Here’s a 4th of July message from Joe Bastardi of WeatherBell regarding this idiotic piece in the NYT. Click the image at left for the story. He’ll be on Fox News tomorrow morning to talk more about it.
Then there’s the always dependably irrational Brad Johnson of ThinkProgress.org (you know, the guy that shamelessly and without anything other than his own irrational thought processes blamed tornadoes on “climate pollution deniers -voting states who challenged climate legislation) who writes:
Firework shows from Texas to Massachusetts have been canceled because of the deadly climate conditions…
Oh noes! Deadly climate conditions. Lock your doors, bar your windows, don’t let your children look at the sky! Yeah, I guess Brad has never heard colloquialism “hot as a firecracker on the Fourth of July”. Of course what is missing is historical context. How many Forth of July fireworks displays were canceled in 1934 during the drought, or 1988 during the California drought? Or has the trend in fireworks cancellation been accelerating (cuz it’s the trend that is important you know) with CO2 increase? But I digress, they aren’t interested in anything but the politically expedient moment.
Here’s one for Brad:
Climate doesn’t kill people, weather does.
But enough of the defective thinking over at TP.
Joe writes via email:
I will be on Fox and Friends tomorrow morning (6:52AM ET) to debunk the notion that outdoor grilling is a cause of global warming.
First of all, mans yearly contribution to the atmosphere of CO2 results in an increase the size of a hair on a 1km bridge. If we take the whole atmosphere, ocean system together, and realize most of the energy is in the oceans anyway, the amount man contributes is so small, its probably the width of a hair on a trip to a galaxy light years away. In addition CO2 is loved by plants, so I have a new motto for the fourth, Grill a steak, Help a Tree!!!!
But there is something more behind this. Not only is this another foolish global warming idea, but it’s an attack on a cherished 4th of July American ritual (summer too) and an American tradition that lasts into other season (tailgating) but its targeting meat eaters too. And when one looks at that, one sees why this should be interesting tomorrow morning since I am supposed to be on a set where we are grilling up some meat and I am going to make darn sure the adage bulk up or leave town is applied. I will bulk up, then leave town.
Now if you want to eat something different, be my guest. I am not going to stop you. But if you want to help green the planet, there is probably some tree out there that would take the greenhouse gasses that your grilling is adding and use them for its own purpose… so go on you red blooded American.
Grill that steak and help that Tree. Its the patriotic thing to do.
ciao for now
Thank God we don’t celebrate independance day in the UK, all that guilt I would be feeling.
Oh! I just remembered It’s my wifes birthday and she loves a barbecue.
John Finn says:
July 4, 2011 at 1:41 am
Before ~1850 the earth’s biosphere released ~150 GtC (not sure of the exact figures but ~150 GtC is in the right ‘ball park’) annually – but it also absorbed ~150 GtC annually so the atmospheric CO2 concentration remained roughly in equilibrium at ~280 ppm. Human CO2 production has distrurbed that equilibrium and since 1850 the CO2 concentration has risen to ~390 ppm.
===================================================
John that is absolutely amazing………
Every time in the past that temperatures have risen coming out of ice ages, like the LIA…
…CO2 levels have risen with it
I think most people confuse equilibrium with limiting…………..
In La Grande, Oregon : Barbeque, fireworks and listening to a local rocker/blues guy Al “Too Loud “MacLeod and the “Red Light Runners” at the University. Expect lots of Co2, Methane and
a (which seems to be the goal of the Greenies to stop) a good time…
Seriously? You have a tailgating season in the US? I guess it explains a lot…. 😉
In the UK, patio heaters and BBQs of this nature, have been blamed for gorebull warming…that is at least ONE fact! Shame about Gore and his mocumentary though. *sigh*
John Finn says: (July 4, 2011 at 1:41 am)
“Before ~1850…the atmospheric CO2 concentration remained roughly in equilibrium…since 1850 the CO2 concentration has risen to ~390 ppm.”
On the other hand Mr Finn “Plant stomata suggest that the pre-industrial CO2 levels were commonly in the 360 to 390ppmv range.” (from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/)
Supported by
Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
Warsaw, Poland
“A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution.”
and…
Wagner 1999, Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration.
“Our results falsify the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. SI-based CO2 reconstructions may even suggest that, during the early Holocene, atmospheric CO2 concentrations that were >300 ppmv could have been the rule rather than the exception.”
The post concludes that “The anthropogenic contribution to the carbon cycle since 1860 is minimal and inconsequential.
Which is pretty much what Mr Barsadi is saying.
And of course longer term they have been an order of magnitude higher – and life goes on.
Apologies to Mr Bastardi for misspelling his name in my last comment. I seemed to have lost a T somewhere. Oh dear… that’s how this whole 4 July thing started.
Have a good one and put an extra banger on the grill for me.
John Finn says:
July 4, 2011 at 1:41 am
Huh? I think your understanding of the carbon cycle might be a bit confused. It’s true that CO2 increases by ~1.8ppm per year and it’s true that humans produce ~5% of natural CO2 emission – but it’s this 5% which produces the 1.8 ppm rise.
and I think your understanding is mostly arm waving. None of the figures quoted has ever been empiriclly measured, unless of course you can prove differently.
Joe Bastardi says:
July 3, 2011 at 9:35 pm
No it’s not, and your numbers aren’t convincing. See below.
Yearly CO2 emissions are supposedly ~2.93e10 kg/year. You’re throwing around a bunch of numbers I don’t agree with…but who cares? I’ll give you the total mass of CO2 in both the oceans and the atmosphere… ~1.8e17 kg, so wow…you’re right, human emissions are minute…at only 160 ppb here. But wait! I wasn’t arguing the human emissions part, I was arguing your analogy of hair.
The average diameter of a human hair is 99 microns, that’s 9.9e-5 m. Compared to a 1-km bridge, that’s only 99 ppb…almost 2 times a lower than the human CO2 emissions compared to the mass of the CO2 in the oceans and atmosphere combined.
Let’s compare to Pluto…orbital radius is ~5.87e12 m. So a hair is only 1.7e-8 ppb of that! Sorry, you’re off by a factor of 9.5e9 (that’s 9.6 billion) even when assuming the oceans are 100% CO2.
And to your original analogy…the 3rd closest galaxy (and closest substantial one) is the Large Magellenic Cloud, supposedly ~157,000 light years away…or roughly 1.57e21 m away. One hair is about 6.3e-17 ppb of this, so you’re off by a factor of 2.5e18, or a factor of 2500000000000000000x (again, assuming all oceanic and atmospheric CO2).
Personally, I’d love to see this calculation done compared to your hair vs. next galaxy comment. One grilling might contribute more than that!!!! People just do not get the enormous orders of magnitudes in distance that we routinely work with.
Here’s the thing…I completely agree that a grilling episode won’t hurt anything. Heck, I tend to think that human CO2 emissions will only have a small impact on the environment (I believe in near-neutral feedbacks). But your analogy of hair vs. next galaxy is so bad you need to be called out on it to keep from embarrassing yourself by ever making it again.
-Scott
it’s time for a RGatesism……..
=================================================================
“I might add that the Precautionary Principle demands that the burden of proof is on the deniers to show that billions of tons of fossil carbon emissions each year that have cumulatively raised the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by 40% since the Industrial Revolution DOES NOT cause harm. Really, how can you change the concentration of a major atmospheric gas that much, especially one that already kept Earth from freezing solid at its pre-anthropogenic concentration, and ignore the consequences?”
==================================================================
280 ppm + 40% = 390 ppm (parts per million)
.028 + 40% = .039
a difference of .011 in 250 years
human contribution less than 5% of .011 = 0.00055
if humans contributed nothing .039 – 0.00055 = 0.03845
CO2 levels would still be .038 = 380 ppm
cutting all emissions in half = 0.000275
.039 – 0.000275 = .0387 = 387 ppm
Thanks Joe, Anthony.
Plenty of BBQ around here 🙂
Happy Independence Day!
Latitude says:
July 4, 2011 at 11:14 am
The <5% is of total CO2 emissions (or gross), not emissions-sinks (or net, which is what causes the raise you base your numbers on). While (I believe) it has not been conclusively shown that all of the net raise is due to mankind, at least base your argument on the supposed reality and not a straw man.
-Scott
Scott says:
July 4, 2011 at 1:28 pm
=================================
Thanks Scott, that was a lot of help
Now would you get that chip off your self righteous shoulder and ‘splain it?
Use the same numbers I used, and not those hyped up scary ones………
Here, let’s go right to the source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
“But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).”
======================================================================
29 GT X 60% = 17.4 GT ‘remains in atmosphere’
750 gigatons = 390 ppm
750 GT X 2.25% = ~17 GT
390 ppm X 2.25% = 8.8 ppm
.039 X 2.25% = 0.0008875
I said 0.00055, close enough
Now, if I’m wrong, don’t just say so, tell me why, I want to know………
Latitude says:
July 4, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Hi Lat,
Sorry if I came off a bit abrasive earlier. I’d just prefer that this mistake not be proliferated because it’s a poor argument and there are plenty of other skeptic arguments that have merit…no reason to do a straw man. I’ll try to rephrase both the scientists’ argument and yours to a common water-in-the-bucket analogy so you’ll see what I mean.
Here is the scientists’ argument: So say we have an arbitrarily large bucket…maybe 10 gallons. It has a small hole in the bottom (the sinks). Now, lets say Mr. Natural (played by Robert Redford) pours water into the bucket at a constant rate equal to 750 liters/day (the natural sources). However, the bucket does not overflow because the hole at the bottom is there. Because the rate of water leaving depends on the height of the fluid head (Torricelli’s Law), it can reach a steady-state volume of liquid in the bucket…in this case, 2.80 gallons. Note that now the outflow/sink is also at 750 liters/day. Now, lets say Mr. Mann comes up and starts adding in 29 liters/day on top of the the natural stuff (this is the anthropogenic source). The volume of water in the bucket begins to increase and at some point reaches 3.90 gallons, although this is likely not the steady-state volume, as the volume is still increasing. And what about the 40% of man’s input getting absorbed? Well, the fluid height is higher, so the “sink” now outputs 750 liters/day + 0.40*29 liters/day = 762 liters/day…but water is still accruing.
So that is what the scientists claim. No, I don’t know if it’s true, though I tend to believe it because I haven’t seen any significant evidence to the contrary. The biggest evidence against it would be data showing that past CO2 levels fluctuated quite a bit from 280 ppm (thus showing the system was not at a 280 ppm steady state). IIRC, stomata analyses may indicate this. Regardless of whether it’s right though, this is the AGW position and should be portrayed accurately. As you can see, even though man contributes only ~3% of the input on top of natural sources, it could be theoretically responsible for all of the increase. Now, it’s an entirely different argument as to whether man IS responsible for it…
Your argument (and apparently Joe Bastardi’s) is something like this:
750 liters/day = 2.80 gallons. Man adds an amount (29 liters/day), and only 60% of that stays, so more like 17 liters/day. 17 liters/day = ~2.3% of 750 liters/day, and 2.3% of 2.80 gallons = ~0.065 gallons…and that’s man’s contribution. Because we’ve increased by 1.1 gallons and only contributed ~0.065 gallons of it, that’s ~5.9% of the total observed increase.
I believe the problem here is confusing rates with concentrations. The input of CO2 is 750 Gt/year. This is not the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or anywhere else. That’s like saying because you drove 60 mph somewhere that you traveled 60 miles…it’s not true at all…the units/dimensions are different
—
I hope that clears it up and helps to keep people from making the same mistaken argument. Once I see a straw man argument (which happens from both sides), I tend to stop listening to that person. Joe only made it worse by making the absurd comparison of hair widths/ distance to another galaxy vs. manmade CO2 emissions in the atmosphere…that’s about as far off as comparing the volume of a bucket to the volume of a large lake or something (that’s off the top of my head, but should be a reasonable comparison…someone feel free to correct me).
-Scott
Scott;
A few issues:
1) The assumption that the “sinks” are linearly dependent on concentrations needs to be documented;
2) related, but since much of the CO2 is gobbled up by plants, this is something to be encouraged;
3) The 280 “set point” may be the starvation level at which plants begin to lose their ability to take up more CO2 into their tissues, and is hence not a “normal” to be advocated, but the very brink of disaster.
Since the LIA, and coincidentally the beginning of weather documentation and “meteorology” as a field, represent the coldest point in the Holocene, adopting that point as a baseline to be maintained seems perverse and self-destructive.
So whatever the human contribution to CO2 rise might be, it behooves us to maximize it, not minimize.
I notice there are one or two determined souls out there who are still not convinced that the increase in CO2 since ~1850 is due to fossil fuel burnimg.
Latitude says:
July 4, 2011 at 6:32 am
John that is absolutely amazing………
Every time in the past that temperatures have risen coming out of ice ages, like the LIA…
…CO2 levels have risen with it
I think most people confuse equilibrium with limiting…………..
The temperature change between glacial and interglacial periods is 6-8 deg C. From ice core records we know this caused ~100 ppm change in CO2 concentration. The temperature change since 1850 has been ~0.7 deg , i.e. less than one degree. It’s not the warming that’s caused the ~110ppm rise since 1850.
Phil’s Dad says:
July 4, 2011 at 9:30 am
On the other hand Mr Finn “Plant stomata suggest that the pre-industrial CO2 levels were commonly in the 360 to 390ppmv range.” (from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/)
The problem with the various alternative measures of CO2 is that they are not from consistent locations. The CO2 concentration in the middle of London, Paris or New York is probably 450-500 ppm. Mauna Loa is remote enough to measure just the background (or well-mixed) CO2 levels. It’s not just Mauna Loa either. Several other remote measuring stations around the world, e.g. antarctica, tell the same story. They all agree to within a few ppm.
In a nutshell: The large shifts (upwards and downwards) in CO2 concentration that are shown in some records (e.g Beck) are not representative of the global situation. A 1 ppm in CO2 globally represents an increase of ~2GtC increase in atmospheric carbon.
Look at the C13/C12 ratio data . That alone is siufficient evidence that fossil fule burning is the cause. Read Willis’ post here and check out the close relationship between human emissions and atmospheric concentrations. Note that concentrations increased during the 20th century – even during cooling periods
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/some-people-claim-that-theres-a-human-to-blame/
If that’s not good enough for you read the 4 Ferdinand Engelbeen posts. Willis and Ferdinand are not, by any means, CAGW proponents but like any other reasonable analyst they’ve reached the same undeniable conclusion.
Latitude says:
July 4, 2011 at 2:14 pm
29 GT X 60% = 17.4 GT ‘remains in atmosphere’
750 gigatons = 390 ppm
750 GT X 2.25% = ~17 GT
390 ppm X 2.25% = 8.8 ppm
.039 X 2.25% = 0.0008875
I said 0.00055, close enough
Now, if I’m wrong, don’t just say so, tell me why, I want to know………
You’re wrong be cause (a) you’ve confused the mass of Carbon and CO2 (equ 1 highlighted) and, more importantly, (b) you’ve introduced a completely arbitrary and unceccessary calculation (equ 5 highlighted).
I haven’t got time to research accurate numbers now, but the following is a very, very rough back-of-the-envelope calculation.
Atm CO2 = ~400ppm = 800 GtC
i.e. 1 ppm = 2GtC (it’s actually 2.13 GT C – but no matter)
Each year humans burn ~8GtC which ordinarily would add ~4ppm to the atmosphere. However, around 50% of this is sequestered so the annual net increase is ~2 ppm. The actual average figure is currently ~1.8 ppm, but my sequestration rate is a bit iffy and my GtC/ppm conversion is a slightly off but you get the general idea.
John Finn says:
July 5, 2011 at 3:07 am
I’m not quite sure where you’re coming from John, but I refuse to get excited about a small change that is measured in parts per MILLION.
Whichever way you look at it, it is a ridiculously small amount, and I refuse to get worried about it.
In many years time I’m sure historians and scientists alike will marvel and laugh at the Western World’s current obsession about man-made CO2. I am also sure they will marvel at foolish people really refusing to light a barbecue in the vain hope that such actions will counteract the (relatively) massive amounts of CO2 produced by Chinese industry.
I had a barbecue here in London last weekend. It was great.
Thanks guys……it’s clear as mud now
…I agree with Andy
It’s a whole whopping 40% increase of nothing…..
280 ppmillion + 40% = 390 ppmillion
.028 + 40% = .039
It’s a whole whopping increase of 0.011
40% of nothing is still nothing
I forgot to say in my last post:
Happy Independence day to you in the (rather spiffing) United States of America,
From a chap in an outpost of the (distinctly authoritarian and un-democratic) United States of Europe.
Best wishes,
Andy
They sure cancelled them here! But then when lightening is striking, they tend to get nervous about asking people to brave the rain to watch a light show that pales in comparison to what Ma Nature can dish up!
Andy says:
July 5, 2011 at 8:53 am
John Finn says:
July 5, 2011 at 3:07 am
I’m not quite sure where you’re coming from John, but I refuse to get excited about a small change that is measured in parts per MILLION.
I’m afraid this is another nonsensical argument. Emission spectra clearly show that the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere has a significant influence on outgoing LW radiation – particularly in the higher, colder and drier regions of the troposphere. Rather than take my word for it read this CA post by Steve McIntyre.
http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/08/sir-john-houghton-on-the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect/
Scroll down the page to Fig 3 which shows a graph of an upwelling spectrum. Underneath Steve has written the following
However, if you are not convinced by Steve’s observations then try 380 ppmv of arsenic oxide in your tea or coffee. Actually – DON’T . Jack Barrett suggests a safer, simpler experiment, i.e.
There are literally thousands of examples where a small concentration produces a significant effect.
Latitude says:
July 5, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Thanks guys……it’s clear as mud now
…I agree with Andy
Ok so you agree with Andy …but not with Steve McIntyre, Jack Barrett and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands scientists working in a multitude of related disciplines – and I don’t just mean CAGW proponents.
I’ll stick with the science-based opinions if that’s alright by you.
Latitude says:
July 5, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Lat, please give me some detail on where my explanation fell short and I will try to make it clearer. If you’re confused about rates vs. mass, consider a similar example. Go run 5 mph (8 kph) for 2 sec. Not so bad, right? Now, instead, go run 5 miles (or 8 km)…which would you rather do? They clearly aren’t the same. The 3% comes from the RATE of input, and because the rate of output doesn’t change as much, there is a net accumulation…what I was trying to show with my bucket example. Please explain how this is not clear.
Horrible argument. 280 ppm is not nothing, it’s actually quite a lot. Most toxins kill in much lower concentrations. How would you like it if the atmosphere had 280 ppm hydrogen sulfide, sulfur hexafluoride, radon, or heck, uranium hexafluoride? Life would not exist, period. And if you think that 280 ppm is nothing in terms of absorption spectra, try dissolving 280 ppm of food coloring in water (that’d be ~1 drop in 5 oz of water…160 mL for you metric people). Can you see it?
The too low to matter argument is very poor and actually the opposite of what’s closer to the truth…that the already high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere mean that many absorption bands are already saturated, reducing the effectiveness of the greenhouse effect. So basically, you’d do better to argue that CO2 concentrations are too high!
-Scott
John Finn says:
July 5, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Scott says:
July 5, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Sorry guys, your arguments are starting to get a bit lame.
CO2 is not:
arsenic oxide, hydrogen sulfide, sulfur hexafluoride, radon, uranium hexafluoride
or…….
…….. milk
So you can’t compare them to CO2.
Let me try and explain:
I wouldn’t like to drink anything with arsenic in it, but I’ll quite happily drink a Coke chock-full of fizzy CO2.
Equally, you might be able to see milk in a drink, but so what? If CO2 was coloured we’d see it too. But it isn’t, so we can’t. That still doesn’t make CO2 dangerous.