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
Scott, that is so lame, there are no words to describe something that’s as lame as what you just said………
Scott said: “Most toxins kill in much lower concentrations.”
Jez Scott, almost everything on the face of this earth evolved when CO2 levels were in the thousands and several thousands. There’s a reason those periods are called optimums. CO2 is obviously not a toxin in any concentration that we could achieve even if we tried to.
And as far as your absorption spectra, if you think “many absorption bands are already saturated” then the party’s over. What’s the problem? We can raise CO2 levels as high as we want now…..
I wouldn’t have known that nothing survived the Eocene Epoch Optimum if you hadn’t told me………
Andy and Lat, I really expected better from you, you’re making us skeptics look foolish!
Guys, you are the ones that said that ppm-level stuff was not a problem:
Latitude says:
July 5, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Andy says:
July 5, 2011 at 8:53 am
Then when examples of ppm-level compounds causing problems are presented, you push them aside? No, CO2 is not a “toxin” at those concentrations, but that wasn’t the point and you know it. Let’s look at what Andy said:
Andy says:
July 5, 2011 at 3:40 pm
But CO2 is NOT optically transparent at all wavelengths, thus it IS colored – and that’s the point! What is so hard to understand about that?
And Lat:
Latitude says:
July 5, 2011 at 6:07 pm
I suggest you ask the Apollo 13 astronauts about that and see what they have to say.
But you two have apparently succeeded here, because you’ve entirely gotten the conversation away from the point.
Here is the point:
Lat – my bucket analogy is not perfect but more than adequate for showing how humans could have caused all of the increase from 280 to 390 ppm. It does not say we did, nor does it say that 390 ppm is dangerous (and I think anyone that’s seen me post here or at other sites knows that I don’t think 390 is dangerous). If you still disagree, then post something showing why you disagree or stop spreading info that makes skeptics look bad (that humans only contributed a tiny amount to the rise in CO2 conc).
Also Lat, you need to choose one – is the CO2 concentration so low that it doesn’t matter or so high that it doesn’t matter? It can’t be both. And just because a band is saturated doesn’t mean CO2 can’t have an effect. If you don’t understand how, then read up or do the math yourself, because otherwise you’re making skeptics look bad.
Andy – What matters isn’t the toxicity (or threat) of a substance or its concentration, it’s the combination of the two. Heavily toxic compounds like arsenic or radon can kill at sub-ppm levels. That successfully refutes you’re low conc argument. A compound like water takes much higher amounts to kill, but extended total immersion or a sudden gush of it in a flood is deadly. So that refutes your harmless argument. CO2 falls somewhere in between, and you need to realize that.
Do you guys even realize that I’m not a CAGWer? By many people’s standards, I’m a skeptic. And other knowledgable skeptics would agree with what I’ve said – people like McIntyre, Lubos Motl, and Roy Spencer all agree with the radiative heat theory analysis that has been performed (and suggests a climate sensitivity of only 1.1 C/doubling IIRC). Why don’t you two agree with this? I just don’t get it, and it makes people here at WUWT and skeptics in general look bad. From my point of view, you two are pulling a Chris Mooney and refusing to learn any of the science and just picking your point of view for some other reasons (his appear to be political, I don’t know what yours are.)
Very disappointing.
-Scott
Jeez Scott,
As Lat said, CO2 levels have been MUCH higher in the past, so I think we can stop worrying about life on Gaia.
Working levels of CO2 in submarines average out at about 4000ppm, so let’s not get too worried about spaceships.
“many absorption bands are saturated” (the logarithmic thing – the warmists hate that being mentioned, a bit like the missing hotspot)
What I (and I believe Lat) are trying to get across to you is that this obsession with man-made CO2 is ridiculous. The past decade has seen flat-lined temperatures whilst CO2 levels have continued to rise, so no matter how much people stress about “toxicity levels” we seem to be doing fine. (Surely as a sceptic you’d agree with that?)
I’m a scuba diver, and if I started comparing CO2 to milk, my diving pals would think I’d taken leave of my senses. We’re far more worried about real ecological problems like over-fishing than a panic about temps changing by tenths of a degree. (The over-fishing ruins our under-water sight-seeing).
what Andy said………………
It’s not uncommon for homes and businesses to have CO2 levels over 2000 ppm ………
…people live in that all day long
Riddle me this……..
At the end of the Eocene temperatures started falling, while CO2 levels continued to rise.
CO2 levels reached somewhere around 1500-2000 ppm, some people have said even higher.
Yet, the planet went into another ice age/glaciation period anyway.
……..obviously, CO2 is not driving the bus
Guys, we’re arguing entirely different things here now.
I am NOT arguing that current levels of CO2 are causing massive problems or will in the future. What I’m arguing is that the “it’s a very low concentration and so doesn’t matter” and “man has contributed very little to the increase in CO2” (those quotes are to define the arguments, I don’t think anyone said them exactly like that) arguments aren’t just wrong but make skeptics look bad too. You don’t seem to be bringing these issues up now, so can you agree to not use those arguments anymore?
And one thing I’m curious about…you’ve shifted the argument to CO2 concentrations way in the past. I want to know why you’re confident in those concentrations but not in radiative heat transfer theory. Radiative theory is fully testable in the lab via empirical observations…aka, it’s hard science. Contrast this to historical science, which always requires several unverifiable assumptions in order to operate. For instance, for the CO2 concentrations in the past using ice cores, there are the assumptions of no net gain/loss of CO2 in the ice or diffusion of CO2 in the ice (or if those are assumed to have happened, then a value must be assumed for that amount). And on top of that, there are always the unverifiable assumptions going into the radiometric dating…that the decay rate has been constant, that the ratio of parent/daughter products at t=0 is the assumed value, and no parent or daughter products entered are left the system in an unexpected way during the decay process. Given all that, I’d say that radiative transfer theory is on much more solid ground than any historical science. So why the preference to believe the historical science over the operational science?
-Scott
We’re making skeptics look bad…..
but comparing CO2 to hydrogen sulfide, sulfur hexafluoride, uranium hexafluoride arsenic or radon is perfectly sane?
You’re the one shifting the conversation all over the place.
No one said they believed anything more than the other. I mentioned a wide range of possibilities.
When anyone knows enough to model the entire system in “the lab”, get back to me.
Starting with modeling in “the lab” high CO2 levels, with all that radiative transfer, leading to another ice age……………..because that’s real life and it’s happened more than once
Scott,
I agree with you entirely about radiative transfer. It is, as you say, “solid science” i.e. good, hard-nosed, easily tested, empirical stuff. Not the GIGO cr*p from some wishy-washy model.
However, I have yet to see any empirical results that demonstrate we are undergoing run-away warming due to Man’s CO2 production. In fact, the last decade of flat-lined temperatures is empirical evidence that suggests otherwise, and this is why I refuse to waste time comparing CO2 to radon, arsenic, or milk.
Lat – when did I shift the conversation all over the place? You’ve brought up CO2 “driving the bus” and ancient CO2 levels. My original comments were about the following:
You said ppm level stuff didn’t matter (“40% of nothing is still nothing”). I showed that the “nothing” can matter in plenty of situations, thus refuting your argument. So stop using that argument. If you want to show that 400 ppm of CO2 has no effect, that’s great. Just don’t claim that ppm levels are “nothing”, it’s so incredibly wrong.
You totally screwed up the AGW believers’ argument and then tore it down…a straw man. I explained what their argument is, something you never responded to. I ask again – what is wrong with the bucket example and how can I make it clearer (rather than “clear as mud”)? If you understand it, then please stop using that straw man argument.
And please show me where I “compared” CO2 to the above chemical compounds. I used those as examples of ppm level concentrations mattering. Just look at the paragraph where I mentioned them…CO2 isn’t mentioned in the entire paragraph! So I was comparing them to your (now clearly refuted) argument of “40% of nothing is still nothing”. Heck, I should have used CO2 as the example. Anyone that’s used an IR spectrometer in organic chemistry can tell you that fluctuations in the CO2 concentration change the appearance of the spectrum. That’s analogous to my food coloring example which you seem to have ignored. Is that because you now realize that ppm-level compounds have an effect? If so, then stop using your argument of ppm levels not mattering!
And I still think it’s funny that you seem to think that radiative transfer theory is invalid outside of the lab (what laws of physics change in the atmosphere?) but you believe ancient ice core CO2 concentrations, why is that? Also, you imply that high CO2 concentrations lead to an ice age.
How did high CO2 lead to an ice age? Correlation is not causation…I’m sure you’re fine with that when arguing with CAGWers.
Also, do you think Roy Spencer’s hypotheses on the climate are valid? They’re based off of the assumption that the radiative transfer results are correct you know.
-Scott
LOL you’re a hoot….
40% of nothing is still nothing…is not the same as doesn’t matter
Life is like a bucket of chocolates….
I said that the ‘results’, not the actions, you are attributing to radiative transfer theory is only valid inside of the lab….
I do not believe ice cores CO2 or temperatures reconstructions are very accurate, I do know that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and that even at those high CO2 levels, the planet went into another ice age….
“How did high CO2 levels lead to another ice age?” dunno, you tell me………according to radiative transfer theory in “the lab” ……………
Scott, I agree, you’re 100% right. CO2 is like arsenic and food coloring. And the CO2 cycle on this planet is like a bucket with a hole in it. People die all the time on submarines when CO2 levels are 4000ppm and in homes and offices at ~2000ppm….and that high CO2 levels stop the planet from going into ice ages……..
Happy now? I’m done, but thanks for your time…………
Latitude says:
July 6, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Well, none of that successfully addresses my points earlier, so I guess I’m done too.
-Scott
Latitude says:
July 6, 2011 at 12:24 pm
I said that the ‘results’, not the actions, you are attributing to radiative transfer theory is only valid inside of the lab….
CO2 absorbs LWIR radiation in the atmosphere. We can see this clearly from emission spectra observed by satellites. What’s more CO2 is highly influential at the drier, colder altitudes of the upper troposphere where there is very little water vapour. This is key to the CO2 effect.
I do not believe ice cores CO2 or temperatures reconstructions are very accurate, ..
Can we just take it that you don’t believe anything which contradicts your point of view.
I do know that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and that even at those high CO2 levels, ..
Oh – so you do believe in some reconstructions – or is that just the bits you happen to like. Perhaps you could clarify.