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.
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
…
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:
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:
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
Skeptical,
Your participation here seems to be based on ignorance, either feigned or otherwise, since your “responses” always seem to indicate a lack of understanding of someone else’s comment or consist of a series of questions (most of them rhetorical).
So lets play your game.
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?
Your question seems to be based on the assumption that there is significant harm in having CO2 levels even at 350 ppm, since you imply that not all the “bad” things had worked there way through the pipeline yet when the level hit 350..
So why is 350 ppm now the magically “safe” level we need to strive for? Is this the proper level of understanding James Hansen should be teaching his followers?
Third paragraph (“To make this…) should be a blockquote.
Sorry.
sceptical,
Can you have a normal conversation.
Either respond to an actual claim or at least clearly convey your own opinions.
You’ve done neither.
Your silly weather/climate queries are a useless merry go round.
Your last question:
“Do you feel climate plays any role in weather?” is ridiculous.
What’s next?
“Do you feel weather plays any role in climate?”
You’re insulting yourself.
That 1988 photo of Dr. Hansen is eerie. He looks like Agent Smith in The Matrix. Can you hear him saying “Mister Anderson…”
sceptical says:
June 26, 2011 at 6:21 am
“…. Do you think this is a proper understanding to teach your followers?”
You’re thinking it wrongly, being skeptical is not a cult. It works differently to CAGW you do not have a guru master and followers.
As the sun goes to sleep for the next 30 years we can already see those antarctic/arctic spirals of cold air reaching further into the subtropics. They will then become a more less permanent feature which will result in considerable expansion of the poles. See here in Vivo
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp8.html
> June 25, 2011 at 9:08 pm: Joshua says: ” Yeah – they’ll engage you in a factual discourse…well, when they aren’t comparing you to Nazis, Stalinists, Eugenicists, ”
As opposed to factual discourse of Global Warmers with their “Deniers”, “Radical Right-wingers”, “Court Jesters”, “Idiots”, …
It is impossible for “Deniers” (like myself) of AGW to have factual discourse when pro-pundits of AGW:
a) ignore/dismiss factual science (math, chemistry, physics) that counters AGW claims,
b) alter, delete, and cherry/lemon pick GW data,
c) declare the debate of Global Warming is over (period).
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 10:49 am
“So I would ask AGA skeptics this: if you think the level of CO2 is pretty irrelevant to earth’s climate, on the downside, what level would we have to reduce it to before we’d start seeing effects?”
Well lets see you have said yourself CO2 has increased 40% over what it has been for most of the Holocene. So reducing current levels by 40% would bring us what?
Oh I know we would still have the MWP, the Roman Warm Period and the Holocene peak.
At least one of those periods was quite a bit warmer than today and possibly the others. So we could obviosly reduce by more than 40% with no obvious definite cooling. Beyond that why worry if you reduced it by more than 60% most life on Earth would cease to exist.
I think there is a level where reducing CO2 would definitly bring a reduction but that this is likely to be at a level that would eliminate most animal life anyway so it is moot as we will not be alive to measure it.
So what do you think the level is that will bring definite cooling
Alan
R. Gates says, R. Gates says, R. Gates says, R. Gates says, R. Gates says, R. Gates says, R. Gates says, R. Gates says, R. Gates says, …yada, yada,yada.
But I repeat myself. Pardon please
sarc off/
Right on; I think you nailed it.
R. Gates says:
June 26, 2011 at 6:05 am
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?
Exactly. Which is why a 95% certainty that humans caused most of the temperature rise since the IPCC say we did is a fictional nonsense. They admit they have a “low level of scientific understanding” about potentially large forcings, but claim a 95% certainty?? Nonsense.
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.
As I said before, the quantity and latitudinal distribution of water in the atmosphere makes this impossible to call.
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.
What is the best estimate of co2 levels in 1900? and 1950? Moana loa gives ~315 for 1958. What caused the increase in surface T from ~1900 to ~1945? It is coincident with the positive phase of the IPO (interdecadal pacific oscillation). So is the warming from 1976 to 2005. How much is given to the IPO in models? Nothing. What a joke. But the IPCC expect us to believe co2 was the main driver? Get real.
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.
How prudent of you. Prudence is not scientific evidence however.
fredb says:
June 26, 2011 at 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.
“Non-responsive to the empirical studies mentioned, Smokey’s actual argument, other facts, and the implications of its own logic: assumes the existence of facts not existing – increased atmospheric humidity/optical density and deep ocean heat increase; denies existing facts – decrease in atmospheric humidity and no change in optical density, failure of Argo buoys to see heat transfer to the “deep ocean”, net increase in Antarctic and total sea ice; and essentially argues that since, despite facts, anything is still possible, everything imaginable must exist, therefore further disproving its own relevance to the real world.”
Well done! However, his heating up the room is not a bad idea. It should be standard practice for all government buildings in DC. Remove all air conditioning. That alone should reduce the total number of laws generated, most of which are worthless, IMO.
I haven’t read all of the comments here, but it should be noted, an excellent source of past weather events, with CO2 documented below 350 ppm is Steve Goddard’s http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/
While the site has a decided political bent, he literally has thousands of such examples. Here is his latest offering….. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/1948-low-co2-flood-wiped-oregon-town-off-the-map/
@ur momisugly Pamela, thank you. Reading your comments on WUWT is always a pleasure.
@ur momisugly sceptical, the petrified forest is in New Mexico, not Arizona. You could read up on it at this link. And yes, its climate has definitely changed. And somehow did it long before the Industrial Age and man’s emissions of CO2, and airport developments with temperature stations located there, and numerous computer models that don’t agree but predict calamitous warming.
As an aside, just how settled can the “science” be if the climate scientists require multiple models, and those models yield greatly different results? Somehow, I don’t recall there being multiple equations for the pull of gravity, which is that g = 32.2 ft per second per second (at the Earth’s surface at sea level). There are not 23 other models with results ranging from 25 to 45. I also don’t recall there being any false predictions from the (sole) gravitational model – the fact that satellites are launched into orbit successfully proves that. In addition, the fact that skyscrapers don’t fall from their own weight, and bridges are still standing, is further testament to the validity of the gravitational model.
When climate scientists’ climate models can match the validity, and sole model, of our gravitational model, then they can say their science is settled. Y’all have a LONG way to go on that one.
http://www.petrified.forest.national-park.com/info.htm
This must explain why the biosphere has been greening in recent decades.
I wish you would play another record. A trace rise of the trace gas co2 is good for life and not bad as you speculate. I see you have the warmist language up to speed: could, may, might, if……..
Here is what the harmfull co2 is capable of:
C02 And Increased Plant Growth
http://www.news.wisc.edu/17436
http://aspenface.mtu.edu/
http://news.duke.edu/2009/08/carbonseed.html
http://www.ias.sdsmt.edu/STAFF/INDOFLUX/Presentations/14.07.06/session1/myneni-talk.pdf
Roger Sowell,
Big difference between describing a dynamical system existing in a state spatio-temporal chaos and a physical law. Comparing climate dynamics to graviation is ridiculous.
R. Gates says:
June 26, 2011 at 5:31 am
“By your reasoning, CO2 could go to 3000 ppm or even 10,000 ppm with very little commensurate warming”
Gatesism #3 – Begin addressing 110 ppm increase and jump to an increase of 2720 ppm to even 9720 ppm and claim it is the same argument.
I will give you due credit Gates, you are quite the chameleon.
R. Gates says:
June 26, 2011 at 6:18 am
“WITHIN A RANGE CO2 is beneficial.”
As asked prior, what is your best guess as to the appropriate range of CO2?
” Go outside that range” .
Again, what is your best guess for this range?
I notice a typical Gates qualifier inserted here. “life and ecological systems as we’ve come to know them.” I will give you more credit, you are also quite the dodge ball artist.
@ur momisugly R. Gates,. re gravity law and such.
I refer to your statement earlier: “Big difference between describing a dynamical system existing in a state spatio-temporal chaos and a physical law. Comparing climate dynamics to graviation is ridiculous.”
No, it is not ridiculous. It is entirely analogous. One is a science in its infancy, necessarily so due to the short time of study, the even shorter time of adequate instrumentation via satellites, and computing power to solve the equations. The other is a mature science, with measurements taken over centuries, equation fully worked out (for normal conditions of Newtonian physics), and literally millions of tests that fully validate the model. I fully recognize that gravity at the quantum level is somewhat mysterious. Also, how gravity “works” across vast distances of space is not yet understood. But for ordinary purposes of life on Earth, and even sending rocket payloads to other planets, around the sun, and such, the gravity equation works quite well.
But, if you insist upon a more similar proven, complex science, then consider the multi-dimensional advanced process control arena, with highly non-linear, coupled dynamic equations solved hundreds of times per hour that invokes hundreds of variables, constraints, and thermodynamics plus various forms of optimization algorithms. If you are unfamiliar, you could do an internet search on the terms “dynamic matrix control.” These systems have been in use in many hundred thousands of applications since the early 1960s, almost 50 years of proven experience. The practitioners and their work can be found in the Journal of Process Control, among other places. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09591524
The field of Process dynamics uses proven physical, chemical, and process control science, plus computer science, to yield predictable, reliable results. If any one of these systems failed as miserably as the “settled” science of man-made global warming due to man’s emissions of CO2, there would be chaos, but it would be the chaos of refineries exploding, chemical plants erupting and spewing their hazardous contents over the populace, power plants shorting out and burning up, among other dire events. Instead, these complex systems run smoothly 24-7, under control and as planned.
Or, if you prefer a different complex system with non-linear, dynamic equations, one could use the radiative heat transfer equations used to design and operate high-temperature fossil-fuel-fired furnaces. Such furnaces are operating continuously in close to a million boilers, power generating plants, and process heating applications around the world. These use the well-known Stefan-Boltzman equations, with appropriate adjustments for water vapor and carbon dioxide for their radiative and absorptive properties, but more importantly, the mean beam length. No guessing, no multiple models with a range of outputs, no speculation as to what does and does not influence the outcome, just good hard empirical and theoretical science and engineering. They work. They have worked for literally millions of operating-hours worldwide, for many decades.
Climate science involving AGW? Not so much.
That was fun, R. Gates. Want to play again?
The headline was changed. It now reads:
I couldn’t find out when, or why, they changed the headline. I hope someone saved a screencap.
R. Gates says:
June 26, 2011 at 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.>>>
More misdirection R. Gates? And a rather weak attempt, if I might add. But if you insist:
1. In my explanation, I attributed 100% of the warming observed over the last century to CO2 emissions as the root cause. Having done so, the feedbacks, be they positive or negative, have been included in the calculations presented. Your suggestion that I failed to take them into consideration might be poor understanding on your part of the model presented, or perhaps just a disingenuous comment. either way it is completely misleading and totaly false.
2. Your comments seem to imply that you accept the decreasing direct effects of CO2 concentrations, but then also imply that increasing CO2 concentrations would still cause feedback effects even though the direct temperature effects are almost zero. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. If additional CO2 concentrations have minimal direct temperature effects (as you admit) then there are no feedback effects either since the feedback you claim is a direct consequence of the direct temperature increase, which you admit is nearly zero.
3. By my reasoning, in fact 3000pppm or 10,000ppm would be quite safe, and mother earth agrees with me. Ice core records and geological records are very clear that the earth has at times been at those concentrations in the past with very little difference in temperature to our current climate. In fact, greenhouse growers pump those concentrations and higher into their greenhouses to get maximum crop production. This suggests to anyone who has a modicum of understanding of evolutionary processes that the plants we take for granted as food crops evolved ind in climates similar to the temperatures and moisture we have today, but at much, much, MUCH higher concentrations of CO2. Which matches with the ice core records and the geological record.
Nice try, but total fail.
R. Gates says:
Comparing climate dynamics to graviation is ridiculous.
Hahaha, no, it sounds a bit too correct compared to your usual verbiage, Gates: maybe you too have gravy on the brain? But at least you’ve admitted the “begging the question” nature of your claim that the Earth is like a person’s body, despite the gravy present – which I suspect will cost you some of it.
[Snip. Your insults regarding our host are getting tedious. Take a time out. ~dbs, mod.]
Moderate Republican says:
You seem awfully fixated with R. Gates – maybe because his point is a simple and elegant one.
==========================
LOL.
“Fixated”, yes, because I bird-dog in on spin and holes in logic.
R Gates is the best example of that….just a wedgy waiting to happen.
[Evidently so are you].
If you define “simple and elegant” as being pure and utter sophistry…then, OK, you are correct.
BTW….you quote Lovelock. How does he reconcile the necessity of CO2? Would he starve Gaia of her needed CO2?
Duh. I didn’t think so.
Wedgy time.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Excellent, thorough dissection, Anthony. How fortunate that you had that hour to chill and then turn your anger into something so productive. I have bookmarked this post and will send it to everyone I read who squawks about the unprezzzzzidented storms of 2011. It won’t change any minds but it will at least muzzle their infernal, infantile racket for a few days.
BTW, Chrichton called Wirth & Hansen & Gore on their 1988 dog & pony show in 2004 – a year before State of Fear. And he didn’t have that video confession since it didn’t exist. The guy always did his homework.
Oh, and full disclosure: I voted for Wirth in the late ’70s.
I can admit that w/out too much embarrassment, recalling Churchill’s “If you’re not liberal when you’re young you have no heart; if you’re not conservative when you’re old you have no brain.”
Well I don’t consider myself a conservative; just a grouchy centrist, but I like to think WC would approve.