Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
Elaine Dewar spent several days with Maurice Strong at the UN and concluded in her book The Cloak of Green that, “Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.” Strong conjectured about a small group of world leaders who decided the rich countries were “the principle risk to the world.” These countries refused to reduce their environmental impact. The leaders decided the only hope for the planet was for collapse of the industrialized nations and it was their responsibility to bring that about. Strong knew what to do. Create a false problem with false science and use bureaucrats to bypass politicians to close industry down and make developed countries pay.
Compare the industrialized nation to an internal combustion engine running on fossil fuel. You can stop the engine in two ways; cut off the fuel supply or plug the exhaust. Cutting off fuel supply is a political minefield. People quickly notice as all prices, especially food, increase. It’s easier to show the exhaust is causing irreparable environmental damage. This is why CO2 became the exclusive focus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Process and method were orchestrated to single out CO2 and show it was causing runaway global warming.
In the 1980s I warned Environment Canada employee Henry Hengeveld that convincing a politician of an idea is a problem. Henry’s career involved promoting CO2 as a problem. I explained the bigger problem comes if you convince them and the claim is proved wrong. You either admit your error or hide the truth. Environment Canada and member nations of the IPCC chose to hide or obfuscate the truth.
1. IPCC Definition of Climate Change Was First Major Deception
People were deceived when the IPCC was created. Most believe it’s a government commission of inquiry studying all climate change. The actual definition from the United Nations Environment Program (article 1) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) limits them to only human causes.
“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.”
In another deception, they changed the definition used in the first three Reports (1990, 1995, 2001) in the 2007 Report. It’s a footnote in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).
“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”
It was not used because Reports are cumulative and to include natural variability required starting over completely.
It is impossible to determine the human contribution to climate change if you don’t know or understand natural (non-human) climate change. Professor Murray Salby showed how the human CO2 portion is of no consequence, that variation in natural sources of CO2 explains almost all annual changes. He showed that a 5% variation in these sources is more than the total annual human production.
2. IPCC Infer And Prove Rather than Disprove a Hypothesis
To make the process appear scientific a hypothesis was inferred based on the assumptions that,
• CO2 was a greenhouse gas (GHG) that slowed the escape of heat from the Earth.
• the heat was back-radiated to raise the global temperature.
• if CO2 increased global temperature would rise.
• CO2 would increase because of expanding industrial activity.
• the global temperature rise was inevitable.
To further assure the predetermined outcome the IPCC set out to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis as scientific methodology requires. As Karl Popper said,
It is the rule which says that the other rules of scientific procedure must be designed in such a way that they do not protect any statement in science against falsification.
The consistent and overwhelming pattern of the IPCC reveal misrepresentations of CO2. When an issue was raised by scientists performing their role as skeptics, instead of considering and testing its validity and efficacy the IPCC worked to divert, even creating some false explanations. False answers succeeded because most people didn’t know they were false.
3. CO2 Facts Unknown to Most But Problematic to IPCC.
Some basic facts about CO2 are unknown to most people and illustrate the discrepancies and differences between IPCC claims and what science knows.
• Natural levels of Carbon dioxide (CO2) are less than 0.04% of the total atmosphere and 0.4% of the total GHG. It is not the most important greenhouse gas.
• Water vapour is 95 percent of the GHG by volume. It is the most important greenhouse gas by far.
• Methane (CH4) is the other natural GHG demonized by the IPCC. It is only 0.000175 percent of atmospheric gases and 0.036 percent of GHG.
• Figure 1 from ABC news shows the false information. It’s achieved by considering a dry atmosphere.
Figure 1
• The percentages troubled the IPCC so they amplified the importance of CO2 by estimating the “contribution” per unit (Figure 2). The range of estimates effectively makes the measures meaningless, unless you have a political agenda. Wikipedia acknowledges “It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect.”
Figure 2 (Source Wikipedia)
4. Human CO2 production critical to IPCC objective so they control production of the information.
Here is their explanation.
What is the role of the IPCC in Greenhouse Gas inventories and reporting to the UNFCCC?
A: The IPCC has generated a number of methodology reports on national greenhouse gas inventories with a view to providing internationally acceptable inventory methodologies. The IPCC accepts the responsibility to provide scientific and technical advice on specific questions related to those inventory methods and practices that are contained in these reports, or at the request of the UNFCCC in accordance with established IPCC procedures. The IPCC has set up the Task Force on Inventories (TFI) to run the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Programme (NGGIP) to produce this methodological advice. Parties to the UNFCCC have agreed to use the IPCC Guidelines in reporting to the convention.
How does the IPCC produce its inventory Guidelines? Utilising IPCC procedures, nominated experts from around the world draft the reports that are then extensively reviewed twice before approval by the IPCC. This process ensures that the widest possible range of views are incorporated into the documents.
They control the entire process from methodology, designation of technical advice, establishment of task forces, guidelines for reporting, nomination of experts to produce the reports, to final report approval. The figure they produce is a gross calculation, but it is estimated humans remove 50% of that amount.
Regardless, if you don’t know natural sources and variabilities of CO2 you cannot know the human portion. It was claimed the portion in the atmosphere from combustion of fossil fuels was known from the ratio of carbon isotopes C13/C12. Roy Spencer showed this was not the case. In addition, they ignore natural burning of fossil fuels including forest fires, long-burning coal seams and peat; as Hans Erren noted, fossil coal is buried wood. Spencer concluded,
If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??
The answer is, it was done to prove the hypothesis and further the deception.
5. Pressure For Urgent Political Action
Early IPCC Reports claimed the length of time CO2 remains in the atmosphere as very long. This implied it would continue as a problem even with immediate cessation of CO2 production. However as Segalstad wrote,
Essenhigh (2009) points out that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in their first report (Houghton et al., 1990) gives an atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) of 50-200 years [as a “rough estimate”]. This estimate is confusingly given as an adjustment time for a scenario with a given anthropogenic CO2 input, and ignores natural (sea and vegetation) CO2 flux rates. Such estimates are analytically invalid; and they are in conflict with the more correct explanation given elsewhere in the same IPCC report: “This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean”.
6. Procedures to Hide Problems with IPCC Science And Heighten Alarmism.
IPCC procedures and mechanisms were established to deceive. IPCC has three Working Groups (WG). WGI produces the Physical Science Basis Report, which proves CO2 is the cause. WGII produces the Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Report that is based on the result of WGI. WGIII produces the Mitigation of Climate Change Report. WGI and WGII accept WGI’s claim that warming is inevitable. They state,
Five criteria that should be met by climate scenarios if they are to be useful for impact researchers and policy makers are suggested: Criterion 1: Consistency with global projections. They should be consistent with a broad range of global warming projections based on increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. This range is variously cited as 1.4°C to 5.8°C by 2100, or 1.5°C to 4.5°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (otherwise known as the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”).
They knew few would read or understand the Science Report with its admission of serious limitations. They deliberately delayed its release until after the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). As David Wojick explained,
Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the “policymakers”—including the press and the public—who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it.
…
What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.
An example of this SPM deception occurred with the 1995 Report. The 1990 Report and the drafted 1995 Science Report said there was no evidence of a human effect. Benjamin Santer, as lead author of Chapter 8, changed the 1995 SPM for Chapter 8 drafted by his fellow authors that said,
“While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”
to read,
“The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
The phrase “discernible human influence” became the headline as planned.
With AR5 (2013) they compounded the deception by releasing the SPM then releasing a correction. They got the headline they wanted. It is the same game as the difference between the exposure of problems in the WGI Science Report and the SPM. Media did not report the corrections, but the IPCC could now claim they detailed the inadequacy of their work. It’s not their fault that people don’t understand.
7. Climate Sensitivity
Initially it was assumed that constantly increasing atmospheric CO2 created constantly increasing temperature. Then it was determined that the first few parts per million achieved the greenhouse capacity of CO2. Eschenbach graphed the reality
 |
(Figure 3).
Figure 3
It is like black paint on a window. To block sunlight coming through a window the first coat of black paint achieves most of the reduction. Subsequent coats reduce fractionally less light.
There was immediate disagreement about the amount of climate sensitivity from double and triple atmospheric CO2. Milloy produced a graph comparing three different sensitivity estimates (Figure 4).
 |
Figure 4.
The IPCC created a positive feedback to keep temperatures rising. It claims CO2 causes temperature increase that increases evaporation and water vapour amplifies the temperature trend. Lindzen and Choi, discredited this in their 2011 paper which concluded “The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.”
Climate sensitivity has declined since and gradually approaches zero. A recent paper by Spencer claims “…climate system is only about half as sensitive to increasing CO2 as previously believed.”
8. The Ice Cores Were Critical, But Seriously Flawed.
The major assumption of the inferred IPCC hypothesis says a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. After publication in 1999 of Petit et al., the Antarctic ice core records appeared as evidence in the 2001 Report (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Antarctic core core record
Four years later research showed the reverse – temperature increase preceded CO2 increase contradicting the hypothesis. It was sidelined with the diversionary claim that the lag was between 80 and 800 years and insignificant. It was so troubling that Al Gore created a deceptive imagery in his movie. Only a few experts noticed.
Actually, temperature changes before CO2 change in every record for any period or duration. Figure 6 shows a shorter record (1958-2009) of the relationship. If CO2 change follows temperature change in every record, why are all computer models programmed with the opposite relationship?
Figure 6; Lag time for short record, 1958 to 2009.
IPCC Needed Low Pre-Industrial CO2 Levels
A pre-industrial CO2 level lower than today was critical to the IPCC hypothesis. It was like the need to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period because it showed the world was not warmer today than ever before.
Ice cores are not the only source of pre-industrial CO2 levels. There are thousands of 19th Century direct measures of atmospheric CO2 that began in 1812. Scientists took precise measurements with calibrated instruments as Ernst Beck thoroughly documented.
In a paper submitted to the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski stated,
“The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.”[1]
Of equal importance Jaworowski states,
The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].
There are other problems with the ice core record. It takes years for air to be trapped in the ice, so what is actually trapped and measured? Meltwater moving through the ice especially when the ice is close to the surface can contaminate the bubble. Bacteria form in the ice, releasing gases even in 500,000-year-old ice at considerable depth. (“Detection, Recovery, Isolation and Characterization of Bacteria in Glacial Ice and Lake Vostok Accretion Ice.” Brent C. Christner, 2002 Dissertation. Ohio State University). Pressure of overlying ice, causes a change below 50m and brittle ice becomes plastic and begins to flow. The layers formed with each year of snowfall gradually disappear with increasing compression. It requires a considerable depth of ice over a long period to obtain a single reading at depth. Jaworowski identified the problems with contamination and losses during drilling and core recovery process.
Jaworowski’s claim that the modellers ignored the 19th century readings is incorrect. They knew about it because T.R.Wigley introduced information about the 19th century readings to the climate science community in 1983. (Wigley, T.M.L., 1983 “The pre-industrial carbon dioxide level.” Climatic Change 5, 315-320). However, he cherry-picked from a wide range, eliminating only high readings and ‘creating’ the pre-industrial level as approximately 270 ppm. I suggest this is what influenced the modellers because Wigley was working with them as Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia. He preceded Phil Jones as Director and was the key person directing the machinations revealed by the leaked emails from the CRU.
Wigley was not the first to misuse the 19th century data, but he did reintroduce it to the climate community. Guy Stewart Callendar, a British Steam engineer, pushed the thesis that increasing CO2 was causing warming. He did what Wigley did by selecting only those readings that supported the hypothesis.
There are 90,000 samples from the 19th century and the graph shows those carefully selected by G. S. Callendar to achieve his estimate. It is clear he chose only low readings.
Figure 7. (After Jawaorowski Trend Lines added)
You can see changes that occur in the slope and trend by the selected data compared to the entire record.
Ernst-Georg Beck confirmed Jaworowski’s research. An article in Energy and Environment examined the readings in great detail and validated their findings. In his conclusion Beck states
Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis? Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel.
The pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level claimed.
Beck found,
“Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.”
The challenge for the IPCC was to create a smooth transition from the ice core CO2 levels to the Mauna Loa levels. Beck shows how this was done but also shows how the 19th century readings had to be cherry-picked to fit with ice core and Mauna Loa data (Figure 8).
Figure 8
Variability is extremely important because the ice core record shows an exceptionally smooth curve achieved by applying a 70-year smoothing average. Selecting and smoothing is also applied to the Mauna Loa data and all current atmospheric readings, which naturally vary up to 600 ppm in the course of a day. Smoothing done on the scale of the ice core record eliminates a great deal of information. Consider the variability of temperature data for the last 70 years. Statistician William Brigg’s says you never, ever, smooth a time-series. Elimination of high readings prior to the smoothing make the losses greater. Beck explains how Charles Keeling established the Mauna Loa readings by using the lowest readings of the afternoon and ignored natural sources. Beck presumes Keeling decided to avoid these low level natural sources by establishing the station at 4000 m up the volcano. As Beck notes
“Mauna Loa does not represent the typical atmospheric CO2on different global locations but is typical only for this volcano at a maritime location in about 4000 m altitude at that latitude. (Beck, 2008, “50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2on Mauna Loa” Energy and Environment, Vol. 19, No.7.)
Keeling’s son operates Mauna Loa and as Beck notes, “owns the global monopoly of calibration of all CO2measurements.” He is a co-author of the IPCC reports, that accept Mauna Loa and all other readings as representative of global levels.
As a climatologist I know it is necessary to obtain as many independent verifications of data as possible. Stomata are small openings on leaves, which vary in size directly with the amount of atmospheric CO2. They underscore effects of smoothing and the artificially low readings of the ice cores. A comparison of a stomata record with the ice core record for a 2000-year period (9000 – 7000 BP) illustrates the issue (Figure 9).
Figure 9.
Stomata data show higher readings and variability than the excessively smoothed ice core record. They align quantitatively with the 19th century measurements as Jaworowski and Beck assert. The average level for the ice core record shown is approximately 265 ppm while it is approximately 300 ppm for the stomata record.
The pre-industrial CO2 level was marginally lower than current levels and likely within the error factor. Neither they, nor the present IPCC claims of 400 ppm are high relative to the geologic record. The entire output of computer climate models begins with the assumption that pre-industrial levels were measurably lower. Elimination of this assumption further undermines the claim that the warming in the industrial era period was due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Combine this with their assumption that CO2 causes temperature increase, when all records show the opposite, it is not surprising IPCC predictions of temperature increase are consistently wrong.
The IPCC deception was premeditated under Maurice Strong’s guidance to prove CO2 was causing global warming as pretext for shutting down industrialized nations. They partially achieved their goal as alternate energies and green job economies attest. All this occurred as contradictory evidence mounts because Nature refused to play. CO2 increases as temperatures decline, which according to IPCC science cannot happen. Politicians must deal with facts and abandon all policies based on claims that CO2 is a problem, especially those already causing damage.
Source: The Global Warming Policy Foundation: CCNet 14/10/13
1. [1] “Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2” Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski March 19, 2004
Related articles
- IPCC ‘s Bogus Evidence for Global Warming (americanthinker.com)
- 2013 On Track to be Seventh Warmest Year Since 1850 (climatecentral.org)
- Another Reason Why IPCC Predictions (Projections) Fail. AR5 Continues to Let The End Justify the Unscrupulous Means (wattsupwiththat.com)
- UN climate panel corrects carbon numbers in influential report (trust.org)
- The IPCC’s muddled definitions of climate change (ipccreport.wordpress.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I do not have much time today but I wanted to say something more about my major objection to the party line on CO2.
The basic message from the IPCC is that the climate was constant until mankind and the industrial age mucked it up. To support this they needed two pieces of evidence. A study showing constant temperature with a sharp rise during the modern age (Enter Mann and his hockey stitck) and a similar CO2 hockey stick.
Mann was able for a short time to erase the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. With CO2 it was a bit more of a problem because as Beck showed there was plenty of date from the 19th century.
Also Jaworowski and Segalstad’s information showed there were different methods of analyzing ice core CO2 and the high readings were found if you use the entire sample instead of just the bubble. See Segalstad’s site http://www.co2web.info/ for the actual information.
Lucy Skywalker covers some of this in a simpler form:
WELL MIXED ASSUMPTION
If any data that is not within 2 standard deviations is rejected then of course you will never see large swings in the CO2 data, it has already been edited out of the final “product”
So there is the ‘Well Mixed’ assumption “the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady” This is what sets off my B.S. meter. Also notice that Mauna Loa is ground based with sinks and sources as all ground based stations would have unless you are sitting in the mountains well above the tree line and still there is the question of volcanic sources because high mountains are ‘Young’ and more likely to be tectonically active.
So is this assumption, made close to a hundred years ago, valid?
Here is what AIRS itself is saying:
The other information from AIRS is that the Airs data shows CO2 is not ‘Well Mixed” despite the fact AIRS measures the distribution of carbon dioxide in the mid troposphere at a nadir resolution of 90 km x 90 km. Not exactly a ‘small’ sample is it?
Without the ‘Well Mixed’ assumption that Englebeen is so arduously guarding, the high reading from the past unearthed by Beck, Jaworowski and Segalstad can not be tossed out and the CO2 hockey stick will crumble just like the Mann Hockey Stick.
Unfortunately this important point is not addressed with the same vigor as the temperature shenanigans.
On calibration
I only mentioned how the labs I worked for made standards up in house from pure materials and that we also used “Round Robins” to make sure the labs were all in agreement.
Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD has this to say about CO2 measurement calibration:
Gail Combs says:
November 15, 2013 at 11:18 am
As Gail doesn’t read my comments, here some comment that I have repeadetly told here to no avail:
Greenland ice cores sometimes show higher CO2 levels than Antarctic ice cores, even increasing over time, if you melt all the ice during measurement, instead of crushing the ice still frozen and measuring only the CO2 in air from the bubles.
The simple reason: In ice there may be contamination with seasalts, including carbonates. Normally that is not a problem for the CO2 measurements. But as Greenland is not so far from Iceland, the frequent volcanic eruptions there sometimes deposit highly acidic dust on the ice. If you then measure in solution, CO2 is set free from the carbonates, the more over time. But even in-situ a lot of CO2 can have been formed over time with such a contamination.
That is the reason that the “melt” method still is used for methane, but completely abandoned for CO2. And also the reason that the CO2 levels from Greenland ice cores are not used for CO2 trends, because of unreliable. Antarctic cores, especially the deep inland cores have far less deposit and there are no active volcanoes in the wide neighborhood of the main drilling places.
WELL MIXED ASSUMPTION
If Gail would do the effort to investigate how much the thrown out data differ from the “background” data, then she would have noticed that it doesn’t make one damn difference in the calculation of the average or trend over a year if you include or exclude the outliers.
If you interested in CO2 from volcanic vents, then measure CO2 near volcanic vents. If you are interested in the uptake and release of CO2 by vegetation, then measure within vegetation (both are BTW done). We are interested in “background” CO2 data, thus throw out the data which are clearly contaminated by the other sources.
See the difference between the raw, hourly data and the “cleaned” daily and monthly averages of Mauna Loa and the South Pole:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_mlo_spo_raw_select_2008.jpg
Look at the scale: the outliers are at +/- 4 ppmv around the seasonal trend. Big deal to throw them out, it doesn’t change the yearly average or trend.
The AIRS measurements show that CO2 is within +/- 2% of full scale,including the seasonal variation. There is more variability than they expected in the mid-troposphere, but in my definition still very well mixed, if about 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere gets in and out over the seasons…
And far from the +80 ppmv from the late Beck’s 1942 “peak” in CO2, which doesn’t exist in any other measurement or proxy.
On calibration
I only mentioned how the labs I worked for made standards up in house from pure materials and that we also used “Round Robins” to make sure the labs were all in agreement.
That is exactly what is done by NOAA for CO2 mixtures which then are crossvalidated by other labs and upon agreement are used for continuous calibration of the instruments.
So what the Consensus has done is to “calibrate” the various records into agreement.
Glassman is a master in misinterpretation of what is written by others and it is impossible to argue with him, because he overwhelms you with irrelevant citations…
Of course there is intercalibration of the calibration mixtures which are used to calibrate the instruments. There is no way that the data can be calibrated into agreement as that needs subtile adjustments of 0.005 ppmv/day of the calibration gases and/or subtile differences (without any mistakes…) in calibration gases made for different stations… In reality, there are a lot of differences between the stations in amplitude and lag:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/month_2002_2004_4s.jpg
The New York Best Seller, “Report from Iron Mountain,” proposes that people would be willing to accept a lower standard of living, higher taxes, and increased governmental intrusion in order to “save Mother Earth.” The Report sought to find a credible substitute for war and considered several ideas such as an alien invasion. However, aliens were ultimately discarded for an “environmental-pollution model.”
Although many will respond to any suggestion of Maurice Strong or the IPCC being part of a huge conspiracy, as ludicrous, don’t forget we are coming up on 50 years of the Warren Commission lies. Honorable men do evil things when they think they are right.
Right on, high five to John Tiller, R. de Haan, and especially, Dennis Ambler in these comments.
Thank you Dr Ball for this article. Reading recently about the ‘runaway greenhouse event’ and the end of humanity by 2040 propelled me into a state of utter despair, which I hope is understandable for the mother of a 2 year old who has just been told her beautiful son doesn’t have a chance of making it to 30. I could not work, I could hardly eat, I wanted everything to shut down, so that my son at least had a chance to survive. I’m not a scientist, so I’m not in a very strong position to judge the validity of the scientific arguments you or any other scientist put forward for or against the global warming hypothesis. But at least your article has thrown some ambiguity on the matter for me, which has allowed me to come out of my panic-stricken state.
I do have some problems with your more general conclusions, however. It seems to me that despite your claim to be on the side of science, there is some flag-waving here that is not necessarily justified by the science you present. Your main scientific argument, I think, is that human-caused climate change primarily through CO2 emissions by the burning of fossil fuels is not occurring. I’m not in a position to challenge this assertion. But you use this argument to come to the conclusion that ‘green isn’t working’, and is actually a threat to industrialised nations (depicted by your wind-turbine/barbed-wire graphic at the end – scare-mongering like the end-of-the-world global-warmists, although admittedly not to the same extent). My contention here is this: regardless of whether CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is a problem, the fact remains that the world’s resources are finite. One day we will not be able to continue running our societies on coal, oil and gas. It may be that the earth still has a lot of fossil fuels to offer, I don’t know (I’m sure you and other readers here have a much better knowledge than me). But one day we will have to find a way to do without fossil fuels. As the world industrialises, and the global population increases, more and more people become dependent on fossil fuels, so surely we need to move our global economy onto sources of energy that are not dependent on the resources we can mine from the ground. What am I missing here? It may be that there isn’t such urgency to shift our primary source of energy as is being presented under the global warming banner, but surely a gradual shift to non-fossil-fuel energy is sensible for any industrialised society?
A related point here is that the ownership of fossil fuels is hugely political and is causing great tension. Surely it is sensible from a politico-economic perspective for a society that has very little potential to produce its own fossil fuels to find other means of producing energy, so that its population is less vulnerable?
Another consideration I think you don’t cover is the other human-health implications of burning fossil fuels. I don’t know the science on this, so feel free to enlighten me, but my understanding was that the burning of fossil fuels was damaging to human health, e.g. causes cancer. Not to mention the risk of oil spillages. So why would we not want to find other ways of producing energy, that don’t have the same health implications?
I understand that you probably don’t want to go into all these issues in this article. But I do suggest you should at least acknowledge that the scientific argument that you have presented does not necessarily entail that we should not reconsider our reliance on fossil fuels, and that there are other points to consider. By not at least acknowledging these further issues and yet depicting ‘green’ energy as a threat you are presenting a skewed argument, regardless of the science. It is not a problem with your science, but with your rhetoric. If you are right in your debunking of human-caused global warming, it does not necessarily entail that green energy per say is a threat. The threat appears to come from those who would have us believe we need to shut down our societies now in order that our children have a miniscule chance of survival (and here you argument relies primarily on Elaine Dewar’s work). *Perhaps* in the long run there is an argument for other energy sources, and *perhaps* industrialised societies can benefit from them.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 15, 2013 at 6:16 am
“I have repeatedly told you that one can find background data in over 95% of the atmosphere: over the oceans from sea level up to the stratosphere and over land above the first few hundred meters: all within +/- 2% of full scale, despite a 20% exchange of all CO2 in the atmosphere over the seasons within a year.”
——————————–
Ferdinand, given the fact that the measured atmospheric CO2 ppm data is by far the most accurate of any of the data available to climate science ….. it makes one wonder why anyone would want to question the validity of it. None of the CO2 proxy data is as accurate.
Especially given the fact that most any discussion involving CO2 also involves the “warming” effect of the CO2 which is the result of solar irradiance …… and solar irradiance is one of the most inaccurate of the data available to climate science.
One sure can’t be claiming that all calculations involving W/m2 of solar irradiance are all within +/- 2% of full scale, when one is forced to use one (1) of the three (3) different scales for their calculations, to wit:
Scale 1. average solar radiation at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere = 1,366 W/m2
Scale 2. average solar radiation at the Earth’s surface = 1,000 W/m2 (for a surface perpendicular to the Sun’s rays at sea level on a clear day)
Scale 3. average daily solar irradiance for the Earth’s surface = 250 W/m2
Elen;
Economic substitution occurs by making old resources more expensive than new ones, and people switch from burning whale oil lamps to kerosene ones, etc. It is not necessary, productive, or viable to try and force the process by “demonizing” CO2.
Here’s a pair of posts you might like to take on board:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/
These two articles you site, Brian, are EXCELLENT!!!!!! I’ve not found articles before that so completely explain the wrong thinking of current belief about ‘shortages’ and limits to growth. Thank-you.
Brian, I read your articles. Here’s a quote about water: “Fresh water is unlimited, thanks to advances in desalinization. There is no shortage of fresh water.” While the cost of desalination has come down, it is still far more expensive then well, river, or watershed supplied water. How do you propose that the poorer countries pay for this? And of course this doesn’t solve the problem of water for interior regions, nor for high elevation sites.
Somehow cost REALLY matters when green energy technologies are considered – wind, solar, geothermal – so those technologies are viewed as economically harmful. But somehow cost doesn’t matter for desalination? There’s also lots of other hand waving in the article, such as saying limestone is created in the sea, so therefore the supply is unlimited – once again, no consideration given to cost/viability of recovering that.
Chris, we get oil from half way around the world, certainly cost matters but it’s economically good if oil next door is more expensive. People will spend more on desalinated water the same way they spend money on oil now from half way around the world.
And I’m not sure your point concerning green energy but if I get your meaning, I’d say, spending money on green energy at this point in our energy inventory is like getting oil from half way around the world when there is cheap oil right next door. Or, spending money on desalinization plants, while we still have hundreds of years of well water. In these cases the cost of getting oil from so far away or water from desalinization is economically harmful.
We are NOT short on energy sources so why waste money on technology that will be out dated by hundreds of years by the time it’s needed? The fact that we are spending that money now is economically harmful.
Elen says:
November 16, 2013 at 3:47 am
Thank you Dr Ball for this article. Reading recently about the ‘runaway greenhouse event’ and the end of humanity by 2040 propelled me into a state of utter despair, which I hope is understandable for the mother of a 2 year old who has just been told her beautiful son doesn’t have a chance of making it to 30. I could not work, I could hardly eat, I wanted everything to shut down, so that my son at least had a chance to survive. I’m not a scientist, so I’m not in a very strong position to judge the validity of the scientific arguments you or any other scientist put forward for or against the global warming hypothesis. But at least your article has thrown some ambiguity on the matter for me, which has allowed me to come out of my panic-stricken state. …
================
Elen,
Your reasonable insights were like a breath of fresh air. Thank you. I’m sorry to hear about your panic and despair. I’ve been there. Here’s some good news and some bad news.
The good news: mainstream science doesn’t project a ‘runaway greenhouse event’ or the end of humanity by 2040. The Earth’s oceans and vegetation are still absorbing about half of our CO2 emissions, so it’s unlikely that they’ll rapidly switch to emitting greenhouse gases (necessary for a runaway event).
The bad news… (continued in next comment)
(I think a spam filter bit me, so I’m splitting this comment into pieces.)
The bad news:
===============
Elen says:
November 16, 2013 at 3:47 am
… at least your article has thrown some ambiguity on the matter for me, which has allowed me to come out of my panic-stricken state.
===============
When you realize how confused Dr. Ball’s accusations are, I don’t want you to fall back into despair. The last time Dr. Ball accused scientists of deception, I tried fruitlessly to engage with his fans:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/06/public-relations-spin-doctors-deliberately-deceived-public-about-global-warming-and-climate-change/#comment-1467978
Dr. Ball links to Dr. Murray Salby’s claim that the ~30% increase in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution isn’t being driven by our emissions. Short version, this is ridiculous:
https://twitter.com/DumbSci/status/364038786805547008
Longer version, Salby’s claim implies negative CO2 concentrations during ice ages:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm
In reality, scientists know that our CO2 emissions are increasing atmospheric CO2 using at least ten independent methods:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html
Dr. Ball also links to Ernst Beck’s unphysical “reconstruction” of ancient CO2 levels:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/
Dr. Ball also links to a typically flawed WUWT article by Dr. Roy Spencer:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090321210824/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/a-bag-of-hammers/
Anyone who’s genuinely interested in climate science should skip WUWT and go straight to the National Academy of Sciences. Their informative booklet can be freely downloaded, along with a companion video:
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/more-resources-on-climate-change/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-booklet/
NASA’s climate website is also very informative:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
================
Elen says:
November 16, 2013 at 3:47 am
The threat appears to come from those who would have us believe we need to shut down our societies now in order that our children have a miniscule chance of survival
================
I’ve never seen anyone credible suggest we shoot ourselves in the foot like that. While this isn’t about science, maybe you’ll avoid despair and panic easier if I describe my preferred solution. I and the Citizens Climate Lobby think we should charge big carbon polluters a fee to Americans to cover the costs of dumping their waste into our atmosphere and oceans:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCL-pushing-for-US-fee-and-dividend.html
As you can tell from the videos in that article, several other scientists also favor this approach. Also, Reagan’s economics advisor has endorsed a similar approach:
http://energyandenterprise.com/
There’s no reason to panic or fall into despair. A revenue-neutral carbon fee can reduce emissions without shutting down our societies. In fact, it will help jumpstart a new industrial revolution based on clean energy.
Elen says:
November 16, 2013 at 3:47 am
Reading recently about the ‘runaway greenhouse event’ and the end of humanity by 2040 propelled me into a state of utter despair, …………….. I’m not a scientist, so I’m not in a very strong position to judge the validity of the scientific arguments you or any other scientist put forward for or against the global warming hypothesis. But at least your article has thrown some ambiguity on the matter for me, which has allowed me to come out of my panic-stricken state.
——————–
Elen, your previous mindset was exactly what the “fear monglers” were hoping to achieve with all of their “junk science” CAGW claims (CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming).
The earth has been subjected to an Interglacial Period of warming for the past 22,000 years. And several times during those past years the surface temperatures have been a LOT, LOT WARMER than they currently are ….. and for several hundred to several thousand years in duration. The Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250) lasted for 300 years and t’was the age of Knights and Castle building in England, etc.
Anyway, CAGW is junk science simply because, to wit:
1. mathematics disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
2.the Keeling Curve disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
3. the geologic record disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
4.the highly questionable 100+ years of temperature records disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
5. the “fuzzy” math used for calculating and claiming Average Temperature Increases disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
6. assuming that Interglacial “warming” (IGW) abruptly stopped when their claimed “CO2 causing anthropogenic “warming” (CAGW) started disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
7. the intentional ignoring and omission of the effects of atmospheric water vapor on surface temperatures disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
8. the intentional ignoring and omission of the effects of “heat island” infrastructure on surface temperatures disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
9. data from various fossil plant stomata studies disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
10. the highly questionable atmospheric CO2 ppm extropolated from glacial ice proxies disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
11. measuring the percentage of C12 isotope of Carbon in the atmosphere does not prove claims of CO2 caused AGW
12. the extremely quick increases/decreases of temperatures in desert areas of extremely low humidity disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
13. the absolute lack of any direct association or correlation between Average Global Temperature increases, world population increases and/or atmospheric CO2 increases disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
14. the INTENTIONAL exclusion of the “degree increase” due to the Holocene Interglacial “warming” of the climate from all of their calculated Average Temperature “increases” disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
15. the impossibility for anyone to measure the warming effect of the lesser quantity of gas (CO2) in a mixture of two different gases when the quantity of the greater volume of gas (H2O) is constantly changing from hour to hour and/or day to day disproves claims of CO2 caused AGW
16. claiming that atmospheric H2O vapor is the “forcing” backfeeder of thermal (IR) energy to the atmospheric CO2 which is the “backfeeding” forcer of increases in surface temperatures is silly and asinine
17. claiming that 396 ppm of CO2 is directly causing greater “warming” of the near-earth atmosphere than 20,000 ppm to 40,000 ppm of H2O vapor does, is silly and asinine
18. claiming that the bi-yearly increase of 6 to 8 ppm in atmospheric CO2 is the result of the rotting and/or decaying of biomass is silly, asinine and idiotic
The proponents of CAGW can not discredit the above claims with factual evidence thus their only recourse is to claim that a “consensus of opinions” disagrees with them.
Dumb Scientist says:
November 17, 2013 at 8:10 pm
A revenue-neutral carbon fee can reduce emissions without shutting down our societies. In fact, it will help jumpstart a new industrial revolution based on clean energy.
Well, while I agree with your critique on Dr. Ball and Salby, here you go a bridge too far. There is no proof that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will do more harm than good. To the contrary. The dire consequences were exaggerated by climate models that all fail to show the non-increase in temperature over the past 17 years.
And about shutting down our societies: that is just underway: Energy intensive factories in Europe are moving out to the USA, as the energy (gas) price there is much lower. And the number of comsumers here who can’t pay their energy bills is increasing exponentially. Simply compare the electricity bill in Denmark (world champion in wind energy) and Germany (thanks to the “Energiewende”, now starting to get completely out of control) with that of France (still 70% nuclear) or the US for the same kWh…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 18, 2013 at 11:05 am
There is no proof that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will do more harm than good. To the contrary. The dire consequences were exaggerated by climate models that all fail to show the non-increase in temperature over the past 17 years.
==================
You might want to call the National Academies, because they claim that “The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.”
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
The links in the first paragraph of this article confirm that Earth continues to gain heat, even over the last 17 years:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/schmitt-happer-wsj.html
It’s also important to remember that scientists don’t draw conclusions solely from climate models. The climate changes naturally, but extinction rates increase if it changes too quickly for species to adapt by migrating or evolving. For example, atmospheric CO2 increased rapidly during the end-Permian extinction and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. In both cases, the ensuing rapid warming stressed ecosystems and caused extinctions.
In the fifth paragraph of the above article, I linked to Honisch et al. 2012 which shows that we’re dumping CO2 into the atmosphere ten times faster than before the end-Permian extinction. That’s why scientists are concerned about our skyrocketing CO2 emissions.
==================
And about shutting down our societies: that is just underway: Energy intensive factories in Europe are moving out to the USA, as the energy (gas) price there is much lower. And the number of comsumers here who can’t pay their energy bills is increasing exponentially. Simply compare the electricity bill in Denmark (world champion in wind energy) and Germany (thanks to the “Energiewende”, now starting to get completely out of control) with that of France (still 70% nuclear) or the US for the same kWh…
==================
In the comments of the CCL article I linked, I explained that a border tariff will protect domestic industries. Since the fee is returned to Americans, it compensates for increased energy bills. The lower ~60% of income brackets actually get slightly more back in dividends than the increase in their electrical bills.
I agree with President Reagan’s economics adviser: “Reduce taxes on something we want more of–income–and tax something we arguably want less of–carbon pollution. It’s a win-win.”
Dumb Scientist says:
“Anyone who’s genuinely interested in climate science should skip WUWT and go straight to the National Academy of Sciences.”
Why? The NAS is as corrupt as NASA. They have a climate alarmist agenda which is being falsified by Planet Earth. And Dummy keeps linking to the Pseudo-skeptical Pseudo-science blog. Note that SkS has its own special listing on the sidebar as being “Unreliable”. That is a polite way of saying they are dishonest. Anyone who uses them as their ‘authority’ lacks credibility.
As Dr Ball shows here, ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2 — not vice versa. That same T/CO2 relationship holds from years to hundreds of millennia. When temperature rises, CO2 follows. That debunks the CO2=cAGW nonsense.
You can believe in always-inaccurate computer models, or you can accept empirical evidence. One or the other. But not both; they are mutually exclusive.
Dumb Scientist says:
November 18, 2013 at 12:49 pm
What National Academies wrote still is mainly based on failed climate models. Which doesn’t mean that one must not look at alternatives for fossil fuels. But the problem is the speed with which it is introduced, without looking at the consequences. Wind and solar are very unreliable sources of energy, they disturb the grid and as there is little possibility for large scale storage (hydro is the only limited possibility), one need as much (fossil) backup as installed in green energy. Which makes green energy far more expensive.
Besides that, there is an increased risk of blackouts, which costs enormous sums if you need to restart a whole industrial area (refinaries, chemical plants, etc…)
Your article may have merit in some parts, but that web site is about banned here as completely unreliable, see the sideline above:
Unreliable*
■Skeptical Science – John Cook
* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.
Further:
The climate changes naturally, but extinction rates increase if it changes too quickly for species to adapt by migrating or evolving.
You mix up the rapid increase of CO2 with a rapid increase in temperature. In the past, in general temperature did go up first and CO2 followed. Now we have an experiment where we have increased CO2 first, but there is little evidence for a catastrophical warming… A doubling of CO2 gives 0.9 K increase in temperature increase, based on absorption characteristics of CO2. That is all. The rest is models… The latest published estimates all reduce the sensitivity for 2xCO2.
For the rest, there are too many questionable items in your article to react on all of them here…
dbstealey says:
November 18, 2013 at 2:25 pm
The NAS is as corrupt as NASA. They have a climate alarmist agenda which is being falsified by Planet Earth. And Dummy keeps linking to the Pseudo-skeptical Pseudo-science blog… they are dishonest.
====================
If the NAS and NASA are corrupt and I’m dishonest, what about these scientific organizations?
The National Academy of Sciences,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
the National Center for Atmospheric Research,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
the American Geophysical Union,
the American Institute of Physics,
the American Physical Society,
the American Meteorological Society,
the American Statistical Association,
the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
the Federation of American Scientists,
the American Quaternary Association,
the American Society of Agronomy,
the Crop Science Society of America,
the Soil Science Society of America,
the American Astronomical Society,
the American Chemical Society,
the Geological Society of America,
the American Institute of Biological Sciences,
the American Society for Microbiology,
the Society of American Foresters,
the Australian Institute of Physics,
the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society,
the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO,
the Geological Society of Australia,
the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies,
the Australian Coral Reef Society,
the Royal Society of the UK,
the Royal Meteorological Society,
the British Antarctic Survey,
the Geological Society of London,
the Society of Biology (UK),
the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences,
the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society,
the Royal Society of New Zealand,
the Polish Academy of Sciences,
the European Science Foundation,
the European Geosciences Union,
the European Physical Society,
the European Federation of Geologists,
the Network of African Science Academies,
the International Union for Quaternary Research,
the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics,
the Wildlife Society (International),
and the World Meteorological Organization.
Have any of these scientific organizations been cleared of corruption by WUWT and dbstealey?
====================
As Dr Ball shows here, ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2 — not vice versa. That same T/CO2 relationship holds from years to hundreds of millennia. When temperature rises, CO2 follows.
====================
Use Henry’s Law to calculate the ∆CO2 due to the ~0.8C ∆T since the Industrial Revolution. You’ll find that only ~20ppm of the actual ~100ppm rise could even hypothetically be explained by the ocean outgassing that dominated CO2 variations in the Vostok ice core record you linked. Plus, if that were the case, why would CO2 in the oceans be increasing if the CO2 in the air is supposedly coming from the oceans? Why would atmospheric O2 be decreasing if the CO2 building up in the atmosphere isn’t the result of combustion? Where’s the wormhole that’s hiding the 30 billion metric tons of CO2 pollution we emit each year?
====================
What National Academies wrote still is mainly based on failed climate models. … Your article may have merit in some parts, but that web site is about banned here as completely unreliable … You mix up the rapid increase of CO2 with a rapid increase in temperature. In the past, in general temperature did go up first and CO2 followed. Now we have an experiment where we have increased CO2 first, but there is little evidence for a catastrophical warming…
====================
The experiment where CO2 increased first has already been done during the end-Permian extinction and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). The results weren’t pretty:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534703000934
The end-Permian extinction is a complicated story that involves more than CO2, but the ocean extinctions and apparent explosion of insects during the PETM really concern me. Please note that these events actually happened. They’re not figments of some “failed climate model”, but if you really think the NAS is that corrupt or incompetent then I doubt I could say anything to change your mind.
====================
A doubling of CO2 gives 0.9 K increase in temperature increase, based on absorption characteristics of CO2. That is all. The rest is models… The latest published estimates all reduce the sensitivity for 2xCO2.
====================
No, the rest isn’t models. It’s evidence from the ancient climate and fundamental physics. For instance, over at least the past 420 million years, CO2 has acted as a greenhouse gas which warmed the long-term climate by 1.5C to 6.2C per doubling of CO2:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7135/full/nature05699.html
Ironically, the only way to determine the ~0.9K bare no-feedbacks sensitivity is to use a model. The only climate sensitivity that ancient climate data can tell us about is the sensitivity in the real world.
====================
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 18, 2013 at 2:33 pm
… Wind and solar are very unreliable sources of energy, they disturb the grid and as there is little possibility for large scale storage (hydro is the only limited possibility), one need as much (fossil) backup as installed in green energy. Which makes green energy far more expensive. Besides that, there is an increased risk of blackouts, which costs enormous sums if you need to restart a whole industrial area (refinaries, chemical plants, etc…)
====================
That’s one of the reason why I support building a new generation of safe nuclear power plants.
Dumb Scientist says:
November 18, 2013 at 3:45 pm
Your link for the PETM is actually for the Permian.
Please show your evidence that in the PETM CO2 increase preceded warmth. It was already very balmy in the Eocene, which warmth of course had lasted tens of millions of years at that time, causing elevated CO2 levels.
Some CACA advocates have asserted that CO2 or CH4 caused the PETM, but haven’t been able to make a convincing case. Plenty of better explanations exist. CO2 did reach its Cenozoic high then, but which came first, the gas or the heat?
Dumb Scientist,
Thanx for all the appeals to authority. But as Einstein said, it doesn’t ake a lot of experts to prove that cAGW is wrong; all it takes is one fact. And we have produced numerous facts proving that cAGW is wrong. The only really valid Authority is Planet Earth, which is busy debunking all the cAGW nonsense.
Dumb Scientist quotes the incredible NAS:
“The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.”
That is baseless scare-mongering and alarmist nonsense. Nothing in science is “indisputable”. The NAS obviously has no understanding of the climate Null Hypothesis: there is nothing either unprecedented or unusual happening. Nothing. Current climate parameters have all been exceeded in the past. The so-called Tropospheric Hot Spot never did appear, as was incessantly predicted. And global humidity continues its decades-long decline, despite endless predictions to the contrary. And the endless predictions of runaway global warming have all failed. And despite the steady rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, global T has not risen — as predicted by folks who now refuse to admit they were wrong. You know: like Dumb Scientist, among many others.
Instead, we are fortunate to be living in a “Goldilocks” climate: not too hot, not too cold, but just right.
Given the mountains of empirical evidence debunking the climate alarmism expressed by Dumb Scientist, he should follow the Scientific Method, and honestly admit that his wild-eyed Chicken Little position is untenable. But he won’t, because based on his refusal to acknowledge clear empirical evidence, I suspect he is riding the climate gravy train. Because as Upton Sinclair wrote, It is difficult to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on not understanding it.
But other readers can see, as Einstein and Feynman pointed out, that all it takes is one fact that debunks the alarmist conjecture. WUWT skeptics have provided numerous facts that debunk the CO2=cAGW conjecture. Honest scientists will retrace their CO2=cAGW conjecture, and try to understand why they were so wrong.
Only those with an ulterior motive will dig in their heels, and appeal to all the corrupt ‘authorities’ that trade their name and status for government payola. It is sad. But it is the way of the modern world.
milodonharlani says:
November 18, 2013 at 4:02 pm
Your link for the PETM is actually for the Permian. Please show your evidence that in the PETM CO2 increase preceded warmth.
========================
That actually was the Permian link. The link to the PETM insect explosion was on my untouchable SkS article, but here’s a direct link:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1960.full.pdf
========================
It was already very balmy in the Eocene, which warmth of course had lasted tens of millions of years at that time, causing elevated CO2 levels. Some CACA advocates have asserted that CO2 or CH4 caused the PETM, but haven’t been able to make a convincing case. Plenty of better explanations exist. CO2 did reach its Cenozoic high then, but which came first, the gas or the heat?
========================
The PETM happened ~55 million years ago, and was a rapid spike of about 5C warming over about 200,000 years. It’s not clear if CO2 or CH4 caused the distinct warming and carbon isotope excursion spikes, but it’s clear that ocean outgassing can’t explain the carbon isotope excursion spike:
“Atmospheric pCO2 increases from 834 ppm to either 1,500 ppm (CH4 scenario) or 4,200 ppm (Corg scenario) during the main phase of the PETM (Fig. 4d). The corresponding global ocean surface temperature increase during the peak PETM is 2.1C (CH4 scenario) and 6.5C (Corg scenario) respectively. (Fig. 4e).”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n7/abs/ngeo1179.html
As before, Henry’s Law just won’t allow 5C of warming to release that much CO2 or CH4.
dbstealey says:
November 18, 2013 at 4:37 pm
Given the mountains of empirical evidence debunking the climate alarmism expressed by Dumb Scientist, he should follow the Scientific Method, and honestly admit that his wild-eyed Chicken Little position is untenable. … I suspect he is riding the climate gravy train. … Honest scientists will retrace their CO2=cAGW conjecture, and try to understand why they were so wrong. Only those with an ulterior motive will dig in their heels, and appeal to all the corrupt ‘authorities’ that trade their name and status for government payola. It is sad. But it is the way of the modern world.
=================
So, all those organizations are corrupt and riding the climate gravy train next to me? Really? As I’ve shown, every one of them has acknowledged basic physics:
http://dumbscientist.com/archives/crash-course-on-climate-change#comment-17977
Dumb Scientist says:
November 18, 2013 at 4:48 pm
There is essentially zero chance of human activity raising global temperature four degrees C in this century, however thanks for your paper. The lead author’s association with PSU doesn’t inspire confidence, but I enjoyed the angle of insect herbivory.
However valuable this contribution to Eocene climate studies, it can’t resolve the cause or causes of the apparent warming at that time. As you must be aware GCMs show the same lack of skill for the Eocene as for the Cretaceous, I suspect for much the same reason. The equable warmth of these periods or epochs derive from the positions of the continents & heating of the oceans by volcanic activity, not from the gases incidentally injected into the air by these processes.
The PETM impact hypothesis as you also may know has recently received new support:
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/2/425