By S. Fred Singer
Gallia omnia est divisa in partes tres. This phrase from Julius Gaius Caesar about the division of Gaul nicely illustrates the universe of climate scientists — also divided into three parts. On the one side are the “warmistas,” with fixed views about apocalyptic man-made global warming; at the other extreme are the “deniers.” Somewhere in the middle are climate skeptics.
In principle, every true scientist must be a skeptic. That’s how we’re trained; we question experiments, and we question theories. We try to repeat or independently derive what we read in publications — just to make sure that no mistakes have been made.
In my view, warmistas and deniers are very similar in some respects — at least their extremists are.
They have fixed ideas about climate, its change, and its cause. They both ignore “inconvenient truths” and select data and facts that support their preconceived views. Many of them are also quite intolerant and unwilling to discuss or debate these views — and quite willing to think the worst of their opponents.
Of course, these three categories do not have sharp boundaries; there are gradations. For example, many skeptics go along with the general conclusion of the warmistas but simply claim that the human contribution is not as large as indicated by climate models. But at the same time, they join with deniers in opposing drastic efforts to mitigate greenhouse (GH) gas emissions.
I am going to resist the temptation to name names. But everyone working in the field knows who is a warmista, skeptic, or denier. The warmistas, generally speaking, populate the U.N.’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and subscribe to its conclusion that most of the temperature increase of the last century is due to carbon-dioxide emissions produced by the use of fossil fuels. At any rate, this is the conclusion of the most recent IPCC report, the fourth in a series, published in 2007. Since I am an Expert Reviewer of IPCC, I’ve had an opportunity to review part of the 5th Assessment Report, due in 2013. Without revealing deep secrets, I can say that the AR5 uses essentially the same argument and evidence as AR4 — so let me discuss this “evidence” in some detail.
Read the full essay here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html#ixzz1nn0SciyO
I’m a denier and I deny their right to the vandalism and the destruction and the waste they are already causing and will continue to cause to all of us. But I think Autonomous Mind has it right:
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/forget-climate-change-we-must-focus-on-the-real-issue/
“Sceptics, and scientists who dissent from the ‘consensus’, could falsify, debunk and disprove every element of the AGW narrative and see off every member of the ‘team’ and make a laughing stock of the ’cause’, but we will still come under assault. For this is all about politics and ideology, even if the prominent actors don’t realise it.
Ultimately if it is not climate change it will be some other vehicle connected to ‘sustainability’ that will be used as a means of controlling the population and redistributing wealth from the industrialised world to the developing world in a way that enriches the corporates.”
And, forgive me, Prof. Singer, but it’s ‘Gallia omnis’.
YAY! A purity war!
Mind you, it will only help the warmists. I am quite sure they are jumping with joy at the thought of their opposition, who mostly agree with each other, are finding time to use their differences to declare each other “untouchable.”
Great job, things were looking bleak for the power-mad warmists, but they’re sure looking up now!
Laws of Nature says:
February 29, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Well, we can repeat the over a thousands comments in the previous discussions here, but I have the impression that it is difficult to convince someone who doesn’t want to be convinced… And indeed it is tempting to undercut the first pillar of AGW, because if humans are not responsible for the increase, there is no base for AGW at all…
But please, read all the arguments at my web site and reread the discussions here at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/why-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-1/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/20/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-2/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/16/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-3/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/24/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-4/
Further in reply:
The “residence time” of which Essenhigh speaks is about how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged with CO2 from other reservoirs (oceans and vegetation) within a year. That is about 20%, which gives a residence time of ~5 years. But that has not the slightest influence on how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. Even if all CO2 in the atmosphere was exchanged 5 times a year, that wouldn’t change the total CO2 content. Only the difference between what is coming in and going out is of interest, as that gives the net material balance. And that is a measured increase of 4 GtC (2 ppmv CO2) per year. As humans add a calculated 8 GtC (4 ppmv) per year, the net absorbance by nature (oceans + vegetation) is about 4 GtC/year. On a total of 800 GtC in the atmosphere that is a loss of only 4 GtC/year. That makes that the excess (100+ ppmv or 210 GtC above the steady state) has a decay rate1/e of 210/4 or ~52 years. Or a half life time of ~40 years.
Not true! The shift in the isotope ratio only shows, that we burn fossil fuel and indeed this CO2 is brought into the atmosphere and the ocean.
Sorry, but the isotope ratio shows that the oceans can’t be the source at all. The atmosphere has a d13C of -8 per mil, the oceans are at 0 to +4 per mil, and fossil fuels are average -24 per mil. Only 1/3rd of the d13C decrease calculated from fossil fuel burning shows up in the atmosphere. There are two possibilities: either the ocean dilutes the fingerprint from fossil fuel burning by replacement, or the dilution is in addition. To have the latter effect, you need to add ~40 GtC CO2 from the oceans to the 8 GtC from human emissions, thus the increase in the atmosphere would be 48 GtC (22 ppmv) per year (!). As the figures show a smaller increase in total CO2 than what humans release, only the former can be true: there is a huge oceanic CO2 flow at work, but that is slightly more into than out of the oceans (~2.5 GtC/year). The same for land vegetation: the oxygen balance shows that currently vegetation produces more O2 than it uses (for decay). Thus plants use more CO2 and preferentially 12CO2 (~1.5 GtC/year), leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus not responsible for the d13C decline. Other sources are not fast enough to have any impact in such a short time span.
This sensitivity is derived from ice cores not directly measured.
Sorry, that is measured in seawater at a lot of places. A direct result of Henry’s Law. Ice cores show only half that change in steady state, because land vegetation in general grows harder with elevated temperatures, thus working in opposite direction of the oceans.
And to then reeverse this argument: Thus the isotope ratio cannot tell you anything about the CO2-level.
Agreed, but in this case it effectively does eliminate two possible sources: the oceans and land vegetation. The first because of too high 13C level, the latter a proven absorber of CO2.
The Yellow river BTW is part of the residence time of water in the atmosphere (counted in days!): it is part of the outflow out of the atmosphere, while at the other side water evaporates from the ocean surface. But that doesn’t change the water (vapour) content of the atmosphere, as long as as much evaporates as condenses…
Fred Singer says ‘One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.”
That may be a bit simplistic. Some folks believe there is downwelling radiation, but that it does not warm the surface. This is partly from a Second Law argument (which has been argued to death) and partly from physical processes at the surface impacted by the IR. That surface has vibrating atoms (like any surface above absolute zero) and those atoms may resonate with the downwelling radiation in such as as to reflect or scatter that radiation. (I am repeating an argument I have heard and may not be characterizing it correctly).
It is always good and important to have constant ongoing discussions that challenge the status quo, but those should take place in the smokey back room. What is not good is to project various alternative views as all supportable to the public and proclaim that the science is not settled due to the presence of alternative views. The science is never 100% settled, but as far as general public consumption goes, it should be.
Another thing to consider is that if we did not have such “deniers” on our side, then the CAGW side would likely invent them. So we might as well keep those we have as a resource in the proper perspective.
@1DandyTroll
“I’m a proud dandy denier for the simple reason that a CAGW slug called me a denier, a couple of years ago, for asking for the proof of what he was stating”
And that is the real crux of the matter.. If you even dain to query any part of their religion, you are branded a “denier”.. just for asking a question or for proof !!!
If you don’t immediately accept every part of their story as unassailable fact.. you are a denier. !!
Thank you Dr. Singer for your invaluable contribution to the climate debate. In the interest and spirit of Climate Taxonomy I forthrightly declare that I am a Climate Optimist, which is a subspecies of Climate Realists. Warmer is better than colder. I refuse to be a Climate Prognosticator, preferring to be a Climate Observer.
CO2+sunlight = Sugar.
More CO2 = More Sugar.
This truth should make dentists and those who have a sweet tooth happy, not fearful.
Scottish Sceptic says:
February 29, 2012 at 11:26 am
“Deniers …. are like communism/nazisim. For me politics is a circle … go far enough left or right and you will meet people from the opposing wing coming round from the other way. So, by the time you get to communism and nazism, there isn’t a lot of difference.”
I respectfully disagree.
A nazi; Remember that saying “nazi” is a convenient way to hide that what you really are saying is “national Socialist”. A variant of socialism, in other words.
A “national socialist” wants a strong state. A communist wants a strong state. A social democrat wants a strong state. They are, in other words all on the left; They all want a strong state.
So you never went into a full circle. You stayed in the same spot.
Now, this indicate that “extreme right” really cannot exist. Because if “left” is “I want a strong state”, or a “Statist”, then the right surely must mean, “I want a minimum state”, a libertarian, in other words. So, surely if you are extremely libertarian, you want an extremey minimum state.
Surely not what the “Statists”, or the left means, when they talk about “extreme right”, a label they like to put on e.g. a “nazi”.
Just to cover up that a “nazi” is really one of their own kind, fighting to take control over us all via a strong state.
Bart says:
February 29, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Undeed some time ago now, but the same arguments are repeated again and again…
The isotopic evidence is bunk. We’ve been over this too many times and I haven’t kept the links, so I’m just going to make the assertion.
See my reaction on “Laws of Nature”…
That is a sensitivity for short term fluctuations. CO2 uptake is a low pass filter process. Short term fluctuations are attenuated. The gain for longer term fluctuations will naturally be substantially larger.
Partly very fast for the ocean surface (1-2 years half life), partly slower (~40 years for the deep oceans and vegetation), partly very slow for other processes. Besides a rapid steady state (if CO2 in the atmosphere wouldn’t change) for the ocean’s surface, absorbing ~10% of the change in the atmosphere, the ~40 years half life time is what is measured and doesn’t show signs of decline or increase over the past 50+ years of direct measurements. The very long term (centuries to millenia) steady state is about 8 ppmv/°C, including all possible sinks and sources. There are no observations at the decade to century scale, but it would be quite strange to have some very different scale over that time span.
What is that excess decay time? Nobody knows. It is all speculation based on an assumed model for what is going on.
The IPCC uses models (e.g. the Bern model) which shows different decay times for different reservoirs. That may be true to a certain extent, but is wrong for the deep oceans, as these are by large undersaturated and wrong for vegetation, both showing no sign of decline in uptake rate. In contrast, the above half life time of ~40 years for an excess CO2 level above steady state is based on observations over the past 50 years.
Er, hello? Singer starts off on a tilted playing field from the get go. Warmists aren’t the opposite of ‘Deniers’ as portrayed in this article. The opposite would be either ‘Alarmists” or “True Believers.”
Putting that aside and moving on, Singer says:
Are you kidding? How twisted is that? Of COURSE skeptics who believe the human contribution isn’t significant – or that the likely amount of warming won’t be significant – won’t support costly drastic efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Why in the world would they? In doing so, they aren’t ‘joining with deniers’ so much as following a logical conclusion to their estimate of what the science actually does or doesn’t support – and what the proposed mitigation efforts are or aren’t able to actually accomplish versus the high costs involved in terms of $$ and effects on our society, freedoms, and standard of living.
As I understand it and assuming the arguments and logic of the ‘warmists,’ and ‘alarmists/True Believers,’ the best estimates even by the likes of the IPCC and US EPA tell us that even heavy mitigation efforts (e.g., full compliance to the Kyoto treaty) would have a miniscule effect on temperatures by 2100 at a cost of trillions of dollars and resources diverted from far more productive endeavors that could have a far more immediate benefit to mankind (e.g., addressing cancer, malaria, starvation, poverty, etc.). We know however, that the costs (again, not just in terms of $$s) would be massive.
Considering this, the question should be why in the world the ‘warmists’ join with the ‘True Believer/Alarmists’ in continuing to support such draconian and essentially useless ‘mitigation’ efforts?
Try putting the shoe on the other foot for awhile. Or at least starting on a level conceptual playing field.
The accidental burying of much of large quantities of carbon based material took the CO2 levels down to dangerously low levels.
For 100,000’s of years the CO2 level was balanced with the amount of plant life at a percentage just above that which the plant life is sustainable.
Man has found that releasing this buried CO2 by burning coal provides him with a cheap efficent energy source, while at the same time increasing the level of plant food in the atmosphere.
Plant life is happy, it can now flourish, the CO2 restriction is lifted. !!
@Bart:
Try:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
synopsis: Each fossil fuel source has a different isotope ratio. We don’t know what they were for what was burned. Bacteria (and other stuff) eat natural oil and gas anyway, so loads of “fossil” type carbon isotopes enter the “natural” food chain. Loads of CO2 from rock decomposition in subduction / volcanoes – care to guess what the isotope ratio is on that rock (often of biologic origin, but on the ocean bottom how long getting subducted? Oh, yeah, a guess…
How much Methane and CO2 comes from: Mid ocean ridges, underwater volcanoes (far more than land volcanoes), methane seeps from methane clathrate decompostion, etc etc etc. Yeah, we don’t know what it is NOW let alone what it was in the past. And isotope ratios? Yeah, good luck with that…
C3 metabolism plants have a different isotopic preference to C4 plants (which only evolved recently) so good luck with all that pre-C4 plant data…
We only in the last couple of years found out fish excrete “Gut Rocks” of carbonates. What is the isotope ratio? Uh, can I get back to you on that?…
In essence: There is no base data for most carbon sources and sinks to be able to quantify any historical changes or even present mass flows and changes. The idea that the C12 / C13 ratio says anything about human activity is a BALD ASSERTION to which a fantasy story of what they would like to think happens is appended. The data to do real science does not exist.
Neither “skeptics” or “deniers” are appropriate names. Perhaps “truth-seekers” would be more appropriate.
The greenhouse conjecture will not be debunked for a long time by actual climate data. But it can be debunked right now by new physics which is extending the work of Einstein and Planck.
Firstly we must recognise that radiation from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface is comprised only of standing (or stationary) waves which may be thought of as opposing waves along the same path between two particular points, one on the surface and one in the atmosphere. These opposing waves interfere iff they have the same frequency and amplitude.
In Wikipedia we read …Iit can arise in a stationary medium as a result of interference between two waves traveling in opposite directions. In the second case, for waves of equal amplitude traveling in opposing directions, there is on average no net propagation of energy.
In addition to the standing (or stationary) wave, there is also one way radiation from hot to cold and its frequencies are represented by the area between the Planck curves, which is the same as SBL effectively calculates by subtracting the area under the smaller (cooler) curve from the area under the larger (warmer) curve.
Standing waves cause resonant “vibration” between energy levels and the energy required to excite = energy emitted on relaxation for such standing waves.
So how could any extra energy appear from nowhere and get converted to thermal energy? A whole new and different process is required for that conversion. Climatologists seem to keep imagining physical vibration causing friction or something. It’s not like that. Energy cannot be created in the process of resonance associated with standing waves.
All radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface comprises standing waves transferring no net energy either way. Only the additional “top portion” of the radiation from the warmer surface is separate radiation which does cause heat transfer from warm to cool.
I warned you at the outset that Claes Johnson’s Computational Blackbody Radiation is ground breaking physics extending the work of Einstein and Planck. You are not going to find it in textbooks, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. There is far more to it than just imaging a lot of identical mass-less photon particles crashing into surfaces and transferring thermal energy.
Any textbook which tells you that radiation between two plates transfers the full SBL amount in each direction is wrong, because there simply cannot be any transfer of thermal energy along a different path from cold to hot as it violates the Second Law. “Net” radiation has no corresponding physical entity and is thus meaningless.
Only standing waves have an identical path and can thus interfere with each other if they have equal frequency and amplitude, as explained in Wikipedia.
The Second Law applies to every individual path between two particular points. Standing waves may be considered as two opposing waves, but they do of course have the same path, and that makes all the difference. It’s up to you whether you want to take an interest in these new developments in physics or stick to your old beliefs so you can feel good trying to prove the IPCC wrong using climate data and yet still agreeing with them that heat transfers from the atmosphere to a warmer surface. It doesn’t..
Wow, what an amazing thread!! Dr. Singer has received such a wild response. Have these people read his entire article? Or his history of achievements? And his efforts to this moment to try to deal rationally and effectively with questions, problems, and issues, by means of scientific measurement, study, reason, communication and debate? I hope that some of these “reactors” will read about what he has done and what he is still doing for the cause of truth and science that most WUWT followers care so much about.
In case you want a summary of his past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer#Early_life_and_education
Fred Singer proves he is not a skeptic.
If he thinks Global surface temperature (GST) is relevant and means anything other than we don’t know where have been the temperatures in last 100 years except they have been apparently stable then he is a Warmist or a Glaciarist or even both.
Personally I find this to be one of the most offensive posts and subsequent batch of comments that I’ve yet seen on WUWT.
Here’s my definition of anti-science:
1) The belief that we have an accurate record of “global temperature”. Consider the massive loss of reporting stations after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the inherent inaccuracy of manually read mechanical (ie. mercury in glass tube thermometer) temperatures, Urban Heat Island and the ridiculous failure to acknowledge it (by the warmists), then failure to use the correct sign ffs when attempting to incorporate it into temperature records. The constant downward adjustment of past temperatures should be the first clue that… simply… WE HAVE NO TRUSTWORTHY TEMPERATURE RECORD. Believing otherwise is delusional. The best we have is a rough estimate with large error bars, with nothing like the precision required to make most of the claims being made about climate.
FACT: Claims of precision in past AND current temperatures are illusory.
2) The absolute claim that all CO2 increase is from human activity. I realize and recognize that most people believe this is a self-evident fact, but it’s not. Our emissions are a very small part of the normal ongoing flux of the “CO2 cycle”, and certainly within the realm of the amount that can be, and likely is, absorbed by simple increases in plant growth. This is NOT a closed system, LIFE is in the equation. When there’s more food available, more life survives long enough to consume it. If Earth’s atmosphere was actually this sensitive to change then it would be highly unlikely that the atmosphere could ever have maintained anything like the gas balance we see today, especially given some of the massive volcanic events in the past and known incidents of, for example, massive forest fires and coal fires.
FACT: Claims that we have accurately and definitively mapped “the Carbon Cycle” with all of its sources and sinks are arrogant beyond belief.
3) Claims of dramatic or unusual polar ice growth/shrinkage. The fact is, we have no serious records of past activity on either pole. Ice cores are interesting, and can tell us a lot, but only about one teeny tiny pinprick of locale. There are anecdotal writings from ancient and historical times showing both amazing ice growth and ice loss in the Arctic, which demonstrates that what we have seen since we started really looking over the last century or so is well within the realm of “normal” variability. Since the polar regions contain a large amount of water, this is tied to the entire Sea Level question as well.
FACT: we cannot extrapolate sea level or Polar ice trends when we have no reliable, accurate long-term data to extrapolate from.
4) The continued and ongoing belief that we are approaching a tipping point. There is no such thing, the claim that it is happening is ridiculous and absurd, and completely political.
Some of these points push me out of “Skeptic” and into “Denier” territory by Dr. Singer’s post, which is ridiculous.
My point is, and has always been, that we simply DO NOT KNOW most of what we THINK we know. Sure, the whole “CO2 as a GHG” theory makes sense, but it crosses to “BELIEF” once you try connecting a grossly imprecise temperature record with a marginally understood CO2 record.
I am a SKEPTIC because I am SKEPTICAL. I’ve been in the world of “Show Me” since I can remember, which is before I started school. I’ve seen so much absolutely horrifically BAD science masquerading as “Climate Science” that, honestly, I have almost zero faith in anything the warmists say or do. If they told me they wrote something in blue pen I’d want to see the original to confirm it.
I am a SKEPTIC because I DO NOT ACCEPT ACTIVISM PARADING AS SCIENCE. Over the last few decades I’ve watched so much political activism being justified or performed under the banner of “Science” that I can’t and won’t accept anyone from either “side” telling me something is so, when I can see for myself that it is not so. Prove it. Prove it with real, genuine empirical evidence, and falsifiable predictions, followed by an adjustment of the hypothesis when the predictions don’t come to pass.
I agree with Lindzen’s statements, summarized by biff33, February 29, 2012 at 11:17 am:
One more thing: I’ve made this observation before. Some years back my online car community had a massive, fragmenting and eventually destructive argument which, on the face of it is funny. It was about whether an Intercooler should be black or white. Which color causes the best radiation of heat from the Intercooler into the passing air stream? It went on for months. It resulted in people leaving, being banned, best friends in real life not talking anymore.
Do you know the answer?
The answer is: it doesn’t matter. The best color is the natural metal of the Intercooler, since any paint is an insulation layer. Yes, the color makes a difference, but that difference is OVERWHELMINGLY swamped by the insulation effect of the paint.
How different is that from the CO2->climate change debate?
How about this???
Stephen Wilde:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9206
I prefer this over Dr. Singer
re post by: John J. says: February 29, 2012 at 10:26 am
It seems to me that realists would work on determining if AGW is or isn’t a potential problem before moving on to any asoect of costly ‘solutions’ to a hypothetical. Thus far the AGW hypothesis hasn’t even managed to get beyond the Null Hypothesis of natural variation,let alone determining if some additional warming would even be harmful vs. beneficial — but you think it’s being a realist to ignore that and move on to possible mitigation efforts?? Doesn’t seem very realistic to me at all, quite the contrary. Begging the question and then defining such as stance as realism actually appears to be pretty Orwellian.
Whatever I am (I am kind of teflon-coated where labels are concerned), these are my broad views;
The concept of a ‘global’ temperature is too awkward a concept to define or use. I will accept that a rough approximation exists, as the argument for and against is tedious.
The likelihood that measurements going back hundreds of years is accurate and can be related well to today’s measurements from very different sources is fairly small. I will accept that a rough approximation exists, as the argument for and against is tedious.
The likelihood of our ability to account for and remove the signal of the Urban Heat Island effect on temperature records is fairly small. I will accept that a rough approximation exists, as the argument for and against is tedious.
OK, so we have some warming. Some of that is likely from CO2. I accept that, but I have extreme doubts about the actual total effect of, say, doubling CO2, and of the contribution to any observed warming over an above natural cycles.
I have extreme doubts about ANY positive feedbacks that could render this observed and predicted warming as a threat or danger to us. My immediate ‘educated guess’ would be that feedbacks are generally negative, since the climate does not veer off into massive warming and cooling binges. I accept that ice ages and interglacial periods (like the current) are the exception, but these are largely cyclical and probably due to orbital variations and the sun. There are are a few other periods where temperatures have been exceptionally high, for example, but if, as often claimed, CO2 was to blame, it would happen all the time, and never end, surely? So I reject the ‘positive feedback’ ‘tipping point’ scaremongering as they are based on flimsy speculation and no evidence.
What do we have left? Well, CO2 seems good for plant life, and it will ‘green’ the planet. The expected warming, even if entirely caused by CO2 so far, which I very much doubt, is likely to be another degree, perhaps two. Is that something to be scared of? I think not. The last nearly one degree has not caused any problems that I can see, despite the global hysteria surrounding any and all ‘extreme’ weather events.
Do I deny anything? I guess so, but it ain’t climate!
Fred, I didn’t think you were among those who supported “drastic efforts to mitigate greenhouse (GH) gas emissions”. You don’t need me to tell you whose side that puts you on 🙂
Could’ve done a lot better with this article, I feel.
And just out of curiosity, where does Roy Spencer fit into all of this? Is he a “denier”, or only a “skeptic”? Is he “anti-science”? I’ve been wrestling with my own position on this issue for some time, and it’s beginning to bug me. I’d like for someone to produce a basic overview of what is true, what isn’t true, and what remains to be discovered. Kind of like Don Rumsfeld’s “Known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns”. I have an interest in the debated about Ruddiman’s “early human emissions” hypothesis because there are problems with it, and trying to work out analogues between our current interglacial and past interglacials is difficult.
It’s unfortunate that such an interesting field of study has become this politicized. Really screws things up, muddies the waters. One of these days the whole truth will out. I just hope it gets here sooner rather than later.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
[..]
See my reaction on “Laws of Nature”…
What reaction, if I may ask? That you keep repeating old arguments?
My citation of Essenhigh was clear: He ruled out, that anthropogenic CO2 could be responsible for the long term rise of the last century. I must have overlooked your reaction to that.
Also we seem to be in an agreement, that the isotope level cannot tell you anything beside that we burn fossil fuel:
“LoN:And to then reeverse this argument: Thus the isotope ratio cannot tell you anything about the CO2-level.
FE: Agreed, but in this case it effectively does eliminate two possible sources: the oceans and land vegetation. The first because of too high 13C level, the latter a proven absorber of CO2.”
But it does no such elimination, neither effectively nor otherwise.
It tells you we burn fossil fuel (as if we wouldn’t know that already), the rest is a smoke screen and unscientific at that.
CodeTech says:
February 29, 2012 at 2:50 pm
[oddly enough, I used to have a turbo intercooler – I never cared about the colour, just the sound (loved that) and the effect ;-]
That in itself highlights one of the central scientific issues. Convection trumps Radiation every time. You just have to hold you hand in front of a ‘radiator’ and then above it to see the difference. Gasses getting warmed will cause them to rise, thus taking heat upwards. Does this reduce, overwhelm, or have no effect on radiation? I do not know, but I have never seen a study done. If anyone knows of one (that is comprehensible to a mere mortal), do let me know. It could blow the whole ‘greenhouse’ effect out of the greenhouse window.
E.M.Smith says:
February 29, 2012 at 2:30 pm
As said before: the 13C/12C decline doesn’t prove that fossil fuels are the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. It does prove that ocean’s CO2 is not the cause. Neither are rocks or volcanoes: subduction volcanoes use mainly carbonate sediments which are all around zero per mil d13C. Deep magma CO2 is less in d13C, but in general still above atmospheric.
Natural oil and methane releases, burning coal seems, peat and forest fires, alle add natural low d13C CO2 to the atmosphere. But the point is: why should that increase from 1850 on in exact ratio with the use of fossil fuels?
Over the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition, the d13C ratio increased some 0.3 per mil over 3 kyr, followed by a 0.2 per mil decline (thanks to changes in plant growth and releases from the oceans):
http://medias.obs-mip.fr/paleo/taylor/indermuehle99nat.pdf
The d13C ratio varied with +/- 0.02 per mil over the period 650-150 year ago, but dropped more than 0.5 per mil in the past 150 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
Thus the current drop in d13C is larger than the influence of all known and unknown natural processes together over the past 20,000 years…
That different plants show different preferences for 12CO2 is true, but not relevant, because all plants show a low d13C content, below atmosphere, and the oxygen balance shows that all plants together use more CO2 than that they (and animals, including humans) produce, thus plants are not the cause of the d13C decline in the atmosphere.
The National Socialist Workers Party was tossed into the “right wing” by Stalin who didn’t want competition with his Soviet Socialists. The “difference” was that Maxist/Stalinist Socialism believes in the inevitable Class Struggle (think ‘class warfare’ today) and that it will be International (Thus the anthem of a similar name). The German National Socialists had 2 major differences:
1) They rejected the “international” for a National flavor. This spits in the eye of the Marxists and their INTERNational.
2) They adopted the “Third Way Socialist” idea of Fascist Italy (yes, Fascism is a socialism flavor, unless you are a Communist, then it’s it ‘right wing’ as defined by Stalin) that you didn’t need to abolish the corporation as long as you could control it. This is held by all good International Socialists as being the hallmark that makes them Evil Right Wing. It isn’t. But it does spit in the eye of “Class Struggle” if you don’t struggle, but grab them by, er, throat and tell them what to do. We see this returning today when Clinton said we wanted to use “Third Way” policies. That was what Mussolini called his flavor of economics (but with a ‘militarism’ aspect grafted on).
All of them believe in Central Planning, Central Control, and Authoritarian Policies. The Nazis and Stalinists also agreed on killing Jews, so sometimes you see the Nazi held different via being ‘racist’. That isn’t true (as both didn’t like their Jews). Besides, Hitler was far more broad minded than that. He followed the whole Progressive Eugenics Agenda (being slowly reborn today as “family planning” and “genetic screening”) and was happy to lump Gypsies, Jews, Blacks, The Deaf, and dozens of others with illness in the same bucket. Not based on race so much as being “less than perfect”
The present versions try to vilify Nationalism, Racism, and Militarism as they think those were the three bits that caused Socialism to fail in the past and If Only we’d try the pure stuff it would work just fine. This Time For Sure! Thus the hard press to vilify those aspects as “right wing”.
(The thing missing from all the Left vs Right metaphor is that it is just choosing between Kings, Emperors, The Church, Socialist Authoritarians of various flavors, Dictators… Nowhere is “Free Individuals” on the list. The Classical American system of limited government and Individual Liberty is not on the European centric Left-Right scale. Thus it is a trap to the mind. Step off the Left-Right dogma and choose Liberty Of The Individual. Choosing my Left Wing Dictator vs my Right Wing Dictator is not a real choice…)
There’s a load of evidence for all of that, and I’ll not be arguing any of it here (as it tends to result in endless “does so does not is so is not, you’re Mama” strings. If you want to argue that “right” and “left” mean anything post Stalin or that the National Socialists were not Socialists or that the Fascists (from the Italian word for their labor unions – you know, pro-labor Socialism) were not Socialists, please do some research first. I did. And read the words they said about themselves.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/some-quotes-on-socialism-and-fascism/
Modern terms have been widely corrupted (largely by the Socialists in their various flavors trying to hide their roots or kinship) so “right vs left” and “liberal” have very sloppy, nearly useless muddled meanings.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/i-am-a-liberal/
So you must distinguish “Classical Liberals” as in the UK vs American Social Liberals in the USA. The Clasi-Liberal vs the ASo-Liberals. The ASo-Liberals trace their roots back to the Progressive Movement that comes for a Socialist taproot. After W.W.II that was kind of “hot potatoes” so they hid behind the more conservative flavored Liberal term, which worked for a while until folks figured out is was the same stuff and now the term is nearly synonymous with Socialist in the USA.
They hate being found out, so holler loudly that Obama is NOT a Socialist. That’s slightly correct. His is “Socialist Lite” (Technically “Lange Type Socialism” once GM was effectively nationalized and the Banks too. Two tenets of Lange Type: 1) Don’t do a bankruptcy process, have the Government Take Over and Fix. 2) Government ownership and intervention in major industries. So about those stock ownerships in GM and The Banks… and the wet kiss to the Labor Unions by having GM Bondholders wealth stolen and given to them…)
So Madam Hillary lately tried to resurrect the Progressive label saying She was ‘Not a Liberal but a Progressive!”… Run, hide, it’s the same bad wine in a new bottle.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/liberal-fascism/
The latest embodiment is as NGOs. No given name of any sort. 1000 different names. Money is sucked out of various “charities” and even the NSF, NASA, et. al have been parasitized to hand out money as “Grants” to activist NGOs; or taken via the UN and then used to implement the Socialist Agenda without all that bothersome voting and representation and ‘will of the people’ stuff:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/marx-progressives-socialism-and-agenda-21/
So, as I’ve pretty much beaten the whole thing to death, I’d suggest sparing Anthony the “IS TOO, IS NOT” does so does not wars and if you really want to haggle the points, hit some of the links above. You will find most of the arguments already “up” and can save everyone a lot of time…
Oh, and one “easy check”: Read Marx Communist Manifesto and pick out his key points. Ten of them IIRC. Then just match them against any other organization key points. Degree of match is proportional to, well, degree of similarity… ASo-Liberal / Progressives will find this a discomforting experience. Libertarians (that in America are close to Clasi-Liberals) will find it enlightening.
Then take each “ism” and trace back it’s roots. By person. By founding books. It’s a pretty strait set of links in the chain. Hint: Mussolini spent his early days translating the Communist Socialist works as a true believer before making his own flavor of it. His family were hard core socialists all the way.
Final note: I do not come at this from any particular political agenda. I’m more interested in just making a ‘tidy map’ than advocating any side. Emotionally I lean Libertarian, but intellectually (and by training – I’m an Economist and these are Economic Systems…) I can make a better case for Lange Type Socialism than any of the others. The age of “Robber Barons” was not good… I often toss sniditudes at the current crop of ASo-Liberals, but mostly for their desire to HIDE what they believe. If you believe something, don’t make it dirty and hide, be proud of it and take your lumps if needed. Why they want to run from Socialism Lite is beyond me. Darned near every economy in the world today is what we used to call a “mixed economy” – i.e. some markets and some social programs. (Now being ‘relabeled’ as “Market Socialism” in some corners). So please, no rock tossing. I’m just trying to get the dance card straight. (And have no desire to return to the age of Robber Barons and Trusts and oppressed Joe and Jane Sixpack as I am one…)
Robert Brown says onFebruary 29, 2012 at 9:52 am
“I’ve certainly done my bit — note well my sustained hammering of Jelbring’s nonsense and Nikolov and Zeller’s equal nonsense — but there is still plenty left to hammer on.
There is absolutely no question that the GHE is real, and ——“
========
Well, hammer a bit on me Robert. Your real GHE is dependent on, at least three things:
1) There is Electromagnetic “heat- or thermal radiation” from the Earth’s surface.
2) The surface does not lose any heat as this thermal transfer from surface to atmosphere takes place.
3) The GHGs in the atmosphere are sending at least one half of this heat radiation back to the surface causing, at the moment, 33 deg. Celsius (or Kelvin) of warming.
Explain how any of the three points above are possible. If you cannot explain them then don’t rely on Singer to do so either.
If you really believe in the fable that heat can radiate then tell my why a 100 Watt light bulb has a larger glass bulb than a 60 or 40 Watt one has. – The answer to that one is simple:
The reason is that heat can only be moved away from its source by conduction and consequent convection. A light bulb suspended in a vacuum will melt soon after it is turned on.
If you have a large jar and a pump (most pumps can become vacuum pumps) and the ability to make the “test-rig” you can make the experiment yourself. You will realize that heat does not radiate, therefore heat has got no Electromagnetic wavebands.
By the way heat is not energy, but it will take too long to explain that one here.
Laws of Nature says:
February 29, 2012 at 3:18 pm
To repeat the obvious:
Essenhigh didn’t rule out the human influence, because his reasoning was based on the high throughput (short residence time) of CO2 in the atmosphere. But that is completely irrelevant for how much CO2 is added to or removed from the atmosphere.
Please, think about the difference between your cash flow in/out your bank deposit (that is throughput) and what is on your account at the end of the year, compared to the previous year (the gain or loss).
But it does no such elimination, neither effectively nor otherwise.
It tells you we burn fossil fuel (as if we wouldn’t know that already), the rest is a smoke screen and unscientific at that.
I made a career by eliminating the impossible. That was much faster in finding the cause of trouble in chemical processes than looking at the possible causes.
If oceanic CO2 has a too high level of d13C, it is impossible that it is the cause of the DEcrease of 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere. That is as good as a suspect who has a perfect alibi. The same for vegetation, for a different reason. That is what one calls falsification of an hypothesis, as far as I know also called “science”.