration, and no climate catastrophe resulted. Using past parameters as your ‘range’ shows that CO2 is completely harmless. You’re scaring yourself over a non-problem.

Latitude
June 26, 2011 6:43 am

R. Gates says:
June 26, 2011 at 6:18 am
WITHIN A RANGE CO2 is beneficial. Go outside that range, and it could have very harmful effects to life and ecological systems as we’ve come to know them.
======================================================================
Gates, Since CO2 levels are the lowest they have ever been in the history of this planet, barring mass extinction events….
The average has been at least 1500 ppm, and much higher than that when most present day things evolved….
Since it’s only common sense that plants do not die when you stop fertilizing, they only slow down….
What range do you think is beneficial?