Obama May Levy Carbon Tax to Cut the U.S. Deficit, HSBC Says
By Mathew Carr – Bloomberg News
Barack Obama may consider introducing a tax on carbon emissions to help cut the U.S. budget deficit after winning a second term as president, according to HSBC Holdings Plc.
A carbon tax starting at $20 a ton of carbon dioxide equivalent and rising at about 6 percent a year could raise $154 billion by 2021, Nick Robins, an analyst at the bank in London, said today in an e-mailed research note, citing Congressional Research Service estimates.
“Applied to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2012 baseline, this would halve the fiscal deficit by 2022,” Robins said.
h/t to WUWT reader “dp”
davidmhoffer:
re your post at November 9, 2012 at 8:51 pm.
The saddest of Grimsrud’s delusions is that he thinks he is a “real scientist”.
Richard
Not to mention a “real economist”.
Davidmhoffer, You say;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
davidmhoffer says:
November 8, 2012 at 7:14 pm
ericrgrimsrud;
In case you need a translation of his comments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LOL
Folks, in addition to the long list of things that ericgrimsrud has already demonstrated that he has no skill with, we can now add reading comprehension.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This, after I provided you with an example precisely of the type you requested. What is the point of responding to your question? There is none at all. You will simply “dis” automatically rather than stick to the topic. Your goal is impress the faithful at WUWT and if it can’t be done with science, you resort to personal insults and BS.
Richardscourtney requested an explanation from me above when he said:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Perhaps you would care to address reality instead of your imaginary conspiracy theories?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I am surprised that you, RC, have not noticed to following facts.
1) Atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280 to 394 ppm over the Industrial age.
2) According to the Ice Core Record, it had not been more than 290 ppm over the last 800,000 years.
3) For a couple centuries now, scientists have studied the GHG of our atmosphere and after those many years of study have concluded that CO2 is the most important permanent and well-mixed GHG and is the major GHG “Forcing Agent” for increased T.
4) The most abundant and powerful GHG is water, it is true, water vapor it is a “Feedback Agent” whose concentration in the atmosphere increases with increased T. Thus, water vapor serves to amplify the warming effect of CO2 and any other factor that causes an increase in T.
5) The T effects of cloud work both ways – towards warming and cooling – and remains the least understood of all feedback effects on warming. Roughly this effect is often thought to be a wash – that is, relatively little effect. There is no reason to concludes, however, that a negative feedback of clouds is going to “save us”, as some version of “happy science” do suggest.
5) All of the above is no “conspiracy theory”. It is very well known throughout science and it is mainly why ALL of the professional scientific organizations of the USA have provided position statements that reaffirm the above and warn against further increases in atmospheric CO2.
6) In view of the above, the only “conspiracy theory” about is the notion that support for the occurrence of AGW is driven by politics and not by science.
ericgrimsrud;
This, after I provided you with an example precisely of the type you requested.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Please Eric, I’m begging you. Stop. If you cannot understand that the example you provided in no way substantiates the claim you made, then all I can do is pity you.
ericgrimsrud,
It is depressing that someone like you has been trying to poison young minds with your pseudo-scientific nonsense. You say:
” Atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280 to 394 ppm over the Industrial age. According to the Ice Core Record, it had not been more than 290 ppm over the last 800,000 years.”
So? That means CO2 was higher 800K years ago. In fact, it has been up to twenty times higher in the past with no ill effects. You say:
“For a couple centuries now, scientists have studied the GHG of our atmosphere and after those many years of study have concluded that CO2 is the most important permanent and well-mixed GHG and is the major GHG ‘Forcing Agent’ for increased T.”
Wrong as usual. Some scientists say that. Many more question it [cf: OISM Petition]. And note that there is no empirical measurement verifying AGW, which is only a conjecture. You say:
“The most abundant and powerful GHG is water, it is true, water vapor it is a ‘Feedback Agent’ whose concentration in the atmosphere increases with increased T. Thus, water vapor serves to amplify the warming effect of CO2 and any other factor that causes an increase in T.”
Once again, you have no empirical evidence for that conjecture. Further, both relative and absolute humidity have been declining for decades, therefore your assumption is deconstructed. You say:
“The T effects of cloud work both ways – towards warming and cooling – and remains the least understood of all feedback effects on warming. Roughly this effect is often thought to be a wash – that is, relatively little effect. There is no reason to concludes, however, that a negative feedback of clouds is going to ‘save us’, as some version of ‘happy science’ do suggest.”
That statement shows that you are reacting emotionally to a non-problem. There has been no global warming for sixteen years. There is no problem. And the verifiable temperature effect is to regulate CO2, not vice-versa. That is a testable, measurable fact, unlike your deluded belief in a “carbon” problem. The real world shows that CO2 is simply not a problem. You say:
“All of the above is no ‘conspiracy theory’. It is very well known throughout science and it is mainly why ALL of the professional scientific organizations of the USA have provided position statements that reaffirm the above and warn against further increases in atmospheric CO2.”
As usual, when you have no facts you fall back on your appeal to corrupt authorities. As Prof Richard Lindzen has written, those organizations have been heavily infiltrated by green activists. You say:
“In view of the above, the only ‘conspiracy theory’ about is the notion that support for the occurrence of AGW is driven by politics and not by science.”
Green activist infiltration, in addition to the lavish funding available, has corrupted those organizations, just as it has corrupted most of climate science. There is no doubt; Lindzen names names and organizations.
Adam Smith wrote, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that there is in fact a conspiracy to keep the grant gravy train from being derailed.
It was very simple as usual to deconstruct the anti-science nonsense in your last post. All you are doing is making baseless assertions. You have no empirical measurements to back up your opinion. The ease with which numerous commentators have deconstructed your fake science should make you realize that you are a dimwit among ordinary people. The posters here are too well educated to accept your annoying false claims. Really, it is hard not to conclude that you are just a crank.
ericgrimsrud:
At November 10, 2012 at 9:36 am you provide a numbered list of “facts” that you suggest I “have not noticed”.
I address each in turn. I know from painful experience that you will not read my responses, but I would not want onlookers to think that I am ignoring your so-called “facts”.
1) Atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280 to 394 ppm over the Industrial age.
Perhaps it has. The dubious ice core data does indicate that, but other proxies (e.g. stomata data) do not.
If it is assumed that your so-called “fact” is true, then so what?
Increased atmospheric CO2 concentration is beneficial to the biosphere. And – as I have repeatedly explained to you with references and links – increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration above 280 ppmv has no discernible effect on climate.
2) According to the Ice Core Record, it had not been more than 290 ppm over the last 800,000 years.
According to the stomata data it has repeatedly been much higher than 290 ppmv during the last 10,000 years. Indeed, it has been higher than now (see e.g. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html ).
Also, direct measurements in the 19th century showed higher atmospheric CO2 concentration than now.
But if your “fact” were a true indication, then so what? (see response to point 1).
3) For a couple centuries now, scientists have studied the GHG of our atmosphere and after those many years of study have concluded that CO2 is the most important permanent and well-mixed GHG and is the major GHG “Forcing Agent” for increased T.
Important? In what way?
If you mean that CO2 contributes to the natural greenhouse effect then it does. But it is NOT the major GHG “Forcing Agent” for increased T at present atmospheric C2 concentrations. Indeed, it is a trivial forcing agent for increased T at concentrations above 280 ppmv.
As you say, the concentration of CO2 in the air has increased by ~40% since the industrial revolution (i.e. from ~280 ppmv to ~390 ppmv). This takes the degree of absorbtion of CO2 to ~80% of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere because of the logarithmic effect. And the globe has only warmed about 0.8deg.C since the industrial revolution. Most – if not all – of this rise is certainly recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA), but if it is assumed the entire temperature rise is from the CO2 increase then a further increase to reach double pre-industrial concentration (i.e. to ~560 ppmv) would only provide a further increase to global temperature of about 0.2 deg.C. And a further doubling of atmospheric CO2 (to 1,120 ppmv) would only raise global temperature by an additional 1.0 deg,C.
4) The most abundant and powerful GHG is water, it is true, water vapor it is a “Feedback Agent” whose concentration in the atmosphere increases with increased T. Thus, water vapor serves to amplify the warming effect of CO2 and any other factor that causes an increase in T.
No. For the asserted water vapour feedback (WVF) to occur then the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ (i.e. between 2 to 3 times the rate of warming at altitude than at the surface in the tropics) has to exist. The ‘tropospheric hot spot’ doesn’t exist.
5) The T effects of cloud work both ways – towards warming and cooling – and remains the least understood of all feedback effects on warming. Roughly this effect is often thought to be a wash – that is, relatively little effect. There is no reason to concludes, however, that a negative feedback of clouds is going to “save us”, as some version of “happy science” do suggest.
Clouds are not understood. But only 2% change to cloud cover would provide sufficient alteration to albedo to explain all global temperature rise since the LIA. Global temperature correlates to cloud cover during the satellite era. Atmospheric CO2 concentration does not correlate to global temperature at any time.
6) All of the above is no “conspiracy theory”. It is very well known throughout science and it is mainly why ALL of the professional scientific organizations of the USA have provided position statements that reaffirm the above and warn against further increases in atmospheric CO2.
No. The “professional scientific organizations of the USA” have adopted policy statements which have been imposed by their Executives without reference to their Memberships. The policy statements support continued supply of a major research funding source and, therefore, it would be surprising if those policy statements said other than they do (turkeys don’t vote for Christmas).
7) In view of the above, the only “conspiracy theory” about is the notion that support for the occurrence of AGW is driven by politics and not by science.
This is a very strange assertion for you to be putting to me.
For decades I have consistently argued that the AGW-scare is not a conspiracy but results from a coincidence of interests.
Whereas you have repeatedly asserted that the scientific response to the AGW-scare is a conspiracy of fossil fuel interests. Indeed, you have made that assertion in this thread.
Richard
You will recall that my 7 points and your responses to each of those 7 points was initiated by your comment:
“Perhaps you would care to address reality instead of your imaginary conspiracy theories?
So you then also addressed each those 7 points which you say constitute only “conspiracy theories” !!!! I suspect that the Royal Society of London would be ashamed of seeing that one their citizens holds such a low opinion of the science done in Great Britain as well a around the world during the last century and, in addition, to see how you have learned so little of it!!! And just how dumb to you think the readers of WUWT are ?
Oh Well, If the mods allow me, I will be glad to point out the scientific foolishingness you just displayed in your discussion of the 7 points. As I have warned you before, you should avoid crossing over into the scientific world where your ignorance of the basics is always exposed – that is, if the mods allow my assessments of your “science” to pass through. If not, my brief recommendation to you here is if you want to fool some of the people some of the time, you should stick with your forte – condescension and personal insults void of scientific content.
ericgrimsrud:
At November 10, 2012 at 1:03 pm You reply to my provision of scientific rebuttals of each of your 7 unscientific assertions by saying
My only mention of “conspiracy theories” was to refute your assertions of them.
However, my preface of my clear scientific rebuttals of your unscientific assertions said
Quad Erat Demonstrandum.
Richard
to D Boehm, Concerning your responses to my 7 points, I just can’t bring myself to respond back to you. For example when you say:’
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
” Atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280 to 394 ppm over the Industrial age. According to the Ice Core Record, it had not been more than 290 ppm over the last 800,000 years.”
So? That means CO2 was higher 800K years ago. In fact, it has been up to twenty times higher in the past with no ill effects.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What the H____ are you talking about?
Sorry, but while being a teacher most of my life and doing my best to reach out to even the least gifted of students, I sometime had to admit that there was no point in trying – as if “nobody was home”, as they say.
ericgrimsrud clearly lacks the intelligence necessary to understand my clear explanation. Everyone else seems to understand that if CO2 has ‘not been more than 290 ppm over the last 800,000 years’ [which is another bogus non-fact], that means that it was higher at that cherry-picked time. Further, CO2 has been much higher throughout the planet’s history. Currently the biosphere is starved of CO2. We need more, not less.
As far as being a teacher, I feel real pity for the impressionable minds grimsrud has poisoned over the years with his pseudo-scientific nonsense — which we see here every day.
D Boehm, Concerning what you have called that “cherry-ticked time” do you not know that the last 800,000 years is the period revealed by the Ice Core Record ?
ericgrimsrud:
At November 11, 2012 at 7:29 am you write
So what? Measurements and other proxies indicate the ice core records accurately show when atmospheric CO2 variations occurred but provide low and wrong indications of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
This is explained in my responses to your questions which I provided to you at November 10, 2012 at 11:18 am. Unfortunately, as your reply showed, your scientific knowledge and ability are insufficient for you to have understood those responses.
Richard
Richardscourtney, Concerning your “corrections” to my list of 7 points suggesting that AGW is real, let’s start with your discussion of point 2 which is shown below. When time allows I will move on to some of your other points – but only if, as always, the mods let me.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2) According to the Ice Core Record, it had not been more than 290 ppm over the last 800,000 years. (my statement followed by yours below)
According to the stomata data it has repeatedly been much higher than 290 ppmv during the last 10,000 years. Indeed, it has been higher than now (see e.g. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html ).
Also, direct measurements in the 19th century showed higher atmospheric CO2 concentration than now.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let’s first consider those 19th century measurements. Back then, those initial measurements were based on relatively primitive “wet chemical” methods rather than the modern instrumental method of today that can provide continuous and thousand of measurements automatically per day. Far more important still, is the fact that the “sampling sites” were not well chosen for those early measurements. I order to get background measurements, one must do the sampling at very remote locations that are very far removed from both sources and sink of CO2. Anywhere in the vicinity of plants or places of fossil fuel combustion, for example, must be ruled out. Thus these 19th century measurements varied greatly up and down because insufficient attention has placed on sampling – an understandable deficiency considering how little was known then about atmospheric CO2.
Another point is that if CO2 background was higher then than today, that level would not have been reduced to the low levels of about 300 ppm in the middle of the 20th century. We now know that excess CO2 levels are not removed from the atmosphere that quickly. Centuries are required.
I have personally inspected these 19th century measurements because of their historic value within my of field of interest, Analytical Chemistry. To suggest that those early measurements reflect the background levels at that time, however, is non-sense. They varied all over the map, as would have been expected in retrospect.
Next, let’s consider the other source of measurements that RichardsCourtney suggests provided reliable measurements of background CO2 levels – that of plant stomata. The stomata research is good stuff and very interesting. It should not, however, be considered to be providing accurate measurements of background levels for several reasons. One reason again concerns the “sampling sites” that stomata measurements reflect. These measurements come from plant material and, therefore, reflect a sampling site that obviously has both CO2 sinks (living plants) and sources (decaying plants). It is not surprising, therefore, that stomata data tends to vary a lot both at a given location and at different locations. If such measurements reflected background CO2, they would not be nearly so variable.
On the other hand the ice core record for CO2 obtained from the Antarctic is remarkably consistent with changes in the location of the Antarctic core. This is also understandable since the interior of that vast continent is far removed from sources and sinks of CO2. Thus the results provided by the Antarctic Ice Core Record do appear to provide superior measurements past background CO2 levels.
While there is reason to further explore and refine the validity of the Ice Core Record, to suggest today that either the stomata measurements or those spurious few that were done by wet chemical methods of the 18th century provide better or even comparable evidence of past CO2 levels is either wishful or unjustifiably biased thinking, at best. More likely such a claim, if made by someone who claims to know the field, suggests an intentional misrepresentation of the available evidence.
As usual, ericgrimsrud is wrong. He says:
“…those initial measurements were based on relatively primitive “wet chemical” methods rather than the modern instrumental method of today…”
19th Century CO2 measurements have been replicated numerous times, and have shown to be within ±3% accuracy. In his peer reviewed paper Beck proved that CO2 levels have been much higher than ‘290 ppm’ over the past century.
Grimsrud is fabricating outright lies to support his alarmist narrative. He has poisoned young minds while teaching his anti-science nonsense, and now he is trying to do the same thing here on WUWT. But it will not work here, because the truth deconstructs grimsrud’s pseudo-science.
DBoehm,
You missed the main point. Beck’s measurements, for example, might have been very accurate. The problem was with his sampling site – too near both sources and sinks of CO2. Thus, his measurements varied a lot, some why above and some why below his average. Get it? Back then scientists did not even necessarily know there might have been such a thing as a single background level of CO2. I believe from what I remember in an article of his that he was simply reporting some measurements done in his local area. What you see as as evidence of an elevated global background for CO2 might have been the effect of a local manure pile !!! Back then they did not set up their sampling sites on places like the South Pole and Mount Mouna Loa in Hawaii.
Nevertheless, always enjoy seeing your bitter, hateful side vent itself. By now that is so constant and expected, your tone alone tells all of us where you are coming from. So it you don’t mind, I’ll continue to respond only to the tiny bit of science you sometimes include. Have a nice day. Eric
RichardsCourtney, Note that in your summary of my point 3 shown below, you have “conveniently” ignored two of the important effects on recent temperature that also must be considered. You statement is:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
3) For a couple centuries now, scientists have studied the GHG of our atmosphere and after those many years of study have concluded that CO2 is the most important permanent and well-mixed GHG and is the major GHG “Forcing Agent” for increased T.
Important? In what way?
If you mean that CO2 contributes to the natural greenhouse effect then it does. But it is NOT the major GHG “Forcing Agent” for increased T at present atmospheric C2 concentrations. Indeed, it is a trivial forcing agent for increased T at concentrations above 280 ppmv.
As you say, the concentration of CO2 in the air has increased by ~40% since the industrial revolution (i.e. from ~280 ppmv to ~390 ppmv). This takes the degree of absorbtion of CO2 to ~80% of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere because of the logarithmic effect. And the globe has only warmed about 0.8deg.C since the industrial revolution. Most – if not all – of this rise is certainly recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA), but if it is assumed the entire temperature rise is from the CO2 increase then a further increase to reach double pre-industrial concentration (i.e. to ~560 ppmv) would only provide a further increase to global temperature of about 0.2 deg.C. And a further doubling of atmospheric CO2 (to 1,120 ppmv) would only raise global temperature by an additional 1.0 deg,C.vv
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
One factor you left out is the known cooling effect of SO2-based anthropogenic particulate matter in the troposphere. The magnitude of this cooling effect is thought to be roughly half of the warming effect of the GHG’s. Since the GHG CO2 lasts for centuries and the particulates can be removed in a matter of weeks (if we decide to) the full GHG effect in the future could become 50% more dominant as the world rids itself of the particulates and the myriad health concerns they pose. Thus, for example, without this cloud of pollution we would have experienced about 1.2 C increase in T to date.
Another factor you omitted is the delayed heating effect of an existing forcing due to the thermal inertia of the Earth (mainly its oceans). This delays the warming expected from present conditions by a couple of decades or so. Thus, we might have another increase of about 0.2 C in the pipeline due to this effect – even if we stop emitting CO2, which or course we are not going to do. That additional warming along with that associated with ridding the atm of its particulate pollution would result in a net T increase of about 1.5 C.
I will also admit that man is very likely to burn almost another 500 gton or so of Carbon (hopefully just our gas and oil) before we get to a C-free energy world by the end of this century. That amount is approximately equal to that which man has burned during the Industrial Age. This along with expected increases in methane would lead to an T increase on the order of 3 C, at least.
Thus, RichardCourtneys predictions of future temperatures and his recommendation that we not cut back on GHG issions ASAP seem foolhardy to me – no matter how sweet and comforting his message. With a 3C increase in average global T, the planet as we have known it for 10,000 years will be have changed to something quite different and less human friendly. We don’t know what that will be exactly, hunams are presently doing that experiment for the first time in recorded history.
grimsrud now admits that Beck’s measurements ‘might have been very accurate’ — after previously claiming they were not accurate.
Grimsrud says: “The problem was with his sampling site – too near both sources and sinks of CO2.” That is wrong, as usual. Obviously grimsrud is ignorant of Beck’s meticulous research, which detailed the accurate sampling of CO2 levels by Nobel laureates [when that award meant something] in such isolated locations as the unpopulated Ayrshire coast, mountaintops, the windward side of ships crossing the Pacific, Atlantic, Arctic and Antarctic oceans, the Sea of Okhotsk, the Barents Sea, etc.
As always, grimsrud posts as if he knows the facts, when in reality his comments are only the false emissions of his enviro-wacko mindset. They are filled with pseudo-science, like his post above. Grimsrud is a hateful old man who was not content with poisoning young minds. Now he is trying to fabricate science. But he won’t get away with his anti-science nonsense here. When he posts false facts he will get slapped down in public, just like he was here.
ericgrimsrud;
I believe from what I remember in an article of his that he was simply reporting some measurements done in his local area.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You either did not understand what he wrote, or you are an outright liar. I corresponded extensively with Beck before his death and am very familiar with his work. The bulk of measurements that he used, thousands of them, were by well known researchers other than himself. He was meticulous in examining their records in order to exclude from his analysis those samples which lacked rigorous documentation, methodology, or were subject to the very CO2 sources and sinks that you claim may have contaminated his work.
While there remain questions in regard to the accuracy of his results, even his most ardent detractors who studied his work in excruciating detail in order to compare to other bodies of evidence such as the ice core records make no such accusation against him.
I had made up my mind to discontinue responding to you grimsrud, but you’ve insulted a personal friend of mine with an accusation that is not only patently false, it displays your willful ignorance of the subject matter at hand. You sir, assume a level of intelligence and knowledge for yourself that is not in evidence in anything that you have written on this site or on your own.
I read a study once that suggested stupid people were completely unaware that they are stupid. In your case, we must assume that you at one point possessed the mental capacity to earn a PhD in Chemistry. We must now ask ourselves if that claim is as fabricated and patently false as the rest of Grimsrud’s claims, or if is suffering from declining mental faculties due to disease or age.
If your degree is indeed real Dr Grimsrud, then get some help.
grimsrud says:
“Thus, for example, without this cloud of pollution we would have experienced about 1.2 C increase in T to date.”
Grimsrud is claiming that pollution has EXACTLY balanced out AGW — for the past 150+ years. That is preposterous nonsense. Aside from the fact that there has been no global warming for the past sixteen years, the long term global warming trend since the LIA has not accelerated, despite the ≈40% rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2. The long term warming trend has remained exactly the same, therefore the rise in CO2 has made no difference.
The planet is falsifying the AGW claims. I still think that there might possibly be some minuscule effect from CO2. But the facts show that any such effect is so small that it is not measurable. Thus, AGW can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.
ericgrimsrud:
I was tempted to ignore your twaddle addressed to me at November 11, 2012 at 9:23 am but it is possible – although extremely unlikely – that there may be onlookers who have not seen through you, so I give this brief rebuttal.
You say
etc.
D Böehm forced you to concede you wrote falsehoods concerning the accuracy of those measurements so I need not add to that. But you also wrote
Thus these 19th century measurements varied greatly up and down because insufficient attention has placed on sampling – an understandable deficiency considering how little was known then about atmospheric CO2.
Those issues were fully addressed by the late Ernst Beck in his consolidation of those measurements. And I know for certain fact that his assessment of those issues was excellent because I assisted him to produce his report in the English language for publication. Simply, your assertion is – at best – misleading. And I put far more credence on my own “personal inspection” of Beck’s work than anything you could say.
Then you say
Oh! You “know” that, do you? How?
I would greatly appreciate your explanation of this because I was co-author of two papers on the carbon cycle in 2005. Our detailed studies showed that so little is understood of the rate constants of mechanism in the carbon cycle that it is not possible to “know” what you claim to “know”. The pertinent paper is
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)
but I suspect you may find it – especially its maths – a bit difficult for you.
Then you assert
That is so wrong as to be risible!
Plants adjust their stomata in response to the so-called “background” atmospheric CO2 concentration. They don’t grow leaves on an hourly, daily or weekly basis. But they form stomata in their leaves for optimum efficiency of CO2 exchange at whatever is the prevailing atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Also, atmospheric CO2 concentration is well-mixed throughout the atmosphere so samples from one place are as good as any other unless one wants to obtain the minor spatial variations for determination of CO2 flows.
Then you follow your nonsense about stomata data with this
No! As I said to you at November 11, 2012 at 8:54 am
At this point I need to provide some background. I consider it a great honour to have been associated with the late, great Zbigniew Jaworowski throughout the final decades of his life. He was a great man, a true scientist and a sorely missed friend. Importantly, he is the ‘father’ of ice core studies who conducted dozens of field trips to obtain ice cores, and he devised most of the methods now used to analyse ice cores. Hence, his anger when he learned of – what he considered to be – the abuse for paleo-climate studies of the methods which he devised.
I first became associated with him when the UN appointed him to determine the world-wide dispersal of radionucleatides from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. He was a professor from a communist country and the disaster was in a communist country at the height of the Cold War. But nobody questioned his appointment because he was unarguably the outstanding authority in his field. However, he feared that whatever he discovered could be portrayed as having partisan bias so he desired association for review of his work by someone in a coal industry (coal was a competitor to nuclear) from the Western side of the Iron Curtain. I was a material scientist at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment (but not then the Senior Material Scientist) and filled that role. He was a communist and atheist while I am a socialist and Accredited Methodist Preacher, so we could be thought to be natural ‘enemies’, but I consider it a great honour that we were friends.
Zeb was appalled at the misuse of the methods he devised and perfected for use to indicate past atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
I think the best summary of Zeb’s objections to the ice core studies you so admire is his Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. It is titled “Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2” and is dated March 19, 2004. It can be read at
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
Zeb’s severely failing health meant he could only submit the statement in written form.
Similarly, his failing health prevented his attending Heartland 1 and he asked me to present his paper on ice core data there, so I did.
In light of the above, I can and do say with absolute certainty that you are plain wrong when you assert
It is you who is providing “an intentional misrepresentation of the available evidence”.
Richard
To my Three Masqueraders of Science,
Very Good! As usual, you have all once again” coagulated” and are singing your songs in unison. Therefore, I can save us all some time by addressing all three of you together.
In your last posts to me, you all got somewhat “sappy”, shall we say, with your touching stories of personal contacts with various legions of science whom you have happened to personally know. While I was pleased to learn that you do actually know some real scientists, do you think it really adds much to our discussions of the science to tell those touching tails. For example, I happen to know many distinguished scientists several of which are Noble Prize winners. Many of them have been hard working and “real nice guys” to boot. And the life work of some of them led to concepts in climate science that all three of you have severely criticized. So should with you and others my numerous experiences with those legions of science? Don’t think you want to hear it so why not save and share your sappy stories with Ann Landers.
And to all three of you. Get serious, neither the sampling sites nor the robustness and frequency of sampling in yonder years compares with that used to day. In your description of yonder sampling sites, the ocean seems to be near in many of them and very few seemed to be a sufficient altitudes to overcome canopy effects.
A challenge to you all: what values did your close personal friends of yore get for background CO2 in 1958? That year, as I hope you know,was the beginning of Keeling’s work and we know from it and companion measurements made at remote sites around the world that the background CO2 level was then 315 ppm. So if you can find a publication by Beck in 1958 that shows that background CO2 was 315 ppm you will have nailed your argument. So why not find that report ” Surely, you?r personal friends did not take that year off, did they?
And DB, you said “Grimsrud is claiming that (particulate) pollution has EXACTLY balanced out AGW” Please read before you write – I said no such thing.
RC, you don’t know that the extra CO2 has an extremely long life time? In addition to your own stuff, you should consider reading some of the scientific literature. In addition, why do you think that CO2 builds up in the atmosphere year after year when we add a small fraction to it relative to what nature puts in every year?
And, how does the stomata of plants “see'” the true background level of CO2, if those plants are so near (in fact in contact with ) the ground? Do you think that ground level CO2 is the same as the background level? CO2 is naturally made and absorbed – all at ground level I hope you know. Or do they use only plants that are growing high in the sky?
And finally to davidmhoffer, concerning your repeated threat to never write to me again, could I this time take that as a promise?
grimsrud says:
“So if you can find a publication by Beck in 1958 that shows that background CO2 was 315 ppm you will have nailed your argument.”
Grimsrud is wrong as usual. Data from Beck. Argument nailed.
It is no surprise Grimsrud was a teacher. Some of my teachers were the dumbest, most obtuse, unteachable creatures one could ever hope to avoid.
And finally to davidmhoffer, concerning your repeated threat to never write to me again, could I this time take that as a promise?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sure. As long as you promise not to misrepresent things other people said, make claims that can’t be be substantiated by the facts, and say things that make you look like a fool on a mission.