Guest post by Joe Bastardi, WeatherBell
With the coming Gorathon to save the planet around the corner ( Sept 14) , my stance on the AGW issue has been drawing more ire from those seeking to silence people like me that question their issue and plans. In response, I want the objective reader to hear more about my arguments made in a a brief interview on FOX News as to why I conclude CO2 is not causing changes of climate and the recent flurry of extremes of our planet. I brought up the First Law of Thermodynamics and LeChateliers principle.
The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred in many forms but can not be created or destroyed.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume those that believe CO2 is adding energy to the system are correct. Okay, how much? We have a gas that is .04% of the atmosphere that increases 1.5 ppm yearly and humans contribute 3-5% of that total yearly, which means the increase by humans is 1 part per 20 million. In a debate, someone argued just because it is small doesn’t mean it is not important. After all even a drop with 0.042 gm of arsenic could kill an adult. Yes but put the same drop in the ocean or a reservoir and no one dies or gets ill.
Then there is the energy budget. The amount of heat energy in the atmosphere is dwarfed by the energy in y the oceans. Trying to measure the changes from a trace gas in the atmosphere, if it were shown to definitively play a role in change (and it never has), is a daunting task.
NASA satellites suggest that the heat the models say is trapped, is really escaping to space, that the ‘sensitivity’ of the atmosphere to CO2 is low and the model assumed positive feedbacks of water vapor and clouds are really negative. Even IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth said “Climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is…the fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
We are told that the warming in the period of warming from 1800 was evidence of man-made global warming. They especially point to the warming from 1977 to 1998 which was shown by all measures and the fact that CO2 rose during those two decades. And we hear that this warming has to be man-made with statements like “what else could it be?”
However, correlation does not mean causation. Indeed inconveniently despite efforts to minimize or ignore it, the earth cooled from the 1940s to the late 1970s and warming ceased after 1998, even as CO2 rose at a steady pace. Some have been forced to admit some natural factors may play a role in this periodic cooling. If that is the case, why could these same natural factors play a key role in the warming periods too.
Ah, but here is where the 1st law works just fine. After a prolonged period of LACK OF SUNSPOT ACTIVITY, the world was quite cold around 1800. The ramping up of solar activity after 1800 to the grand maximum in the late twentieth century could be argued as the ultimate cause of any warming through the introduction of extra energy into the oceans, land and then the atmosphere.
The model projections that the warming would be accelerating due to CO2 build up are failing since the earth’s temps have leveled off the past 15 years while CO2 has continued to rise.
Then there is a little matter of real world observation of how work done affects the system it is being done on. When one pushes an empty cart and then stops pushing, the cart keeps moving until the work done on it is dissipated. How is it, that the earth’s temperature has leveled off, if CO2, the alleged warming driver continues to rise?
The answer is obvious. They have it backwards. It is the earth’s temperature (largely the ocean) which is driving the CO2 release into the atmosphere. That is what the ice cores tell us and recently that Salby showed using isotopes in an important peer review paper. These use real world observations not tinker toy models nor an 186 year old theory that has never been validated.
Finally, as to the matter of LeChateliers principle. The earth is always in a state of imbalance and weather is the way the imbalances are corrected in the atmosphere. Extreme weather occurs when factors that increase imbalances are occurring. The extremes represent an attempt to return to a state of equilibrium.
The recent flurry of severe weather – for instance, record cold and snow, floods, tornadoes,, is much more likely to be a sign of cooling rather than warming. The observational data shows the earth’s mid levels have cooled dramatically and ocean heat content and atmospheric temperatures have been stable or declined. Cooling atmospheres are more unstable and produce greater contrasts and these contrasts drive storms, storms drive severe weather. A warmer earth produces a climate optimum with less extremes as we enjoyed in the late 20th century and other time in history when the great civilizations flourished.
Time will provide the answer. Over the next few decades, with the solar cycles and now the oceanic cycles changing towards states that favor cooling, there should be a drop in global temperatures as measured by objective satellite measurement, at least back to the levels they were in the 1970s, when we first started measuring them via an objective source. If temperatures warm despite these natural cycles, you carry the day. We won’t have to wait the full 20-30 year period. I believe we will have our answer before this decade is done.
UPDATE: I’m told that a follow up post – more technically oriented will follow sometime next week. Readers please note that the opinion expressed here is that of Mr. Bastardi, at his request. While you may or may not agree with it, discuss it without resorting to personal attacks as we so often see from the Romm’s and Tamino’s of the nether climate world. Also, about 3 hours after the original post, I added 3 graphics from Joe which should have been in the original, apologies. – Anthony
As far as the arctic ice, it looks like it will get to 4.75 5 million which means that forecast was not on target. As you can see I admit it. . But how do you hammer me on being wrong there, and give people who say it would be gone by now a pass ( from 10 years ago). And now they are admitting, because they see the increase in thick ice, that perhaps there is no tipping point. We are in no danger of losing the ice cap, and it will return to where it was as the pdo and amo, and especially the amo, cool in the coming years
But again, on the red herring that I am trying to show co2 is in this debate. IN THE REAL WORLD
We add co2 to real life greenhouses not to keep them warmer, but to feed the plants. My point is its not contributing to any trapping, because there is no extra trapping occurring except for the natural affects that have ruled this planet since the start of time, that you, me or Al Gore can not do anything about, partly because we did not create the whole thing ( I am speaking for you and I, I dont know if Gore believes that he cant influence it since he does seem to think he can be involved in its control) Its addition to the system is nothing, or cant be calculated its so small. Years ago, in the giddy days of the inception of the
Carbon trading exchange, people getting involved thought they were going to get rich by essentially “trading air” ( They should probably have gone after water vapor, a more prominent gas and one that can actually be linked)
But we can measure temps all we want, and argue all we want, its a red herring until we can actually quantify the energy of entire ocean/atmosphere system and what it “should” be.
.None of these people have told me what the perfect climate or co2 level is anyway. They never explain why 350 ppm is ideal, or what their proposed effect, if we get there, is going to do to the climate. And if its true its causing warming, then the resultant cooling, would cause problems also. That is why this is such a strange argument. There is not forecasted ideal answer, nor will they give you one. In addition to asking what would it take for you to see you are wrong in the longer term, please I beg of you tell me what the perfect climate balance looks like and tell me the global results of such a thing. But we never see or hear any of that.
In the end, I am confident rational people will see and understand co2’s influence on the climate is virtually nothing. As any greenhouse owner would tell you, the the prime reason they pump co2 into their greenhouse is for it to do what it does best.. help plants grow because it is plant food. And its increase will help “green” the planet..providing it doesnt turn so cold that we have another mini ice age on our hands like the last time the sun went into the tank.( while I think we are returning to the 1970s over the next 20-30 years, and that is my forecast to be tested, there are those that do think we will be much colder)
The most telling example of co2 and plants/temps is the fact that co2 levels jump each winter when its cold, because the foliage in the northern hemisphere , where there are more plants, decreases, but falls off in summer when its hotter but more plants are growing. It is reactive to the environment it is in, not proactive and forcing the action. And that is the crux of this argument as to its affect on the total energy budget of the earth.. which has never been quantified in an accurate, agreed upon way anyway.
So the challenge is.. let us all know what the total energy is in the total system, propose a climate optimum for that, then actually see if co2 has anything to do with it. The idea we are working on 3 without having 1 or 2 done first should instantly raise eyebrows in the debate
ciao, cumpares
Joe Bastardi says:
August 12, 2011 at 6:48 pm
“Yet I dont get a nickel for sticking my neck out on this issue ( contrary to the nonsense that is printed about guys like me being in the pocket of this group or that), except fighting for what I believe is the right answer. Thats my agenda, get it right. And if I am right, then people will remember who fought for what was right, and who simply just swam with the tide because it seemed convenient and everyone else was doing it, and making a buck off it at that. Its That simple. Its just a big weather forecast to me, and I am sorry if that insults the intelligence of those who want it to be something that is so complex, so tough, that no one else need apply but those intelligent enough to understand that they know better than everyone else, and because of that are entitled to force everyone else to their position.”
I love that statement. It reminds me on the statement given ~900 years ago Omar Khayyam has written in one of his books:
“I always desired to investigate the various classes of Algebraic equations and discriminate, by means of proofs classes which admit a solution and which do not, because I found that such equations occur in solving some difficult problems. But, on account of adverse circumstances, I could not pursue the subject. We are in the danger that learned men
would all perish. The few that remain have to undergo great hardships. Owing to the negligence of Hikmat (Science) in these times, the really learned men cannot find the opportunity and means for investigation. On the other hand the pseudo-Hakims of these days would represent the truth as false. They do not rise above deprecating others and self-show. They do not use what little they know except for the Requirements of a wretched carcass. On finding a person who devotes his whole life to the acquisition of truth and repudiation of falsehood and hypocrisy, a person who shuns selfishness and cunning, these pseudo-Hakims will only jeer and threaten him.
Omar Khayyam (page 76)
Obeisance.
V.
John B, if you see tne 3rd line of 2nd paragraph of Joe’s comment in the comments section, you’ll see he states ” I will admit I am wrong if it rises,” . That should answer your question.
Joe got the HadCRUT/CO2 chart from here: http://www.c3headlines.com/ ….if you just want to scroll thru the ‘C3’ headlines instead, go here: http://www.c3headlines.com/c3-just-the-headlines.html
Joe (Anthony?) used our May chart, here is the updated June chart: http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/08/hadcrut-global-temperatures-june-2011-15-year-span-of-immaterial-insignificant-non-accelerating-warm.html
Finally, one can view our entire collection of charts via this link: http://www.c3headlines.com/chartsimages.html
C3 editor
Nice essay Joe, thanks for being here. I want to highlight this paragraph of yours:
Your words demolish their sneaky and deliberate attempt to associate CO2 with cyanide, arsenic and other poisons du jour. If I may make it even clearer, when the AGW cultist says: ‘even a few ppm of cyanide can kill you’ (and they do say this), they are relatively describing cramming the millions of ton of atmospheric CO2 into the lungs of a single person, not the ultra diluted scenario you mention. Meanwhile, that same AGW cultist routinely experiences 200% or 400% or more CO2 when they drive in their closed window car or any other number of scenarios on a daily basis.
If this were a pure scientific dispute you would be correct Joe, however this is not pure science. There is no Null Hypothesis for a religious death cult, they won’t describe one, nor will they accept one. I have said that even if there were a clear repeat of the 1960’s-1970’s with clear cooling and epic winters they will not even acknowledge it. Sure, a small fraction of ‘lukewarmers’ will come to their senses, but the cult will just go underground until the next warming cycle 30 years or so past that and torture our grandchildren instead. We climate realists must come to grips with this. They are re-constituted luddites and no doubt preceded them as well and have likely been present since a caveman brought fire home for the first time.
Thank you for this explanation. You have put into words what I (and probably many others) have instinctively thought all along. This comment and one by Stephen Wilde below has really put into focus the ‘CO2 magic gas principle’ for lack of a better term.
Regarding the saturation effect, it occurs to me that some very carefully designed experiments with enclosed systems using a heat source, regulated CO2 input and thermal sensors would be valuable. How hard could it be to keep adding CO2 until the effect saturates? Likewise the duration should be demonstrable by switching the heat source off. If such experiments have already been done they certainly have not received enough attention.
I would like to know one simple thing: given two identical Earths excepting that Earth-1 is at our level of CO2 while Earth-2 has no CO2, and then we switched off the sun. What would be the cooling lag before they were temperature identical, presumably at or near absolute zero? Would Earth-1 lag by one day or month or year or what?
Gates, just for once please complete your thought. Specifically, answer this simple question:
If humans had gone extinct 20 kya (or anytime really), what would be the CO2 ppm today?
Okay, how much? We have a gas that is .04% of the atmosphere that increases 1.5 ppm yearly and humans contribute 3-5% of that total yearly, which means the increase by humans is 1 part per 20 million
=========
Not necesssarily contribution do not have to be proportional to the size in the cycle flow . Would have been nice to get this hole in the argument.
Lazyteenager:
“The Salby paper fails because it predicts that ocean CO2 is going down when in fact it’s is going up.”
Interesting comment, said with much conviction behind it. Sadly though I doubt you have read what Salby has to say in his paper as it has not yet been published. There again, you might be psychic.
Joe Bastardi says
But again, on the red herring that I am trying to show co2 is in this debate. IN THE REAL WORLD
We add co2 to real life greenhouses not to keep them warmer, but to feed the plants. My point is its not contributing to any trapping, because there is no extra trapping occurring except for the natural affects that have ruled this planet since the start of time, that you, me or Al Gore can not do anything about, partly because we did not create the whole thing..
Henry@Joe Kirklin
perhaps I can help a little bit by making you understand how CO2 both cools and warms the planet
– by an as yet unknown but, indeed, probably a very small amount –
at least try to understand the basic principle, it may help you shed some more light on this subject…
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
Deech56:
Your posts at August 13, 2011 at 2:29 am and August 13, 2011 at 2:32 am say, respectively:
“If Co2 is rising because of increasing temperatures, and if temperatures are leveling off, why is CO2 still rising?”
And
“It seems that the arguments by Bastardi and Salby are not coherent. One cannot accept both.”
They are completely coherent. Read the still-continuing discussion in the thread on WUWT at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/05/the-emily-litella-moment-for-climate-science-and-co2/
You are assuming the two effects are coincident. But the long-term change in atmospheric CO2 follows the long-term temperature rise by ~30 years: this is indicated both by analyses of the trends and observations of the data.
Richard
.
John Peter says:
August 13, 2011 at 1:13 am
“R. Gates says:
August 12, 2011 at 8:50 pm
The answer is obvious. They have it backwards. It is the earth’s temperature (largely the ocean) which is driving the CO2 release into the atmosphere. That is what the ice cores tell us and recently that Salby showed using isotopes in an important peer review paper.
_____
C’mon Joe, you can’t honestly believe this, or perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying. Are you suggesting that the last several century rise in CO2 is not due to the result of human burning of fossil fuels? I mean, it’s one thing to suggest that the Earth’s global temperature may not be as sensitive to the rise in CO2 as some would suggest, and I might even agree with that, but it is another thing entirely to suggest that human activity has not been the root cause of the rise in CO2 from 280 ppm to our current 390+ ppm.”
I doubt if any sane person would question the position that mankind have released (and are releasing) CO2 into the atmosphere to add to that released by oceans and other natural sources. The issue R Gates does not address (and others too) is where do you stand on the central issue raised by Mr Bastardi? Do you believe temperatures will go up, stand still or reduce beteween today and year 2020? And if they stand still or go down, do you agree that the AGW theory (and CAGW alarmism) has been falsified? I would like to hear a direct answer from R Gates and others questioning Mr Bastardi’s reasoning. That is the key question.
At least R Gates is now prepared to admit that CAGW represents alarmism and any impact of CO2 may be more in line with what Dr Spencer and Professor Lindzen propose.
————-
As there are multiple, and sometimes opposite forcings that can affect climate over any given time frame, I think if one wants to understand what has happened, and what may happen, one needs to look at the sum total of forcings and their related positive and negative feedbacks to see what may be expected. Some forcings act very slowly but very powerfully, such as Milankovitch, and others act very rapidly and very strongly, such as volcanoes. So it is somewhat dangerous and unscientific to simply say “if warming or cooling does not take place over such and such a period, then x must be true or false” unless you very carefully spell out the overall conditions of the test period looking at the sum total of forcings. Yet it seems many are not willing to accept the obvious need to look at the sum total of forcings and their related feedbacks, and evev more so, we still don’t know what the sum total of forcings and their feedbacks are, and that is exactly what climate science is about.
But not to dodge the question, but with the above as a point of reference, CO2 works with other GH gases to keep the planet warmer than it would be without these gases. Human activity has put more CO2 into the atmosphere then we would expect to see during this point of a Milankovitch driven interglacial. As CO2 increases, we would expect temperatures to increase as well, either directly or from positive feedbacks. Additionally, there is the hysteresis already in the system from the additional CO2 added over the past several centuries. So, simply considering CO2, we would expect the temperatures to be higher, when averaged over the decade in the next few decades ahead, and indeed, in the century ahead. But as my point of the first part of this post made, we need to look back at the decade and see what other forciings were also present that may have countered the warming from CO2, or perhaps even added to it. Some of these other forcings that can act on decadal time scales or shorter include solar effects, volcanoes, and other human effects such as aerosol and black carbon emissions.
RobB says:
August 13, 2011 at 5:30 am
Lazyteenager:
“The Salby paper fails because it predicts that ocean CO2 is going down when in fact it’s is going up.”
Interesting comment, said with much conviction behind it. Sadly though I doubt you have read what Salby has to say in his paper as it has not yet been published. There again, you might be psychic.
——–
When the Salby paper comes out, and assuming it has gone through some level of peer review, I’m sure we’ll have much to talk about, but I don’t think it will be quite so exciting to skeptics as the hype of it is now.
Climate science is based a few “back-of-the-envelope” calculations.
And those only get one to about half-way through to the final product. Then it moves into assumptions based on personal belief systems. Most of these assumptions were made when the theory was initially being developed (in the late 1970s and early 1980s) when measurements were not available. They are still being used today and noone is allowed to question them apparently.
We need real measurements untainted by the need to prove that the intial personal beliefs were correct.
Humans have a great need to be proven correct and to have others agree with us. We have a hard time admitting when we are wrong. We will also use peer pressure and coercion to get people to agree with us if the opportunity is presented to us.
Climate science has gotten past these basic human instincts yet and into the “science based on measurement” stage that a mature science field uses (geology or medicine for example).
The climate models are still trying to show/prove that the initial 1978 assumptions were correct:
– CO2 increases the energy held in the system by 4 watts/m2 per doubling,
– O2 and N2 (99% of the amtosphere) play no role whatsoever in how the greenhouse effect works,
– water vapour will increase by 7% per 1.0C increase caused by CO2,
– temperatures will increase by 0.75C/W/m2 rather than being governed by the real physics,
– the lapse rate stays reasonably constant,
– clouds are a positive feedback,
– a warmer Earth atmosphere will not automatically release more IR to space as it gets warmer,
– Earth Albedo hardly varies at all through time, even in the ice ages,
– natural climate change is too small to worry about,
Real measurements in the real Earth system will show every one of these assumptions is wrong/is some other value.
Gareth Phillips says:
August 13, 2011 at 12:09 am
@ur momisugly R.Gates
“But in all these 800,000 years or more, during interglacials, many of which were warmer than our current interglacial,………………………….It is not that this interglacial is warmer than the others”
R.Gates, I do enjoy your posts, but it seems to be illogical to find a direct correlation between Co2 and temperature, when you say that Co2 level in inter-glacials were never as high as they are now, but the temperature was warmer.
I know you are trying to say that warm interglacials did not drive an in crease in Co2 because while they were warmer, the Co2 level was lower, but conversely , if they were warmer, but the Co2 level was lower than now, does that not impact on the Co2 / Temperature correlation?
Or am I reading this wrongly?
———
A bit incorrectly. We’ve had SLIGHTLY warmer interglacials in the past 800,000 years, during which time CO2 hasn’t gone above 300 ppm, yet, if temps are the driver behind our modern level approaching 400 ppm, then something is amiss. That’s because humans have added the extra CO2 beyond the 280 ppm that we would expect from the interglacial alone.
David Falkner says:
August 12, 2011 at 10:20 pm
R. Gates says:
August 12, 2011 at 9:00 pm
Not likely Scarface. The rise in CO2 beyond what is typical for an interglacial period has not been due to warmer temps, but the release of billions of tons of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. This interglacial is different in 2 significant respects from past interglacials over the past 800,000 years:
1) CO2 levels are higher
2) A species has learned how to release billions of tons of CO2 from fossil fuels.
Well, since you are speaking about the interglacial cycles, wouldn’t you like to mention the steep drop we are due for soon? Please, explain that cycle with CO2. Thanks.
——–
Steep drop soon? According to whom? I would suggest you ask for an explanation from those predicting this. Out of the multiple forcings affecting climate, to suggest a “steep drop soon” would mean they are expecting some serious volcanic activity or perhaps all out nuclear war.
Perhaps it is a measure of the gulf that now exists between 1. people who believe Joe Bastardi’s nonsense and 2. those who understand the science and read his words with incredulity that anyone could write such gibberish, that there has been only one reference (that by Chris Colose) to the discussions of it over on Tamino’s blog.
So, here are the links to those discussions:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/settled-science/#comment-53256
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/can-bastardi-learn/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/learning-from-bastardis-mistakes/
Blade said:
Gates, just for once please complete your thought. Specifically, answer this simple question:
If humans had gone extinct 20 kya (or anytime really), what would be the CO2 ppm today?
———-
If humans had been wiped out by the massive volcanic eruption of Toba 72,000 years ago, and weren’t around to burn fossil fuels over the past few centuries, then absolutely beyond a doubt CO2 levels would be lower today.
>>Ralph says:
August 13, 2011 at 1:06 am
>>Rhys Jaggar says: August 12, 2011 at 11:56 pm
>>To the American audience who are all experiencing a huge heatwave this summer:
>>We over the pond in Britain are not.
>>Ditto in N Germany. It has been week after week of low cloud, drizzle, aggressive summer anti-cyclones and cold winds of the N Sea.
>>Its been dreadful.
Maybe its just weather, but….
Similarly to the gentlemen fom the UK and Germany above, we here in Hungary are experiencing an unusually cool summer (except for an approx 10-days long heat wave a few weeks ago). Applies to June, July and August, as well. Not sure, but it looks similar to me to my childhood summers, during the 80’s. Entirely different from what we saw since the end of the 90’s.
The two lines drawn on the HadCRUT temperature chart (15 years to May 2011) are:
(a) a straw man – there is no straight line with that slope and intercept that can be derived from the HadCRUT temperature data.
(b) wishful thinking – the curved line drawn “through” the data is just arm waving.
The reality of the situation can be seen in this chart:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/to:2011.35/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/to:2011.35/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1996.35/to:2011.35/trend
As you say, time will tell who is right. The latest data, for June and July 2011, are entirely consistent with continued warming, not cooling.
I have noticed that most comments about the annual increase of CO2 sutggest that about half of this amount is due to human activity. Where does the other half come from?
Matt says:
Your claim that the increase in CO2 is too small to affect such a change is easily contradicted by a simple back-of-the-envolope [SIC] calculation that shows the warming from CO2 double to be about 2 deg.
*********
The British Royal Society calculates .4 ° C for a doubling of CO2 without feedbacks and Dr Hansen gets about 1 ° C now you get 2 ° C ??
If it is so simple why do different groups get answers that vary by 500 % ?
BTW: I am a skeptic but CO2 acts like putting a lid on a pot of water on a hot stove. If the water wasn’t boiling putting a lid on the pan causes the water to get hotter.
Another analogy is putting on another blanket when in bed. No heat is created is it?
Too bad this was the lead claim because it is obviously wrong and scientifically minded skeptics don’t buy it.
Venter says:
August 13, 2011 at 4:31 am
John B, if you see tne 3rd line of 2nd paragraph of Joe’s comment in the comments section, you’ll see he states ” I will admit I am wrong if it rises,” . That should answer your question.
—————–
Thanks Venter. And does the same go for the rest of us here?
I predict it doesn’t matter what the temps do in the next 15-20 years….not one bit
Almost every week there’s new research coming out that CO2 has less of an effect, the oceans are not acid, clouds, temps are going down……
…in 15 -20 years we might actually have something that vaguely resembles science
Blade says:
August 13, 2011 at 5:28 am
…
Gates, just for once please complete your thought. Specifically, answer this simple question:
If humans had gone extinct 20 kya (or anytime really), what would be the CO2 ppm today?
————–
Hope R Gates doesn’t mind me answering on his behalf. As CO2 levels have been in the range 180 – 300 ppm for the last 800,000 years according to the ice core record, there is no reason to suppose that they would be anywhere outside that range had humanity gone extinct anytime before industrialisation.
I am surprized that Tony would print a “guest” presentation with so many obviously mistaken beliefs and factual mistakes in such little space. Seems to show that Joe B can read but not understand the basics of high school or even middle school science. I am surprized at how many readers were apparently “hoodwinked” by this posting. Is Joe B spoofing or is he really serious?
Without human activity during the Holocene, CO2 levels would be 280 ppm or lower today.