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
Werner Brozek says:
March 1, 2012 at 1:21 pm
“I would say plants use it right away as long as the other nutrients are there as well.”
They use some additional, which stimulates production of new plants, which removes more CO2, which stimulates more plants (the rate being proportional to population and dependent on availability of CO2 and other nutrients), and so on. This is a process of many years ongoing. The process does not stop until opposing processes which tend to limit population growth force an equilibrium.
The ocean, too, has long term sequestration processes which respond to increases in incoming flux, and the same argument holds mutatis mutandis.
This is a dyanmic system. Simple real-time accounting is not up to the task of analyzing it.
Allan MacRae says:
March 1, 2012 at 2:03 pm
“Bart, can you please be more specific?”
Look at Ferdinand’s equation: natural sources – natural sinks = -4 GtC/yr. That gives us a difference of two variables. But, it does not tell us what the variables are individually. We can divide “natural sinks” into two components:
natural sinks in response to human emissions
other natural sinks
Set “natural sinks in response to human emissions” = 8 FtC/yr. Now, we have
natural sources – other natural sinks = +4 GtC/yr
Presto! Through mere manipulation of language, we have made the source of the increase wholly natural.
This is a dynamic system. The sinks expand in reaction to an increase in the inputs from whatever source. We cannot, on the basis of such word games, establish how much of the increase is natural, and how much is anthropogenic.
Allan MacRae says:
March 1, 2012 at 2:17 pm
“I think Ferdinand’s “material balance argument” is incorrect because it inherently assumes that the climate-CO2 system is static, but it is dynamic…”
Precisely.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
March 1, 2012 at 1:33 pm
“The discussion with LoN shows that the same cause (temperature) gives opposite forcing gradients for oceans and vegetation, which gives a change in steady state level of 8 ppmv/°C.”
That is the gain at the frequency of the yearly cycle. Gain in dynamic systems is generally frequency dependent, e.g., as in this plot.
If, e.g., the true frequency response of the temperature-to-CO2 system were -20 dB down at the frequency of 1 year^-1, then the gain for a dc (zero frequency) input would be 80 ppmv/°C. If -40 dB, 800 ppmv/°C.
We have no measure of the gain for a dc input, which includes steps, ramps, quadratics – any monotonic input.
Bart says:
March 1, 2012 at 2:56 pm
What you are saying and with you several others, is that the human emissions disappear rapidely in the natural system, but to make up the (carbon) material balance, the rest of the natural flows compensate for that by adding quite exactly around 55% of the human emissions.
First, I don’t know any natural process which should follow the human emissions in such an exact rate and temperature is certainly not the cause of that (too noisy) and why should it?
Second, you may split the natural flows in any theoretical way you want, that doesn’t change the fact that nature as a whole is a net – and proven – sink for CO2.
Further:
That is the gain at the frequency of the yearly cycle. Gain in dynamic systems is generally frequency dependent, e.g.,
The gain at a frequency of a year^-1 is about 5 ppmv/°C (seasons). For multiyears^-1 it is about 4 ppmv/°C. For frequencies of centuries^-1 to multimillennia^-1 it is 8 ppmv/°C. Thus very little influence from the frequency of temperature changes from seasonal to near DC (glacials/interglacials) on the gain.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
March 1, 2012 at 4:18 pm
“What you are saying… natural flows compensate for that by adding quite exactly around 55% of the human emissions.”
It’s not so exact, it just looks similar when you integrate the year-to-year flux into total concentration. This is particularly not unlikely when you include the fact that you are biasing and scaling the integration to get a match. As we have discussed before, it is usually possible to make two increasing signals with same sign weak curvature look similar via biasing and scaling – you just do a linear least squares regression of the one series against the other to determine the bias and scaling coefficients.
“…temperature is certainly not the cause of that (too noisy),,,”
It’s a low pass filter response, so of course it attenuates the noise.
“Second, you may split the natural flows in any theoretical way you want, that doesn’t change the fact that nature as a whole is a net – and proven – sink for CO2.”
But, that is meaningless. It is a dynamic system.
“The gain at a frequency of a year^-1 is about 5 ppmv/°C (seasons).”
OK, change my previous figures to 50 and 500 ppmv/°C, respectively.
“For multiyears^-1 it is about 4 ppmv/°C. For frequencies of centuries^-1 to multimillennia^-1 it is 8 ppmv/°C.”
Based on the ice core proxies, I presume. But, ice cores provide temperature data at only particular locations at particular latitudes. Like I said, your narrative depends on the fidelity of those ice core data. I think your trust is misplaced but, in any case, it leads to internal conflicts in the storyline which appear, IMHO, difficult to reconcile with what we know of how natural systems evolve.
How about we call it quits, Ferdinand? You and I both know we’re not going to agree. We’re just having the same argument we always have. At the least, you and I both agree that this is not the topic that is going to prove AGW wrong in anything like the near term, and we should be focusing on that which already appears to be doing so, that being the accumulating evidence for low sensitivity of the global climate to CO2 concentration, the current hiatus in warming, and the likely cooling we are going to see accelerating into the next decade.
Isn’t “denier” just another word for skeptic?
I’m with Elmer!
What a tribute to Davy Jones!
And CodeTech, Merovign, and Lubos, for that matter.
I’m out of time to finish reading this long thread, but must say I am dismayed to see the eminent Fred Singer using the term ‘denier’ (which, if I recall correctly, Anthony at one point wanted to ban from this site). Jack (February 29, 2012 at 5:00 pm) correctly points out that,
The epithet ‘denier’ is used by Alarmist acolytes and ideologues to suggest an analogy with ‘Holocaust deniers’, bigots who deny an obvious historical truth. The Alarmist usage makes no distinction between ‘skeptics’ like Prof. Singer and other students of the Earth’s climate who pursue independent lines of inquiry, such as those that dispute the hypothesis that CO2-caused ‘back radiation’ is important or even correctly described.
Real science should espouse no dogmas, and should welcome competing hypotheses about such complex phenomena as climate. To adopt the nasty insult ‘denier’ and apply it to theorists who propose alternative explanations of how Earth’s climate works is to effectively co-opt the close-mindedness of the agenda-driven Alarmists.
I hope Prof. Singer will withdraw the suggestion, as ill-conceived and contrary to scientific inquiry.
/Mr Lynn
My dear Mr. Lynn, you can close all the stable doors you like, but that horse has already bolted.
I find 2 faults with your position (not necessarily your statement). The first is that one must be accountable for everything that is not “in”. Skeptics are no more responsible for the behavior of deniers than are the warmistas, and a better argument can be made that the warmistas are actually more responsible. Extremes beget extremes.
The second is the mentality of “if you are not with us, you are against us”. This position, evidenced in politics frequently – is the poor man’s argument of superiority. When you arguments of logic fail due to lack of evidence, you resort to a herd mentality of good vs evil. Clearly, while that is prevalent, it only serves to demonstrate the lack of intellectual discourse on the side using it.
So, while your statement may be true in the respect it is happening, I disagree that skeptics need to fight a 2 sided battle. Regardless of what the skeptics do, the warmistas are going to tar them with pejoratives and lies. They have to in order to keep their herd loyal. Deniers are the barbarians at the gates of Rome, while Skeptics are the Centurions warning of the inevitable downfall due to the false facade warmistas present.
Faulty logic:
FE: ” With other words: the net contribution of all natural causes together to the increase in the atmosphere is negative…”
I would agree to that (as long as we still burn fossil fuels), but do we learn from that beside that in the presence of additional anthropogenic CO2 the mass balance is different?
Does is really tells us anything about the driver of the increase in the last 100years?
Essenhigh concludes that it does not!
And my point in that discussion was, that if he is right (the increase during the last 100+ year is due to a natural cause), the isotope ratio cannot be used to falsify anything!
Yes we burn fossil fuel and yes it has a special isotopic signature, but
the rate CO2 is exchanged with the oceans is basically the same (about 1/5 every year), regardless what the reason for the increase is, so this isotope signature cannot tell us anything about the reason of the increase.
You tell me, that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be caused by the oceans, because we would see a different isotope signature, so my question is: What would this difference be?
I tell you, that regardless of the cause for this increase, all isotopic signals are sequestered with about 5years (up to 20years if you figure in biological “delay” according Solomon) and thus this signature only tells you that we burn fossil fuel.
I don’t think it is up to me to falsify your idea, but to you to make this idea into a hypothesis.
HenryP says to Beng
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/29/climate-deniers-are-giving-us-skeptics-a-bad-name/#comment-909590
Phil. says: NOT A CHANCE
the excess energy is either transferred to the surrounding molecules via collisions or radiates in all directions (4π sr).
Henry@Phil
I happen to be familiar with spectrophotometry. You have to understand what actually happens when we put a beam of light of certain wavelength on a sample of liquid or gas.
We have various spectrophotometers that can measure the various ranges of UV-visible -IR etc. Usually you have the option to vary the wavelength of the beam of light, either manually or automatically.
If the gas or liquid is completely transparent, we will measure 100% of the specific light that we put through the sample coming through on the other side. If there is “absorption” of light at that specific wavelength that we put through the sample, we only measure a certain % on the other side. The term “extinction” was originally used but later “absorption” was used to describe this phenomenon, meaning the light that we put on was somehow “absorbed”. I think this was a rather unfortunate description as it has caused a lot of confusion since. Many people think that what it means is that the light of that wavelength is continually “absorbed” by the molecules in the sample and converted to heat. If that were true, you would not be able to stop the meter at a certain wavelength without over-heating the sample, and eventually it should explode, if the sample is contained in a sealed container. Of the many measurements that I performed, this has never ever happened. Note that in the case of CO2, when measuring concentrations, we leave the wavelength always at 4.26 um. Because the “absorption” is so strong here, we can use it to compare and evaluate concentrations of CO2.
So my observation is that the transfer of excess energy to neighbouring molecules is limited to saturation
of those neighbouring molecules, and only to those who would be “willing and able” to accept those photons of the applicable absorptive region, because of their own specific absorptive behavior pattern,
agreed?
Next, we have to first agree that the only way it is possible for us to measure radiation specific to CO2 coming back to us via the moon, must mean that in the absorptive region, the molecule starts acting like a little (round) mirror. IMHO I have to see the CO2 molecule as infinitely small and therefore approaching a spherical like structure. The moment the molecule is hit by radiation, the absorptive regions fill up until saturation and the molecule then starts his behavior as a little round mirror (in the absorptive regions). Now, assuming it (the molecule) was a pure sphere, (which it probably isn’t), then I have to calculate that when it is hit by light and it starts acting like a little round spherical spinning mirror, its immediate and continuous return in a radius of 180 degrees must be 62,5% in the direction where the light came from. The rest is going the other way.
Bart says
As I understand it, the idea is that the CO2 acts like a diode in an electrical cicruit. It allows the bulk of sunshine, which peaks at higher wavenumber than the CO2 absorption band(s), to get to the surface.
Henry says
people can have many ideas, but the proof of the pudding lies in the …. testing?
Bring me your test results that prove that the net effect of more CO2 is one of warming rather than cooling, and remember that CO2 also cools by taking energy from the atmosphere by taking part in photo synthesis. There is also proof from investigations done by the University of Helsinki that Earth has been greening quite a bit lately.Paradoxically, once greened, it traps heat, i.e. where there has been de-forestation there it has been cooling and where it has been very much greening, there it is warming, more than on average.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/de-forestation-causes-cooling
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
e.g. compare Tandil (Argentine) with Grootfontein (Namibia)
I note that Bomber the Cat has gone quiet.
henry@ferdinand meeus engelbeen
It appears from my data (from 1974) that it was maxima pushing up mean temepartures on earth,
maxima rising globally at ca. 0.05 degree C per annum since 1974….
i.e. 38 x 0.05= 1.9 degrees C
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
that means:
1) more intense sunshine
and/or
2) less clouds
and/or
3) less ozone shielding
(seeing that most extra heat goes into the SH oceans but it does not stay there)
and/or
4) etc (solar wind?)
Under these conditions the reaction:
heat+HCO3 =>CO2 +H2O
(whereby pH goes up, which is good for life and the environment)
seems more likely then the opposite reaction of that equilibrium.
I don’t think it is possible to differentiate between this CO2 being released in the atmosphere with that of that being released by humans and/or natural disasters i.e. fire and burning in general
Laws of Nature says:
March 2, 2012 at 5:19 am
Humans have added some 370 GtC as CO2 over the past 160 years. We measure an increase of about 210 GtC since 1850, of which 150 GtC since the accurate measurements at the South Pole and Mauna Loa started. As there is no escape to space, the difference must go somewhere and no room is left for additional natural sources, except if the natural sinks increased too, removing all natural sources + half the human emissions. Thus at least over the past 50+ years there was zero net contribution from nature to the total amount of atmospheric CO2.
The isotope ratio is additional info that strengthens the mass balance: if you have different sources with different isotope ratio’s, one can exclude these which have a isotope ratio that goes in the wrong direction: oceans do exchange a lot with the atmopshere, but that would increase the 13C/12C ratio, while we see a decrease. Together with the input of humans, the measured ratio needs some 40 GtC/yr from the deep oceans, but that can’t be additional, as we measure an increase of only 4 GtC/yr, while humans emit 8 GtC/yr. Thus these 40 GtC are throughput, not additional. The ocean surface and vegetation also play a limited role, but the input to the deep oceans near the poles receives the changed composition, while the output at the Pacific equator reflects the deep ocean composition of 800 years ago. The 40 GtC is based on the calculation of the difference between the measured and observed effect of fossil fuel burning in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
There was a pre-industrial equilibrium around -6.4 +/- 0.1 per mil d13C in the atmosphere.That includes all known and unknown exchanges beween the atmosphere and other reservoirs, including the (deep) oceans, vegetation, rock weathering,… Without interference of humans, that wouldn’t have changed much (temperature has some influence but not that much). That dropped to -8 per mil in only 160 years, unseen over the past 800,000 years.
Essenhigh is right and wrong: in itself, the isotope ratio doesn’t prove that humans are to blame for the increase, but it excludes the oceans as source and it does exclude vegetation as source. As that are the only known huge, fast, possible sources, only the human emissions can be the source.
Moreover, that fits all known observations, while all other theories which I have heard of fail one or more observations…
HenryP says:
March 2, 2012 at 7:35 am
Under these conditions the reaction:
heat+HCO3 =>CO2 +H2O
(whereby pH goes up, which is good for life and the environment)
seems more likely then the opposite reaction of that equilibrium.
There is indeed a change in dynamic equilibrium by temperature. That is measured and an increase of 1°C in seawater temperature increases the equilibrium setpoint of seawater with the atmosphere with about 16 ppmv. The measured increase in the atmosphere is 100+ ppmv, while the temperature increase since the LIA at maximum is some 1°C (0.2°C of you trust Mann’s HS!). Thus the net result is that more CO2 is pushed into the oceans (about 2.5 GtC/yr as calculated from d13C and oxygen balances).
Bart says:
March 1, 2012 at 5:10 pm
How about we call it quits, Ferdinand? You and I both know we’re not going to agree.
Agreed… Time will tell.
You know, I’ve been called a denier on many occuasions and I’ve never associated it with holocaust denial. I’ve never found the term offensive, I’ve found it rather encouraging.
I’ve always felt beng called ‘denier’ was like being called ‘blasphemer’.
As with the Cretaceous period, extra CO2 will result in increased coccolith population converting carbon into calcite, which then forms sedimentary chalk.
As CO2 is claimed by most sceptics here to have only a minor effect on climate temperature, I think we should be prepared to look for alternative reasons for extra heat at the surface with an open mind.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
That is measured and an increase of 1°C in seawater temperature increases the equilibrium setpoint of seawater with the atmosphere with about 16 ppmv
Henry says:
In theory I think it might be possible to do some testing and get such a result (reference please?)
In practice: that is not what is happening.
I live in a warm country.
If I leave the pump on my pool off for one day, and I dive in the pool at the end of that day,
I will find a big layer of warm water on the top and very cool water on the bottom/
so (I think) what happens is that most of the hot IR from the sun is re-radiated (‘back radiation” )in the top layers of the water.
furthermore, why would you think that you can distinguish a signal from d13, if it could have dissolved in the same waters where it is cold and just moved and became gas CO2 where it is warmer?
As I said
I don’t think it is possible to differentiate between this extra CO2 being released in the atmosphere by natural warming with that of that being released by humans and/or natural disasters i.e. fire and burning in general
Klem says
I’ve always felt beng called ‘denier’ was like being called ‘blasphemer’.
Henry says
I don’t know why anyone would feel proud abouyt being called a blasphemer.
please, wake up.
it is midnight and the oil is almost finished.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/why-do-i-believe-in-god
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/open-letter-to-radio-702
BTW
Does anyone know what the average carbonate content is in the oceans/
Surely they should track this like they do the CO2 in the air?
Dear Ferdinand,
your argument is getting a bit aeh .. I am not sure how to put it .. crazy ..
Please stop repeating yourself and start proving things!
Maybe you are not clear what a scientific proof is!?
FE: “The isotope ratio is additional info that strengthens the mass balance: if you have different sources with different isotope ratio’s, one can exclude these which have a isotope ratio that goes in the wrong direction: oceans do exchange a lot with the atmosphere, but that would increase the 13C/12C ratio, while we see a decrease. ”
I am not sure if I follow here..
Are you really saying that the atmosphere and the oceans are not exchanging CO2, because of the isotope-ratio!?
– we burn fossil fuel
– CO2 is exchanged between the atmosphere and the oceans (about 1/5 of the atmospheric amount per year)
This leads to an isotopic-signature, which is visible in the atmosphere and the oceans.
But beside that your repeated posts do not shed any light on the question, is it the natural equilibrium which has changed and thus is responsible for the increase (a point Essenhigh and Segalstad are making) or is the anthropogenic CO2 the main driver for the increase.
As I said, as long as we burn fossil fuel and about 1/5 of the atmospheric CO2 is exchanged with the oceans, the isotopic signature will continue to change as it did for the last 50years, regardless and this is my point, regardless if the total level of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing or not (perhaps due to some strange cooling event). This tells us, that the isotopic signature does not hold any information about the source of the increase.
If the raise in the last 100years is 100% natural or 100% anthropogenic or any number in between makes no measurable difference to this isotope signature.
HenryP says:
March 2, 2012 at 9:21 am
Does anyone know what the average carbonate content is in the oceans/
Surely they should track this like they do the CO2 in the air?
In the surface layer, the total dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC = CO2 + bicarbonate + carbonate) is about 1000 Gt. In the deep oceans about 37000 GtC. The surface is frequently monitored by ship surveys and at a few places (Bermuda and Hawaii) there are longer term measurements:
http://www.bios.edu/Labs/co2lab/research/IntDecVar_OCC.html
The Bermuda time series – and ships surveys – show that the nDIC increased over time. Thus the ocean surface is a net sink for CO2.