This, is really quite something. We know the Guardian has lost just about all journalistic standards, but this one really takes the cake, especially from somebody who should know better. See the screen cap below.
“The atmosphere right now is half-full of carbon dioxide”.
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2014/jan/22/eu-2030-climate-change-energy-emissions-targets
Erm, riiiggght.
Let see, Mauna Loa/ Scripps says:
398.58 parts per million (ppm) CO2 in air 20-Jan-2014 http://t.co/5Q2FLbb4ix
— Keeling_Curve (@Keeling_curve) January 21, 2014
Maybe Damian doesn’t understand that whole “parts per million” thing, if he did, he’s certainly know that 398.58 is nowhere close to “half full”. The value of 500,000 parts per million is what would be considered “half-full”. He’s only off be a couple orders of magnitude.
If indeed CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere was 500,000 parts per million, we’d have a big problem: we’d all be dead.
Maybe he was thinking in terms of saturation of the CO2 effect in the atmosphere on temperature? In that case, we are closer to 90%, and additional CO2 won’t make much difference.
This graph showing CO2′s temperature response to supplement the one Doug Hoffman cites from IPCC AR4. here we see that we are indeed pretty close to saturation of the response.
click for larger image
The “blue fuzz” represents measured global CO2 increases in our modern times.
“half-full.”
What kills me is the almost unbelievable carelessness. I mean that literally, in the “they don’t seem to care” sense.
I mourn for our culture. People can literally say anything…that is to say simply make things up without fear of penalty. The stunning lack of integrity evinced by the MSM is a much bigger problem than any largely beneficial global warming we might get. A society in which lies are not only tolerated by encouraged is on the road to unravelling.
I believe that by 1/2 full, he meant that we are 1/2 way to a ‘safe’ level of CO2. From pre-industrial levels of 260, that would mean we are at 390 (we are), and must go no further than 520.
Just a guess. But you would think a journalist would be able to communicate the concept better. Warmist wonder they have communication problems…
I have to agree w/ Les, I think this is the author continuing w/ his half full metaphor.
But it is sloppy writing, and it’s a sloppy metaphor.
Still, journalists are pretty well guaranteed to be the dullest bulb in the room, so my expectations were pretty well met.
Climate change “expert” Asher Minns, communications manager at the University of East Anglia-based Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research is quoted this week:-
“Of the 36bn tonnes of carbon released in the Earth’s atmosphere, 12bn tonnes had been emitted globally in the last year….”
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/east_anglia_dice_is_loaded_against_region_in_fight_against_impact_of_climate_change_1_3224536
I sure it shocked all three people that read it….even the Economist doesn’t talk about GW any more
Sadly it isn’t just this guy off his rocker – it is the EU mass insanity driving themselves into poverty led by an even crazier class of leaders without a gain of common sense between the entire lot. Genuine science has ceased to exist in the entirety of the EU – replaced by a self imposed dark ages eagerly followed by the masses.
I’m somewhat pleased that they’ve recognized the impact of wasting money on climate nonsense at a time when the citizens are trapped in a moribund economy.
The watermelons-vs-reality fight isn’t truly over in the EU any more than it is in the US.
When California ditches AB32 we’ll know that the Eye of Caurbon is no longer upon Middle Earth.
That may take a very long time…
Maybe if the author of this article followed the link under his highlighted Guardian article text, he’d find the answer staring him in the face. But then again, WUWT has journalism standards to uphold…
Perhaps he was advised by Michael Mann!
Clearly Damian is not a man who understands anything about climate but why expect anything else from the Guardian.
No matter how wrong the AGW promoters are proven to be, and no matter how correct the skeptical critique of AGw has proven to be, the AGW believers keep on banging the same drum.
climateismydj – So what you’re referring to is Fiona Harvey’s breathlessly-parroted report on the IPCC’s “carbon budget”?
Yeah, ever heard of the game ‘telephone line’? You line up a bunch of second-graders, the first one tells the next one “My shoelace is untied” and each repeats what they’re told to the next one and by the end the story is “I strangled my mom with the computer cord last night.”
Carrington’s engaging in a little bit of telephone-line journalism here.
JEM says:
January 22, 2014 at 11:25 am
“When California ditches AB32 we’ll know that the Eye of Caurbon is no longer upon Middle Earth.”
LOL. If only the solution were as simple as dropping a trinket in some volcano.
Given the atomic weights of carbon and oxygen, isn’t the total carbon in the atmosphere actually closer to 0.015%?
To Les Johnson: you may be right, but language is what journalists are trained in. And the MSM is supposed to have fact checkers. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the cause of this major blooper may be declining revenues in the MSM so that they can’t hire enough, or good enough, fact checkers, and possibly — possibly — that the writer actually didn’t understand what he was saying.
climateismydj:
At January 22, 2014 at 11:26 am
OK, O Wise One, I followed the link and the “answer” to why such nonsense was published was “not staring [me] in the face”. In fact, I could not find it.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to quote it.
Richard
richardscourtney – in the Guardian piece Carrington links his “half full” comment to a piece from November of last year wherein Fiona Harvey plays climate-apostle and reports on an IPCC press release about a “carbon budget” and mankind having already burned half the carbon-laden substance that our minders believe we’re entitled to, complete with quotes from the usual miscreants like Stocker.
richardscourtney, FYI:
The world’s leading climate scientists have set out in detail for the first time how much more carbon dioxide humans can pour into the atmosphere without triggering dangerous levels of climate change – and concluded that more than half of that global allowance has been used up…
But the most controversial finding of the report was its “carbon budget”. Participants told the Guardian this was the last part of the summary to be decided, and the subject of hours of heated discussions in the early hours of Friday morning. Some countries were concerned that including the numbers would have political repercussions.
The scientists found that to hold warming to 2C, total emissions cannot exceed 1,000 gigatons of carbon. Yet by 2011, more than half of that total “allowance” – 531 gigatons – had already been emitted.
From here: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-world-dangerous-climate-change
I thought it was 350 as in 350.org, I also thought it was 400 or 450 but not 500ppm.
He thought it’s 398 percent, not ppm. And 398 percent is about half full.
Quite a good one from the Guardian.
Can someone explain the CO2′s temperature response graph again.
I said in a recent post that increasing CO2 concentrations will have very little effect on world temperature, because CO2 was approaching saturation anyway. But I was told I was wrong.
So could someone explain that CO2 temperature response graph really means.
Thanks,
Ralph
JEM:
Thankyou for your answer on behalf of climateismydj which is addressed to me at January 22, 2014 at 11:42 am and says
Yes, he does but I wanted climateismydj to explain how
“the atmosphere right now is half full of carbon dioxide”
equates to
a political allocation of a “carbon budget”.
Clearly, that equation is not obvious.
The daft claim that the atmosphere is “half half full of carbon dioxide” is laughable, and I thought an attempt by climateismydj to explain the equation would be side-splittingly funny.
Richard
If you take the “Source” link through to the actual article, the second paragraph (under Barroso’s photo) says “For those focusing on climate change – the atmosphere right now is half full of carbon dioxide”, with another link to:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-world-dangerous-climate-change
There it says: “The world’s leading climate scientists have set out in detail for the first time how much more carbon dioxide humans can pour into the atmosphere without triggering dangerous levels of climate change – and concluded that more than half of that global allowance has been used up.”
This is poor journalism, but I don’t believe Carrington really meant to say that the atmosphere is actually 50% CO2; he in fact meant that it had reached “50% of the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere [which] could mean [according to the IPCC, he says] that within as little as two to three decades the world will face nearly inevitable warming of more than 2C, resulting in rising sea levels, heatwaves, droughts and more extreme weather.”
That said, it will be interesting to see how the Grauniad now handles the error.
climateismydj:
Thankyou for your post to me at January 22, 2014 at 11:49 am.
Yes, I read that in the link.
But it does NOT say “the atmosphere right now is half full of carbon dioxide”.
It describes a political allocation of a “carbon budget”.
Please quote the part which explains how “the atmosphere right now is half full of carbon dioxide”. You said that would stare me in the face, but I still do not see that bit of what you quote.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Richard
“The planet’s atmosphere is half full of carbon…”
I have this picture stuck in my head of a person covered with soot and a mouth chuck full of black carbon – shades of Oliver Twist.
I have no doubt that this is the image that the alarmist want in my head. That first line was no mistake but a skillful bit of manipulation.
Silver Ralph:
At January 22, 2014 at 11:59 am you ask
Whether or not it will have little effect on global temperature depends on the value of climate sensitivity. Please use the WUWT Search facility for climate sensitivity and read the links. There is not space to explain all that here.
For now, I make a comment on what I interpret you are really asking.
Unless our understanding of radiative physics is wrong then increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air must induce some additional warming all things being equal. But the climate system is constantly changing: “all things being equal” never happens.
We do not know to what degree human activities have altered GHGs in the atmosphere
and
we do not know to what degree altered GHGs in the atmosphere have contributed to the natural global warming which is recovery from the Little Ice Age.
Claims that humans have or have not added to the observed global warming are equally false because nobody can know the truth of the matter in the absence of any evidence.
What can be said is that to date there is no evidence for discernible global warming from human activities so any human contribution to observed global warming is trivial if it exists.
I hope that helps.
Richard
I posted a comment to this error and the Guardian moderator removed it! On a recent check of the story the error still had not been changed
It’s clumsy and (in that it leaves them open to criticism such as this) stupid, but it’s really only a bit of poetic licence and should not be read literally. The article introduces the idea of a glass being simultaneously half full and half empty. The reference to CO2 is meant to be read as saying that CO2 is the “half-full” part, and the “half-empty” part is the citizens’ pockets. It doesn’t mean that the atmosphere is literally half-full of CO2 any more than it means that the citizens’ pockets are literally half-empty of money.
OK, it’s very clumsily worded – trying to be a bit too clever with a metaphor – but I don’t think that all of the criticism is entirely warranted. (Some criticism is definitely warranted, because, as always, all errors favour the warmists!)
Anthony – may I suggest toning down your criticism a bit in light of this interpretation, while still making clear that the statement is stupid because of the risk of misinterpretation, especially by the non-scientific who will be unreasonably scared by the idea that the atmosphere really is half-full of CO2.
The term “climate denier” was introduced by a linguist with ties to Al Gore. I’ve also noticed that many of the talking points that the CAGW industry uses seem (IMO) to be crafted language – meaning produced by someone with expertise in linguistics. I suspect this “half full” meme is something we going to see used widely by the pod people.
Hmmm… So if my daughter tells me half her allowance is gone, I should assume that her bedroom is half filled with money?
Sounds legit.
Mike Jonas – the one who credulously transcribed the metaphor as presented by the archbishops of the Intergovernmental Church of Climate Change was IPCC acolyte Fiona Harvey.
Carrington then brought it across to his piece as an apparent statement of fact.
It was no doubt clumsy, but more to the point it indicates that the Guardian’s ‘reporters’ (I will here use the scare quotes that Carrington should have used on ‘half full’, as they indicate that someone’s making a claim not necessarily grounded in fact) are prepared to send off to their editors anything the IPCC Sunday-school teacher tells them to without the slightest whiff of doubt.
When one looks at the vast number of absurd comments made by the CAGW believers, we may someday realize that we are at the mid-point of these absurd comments.
I suppose that would mean that the CAGW believers comments are now “half-vast”.
Although some may say they have been such for a long time.
🙂
mpaul,
“Climate denier” must apply to the alarmist cult, since they are following Mann’s claim that global temperatures did not change until the advent of the industrial revolution. But skeptics have always known that climate constantly changes.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Les Johnson says:
“I believe that by 1/2 full, he meant that we are 1/2 way to a ‘safe’ level of CO2. From pre-industrial levels of 260, that would mean we are at 390 (we are), and must go no further than 520.”
===============================
If that’s what he meant, then he is wrong. As we see, going to 520 ppmv will at most result in a negligible, unmeasurable change in T.
At both current and projected CO2 concentrations, there is nothing to be alarmed about. People forget that all the arm-waving is over CO2 rising from only 3 parts per 10,000 to 4 parts per 10,000.
CO2 is still just a minor trace gas. The only effect from its rise has been an increase in agricultural production.
So,
Does this represent one half of a Carrington Event?
Carbon dioxide is not the same thing as carbon.
Why do alarmists use the wrong term?
Toward the end of his article, Carrington says: “Germany, with all its manufacturing might, may have opted for a fully renewable future, but Poland, 90% reliant on coal, will not.” Er… Fully renewable future? Does he not know that Germany has more or less abandoned EU targets (whilst pretending they will get there in the end) and is building coal- and gas-fired fired power stations like there is no tomorrow? (Which might have been the case for them had they not had the foresight and balls to ignore the EU and commit to this programme some years ago; unlike Britain, needless to say.)
Apr 2013: “Following on the opening of two new coal power stations in 2012, six more are due to open this year, with a combined capacity of 5800MW, enough to provide 7% of Germany’s electricity needs.”
“In addition, 27 gas fired stations are due on line, which should contribute a further 17% of Germany’s total electricity generation.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/23/germany-to-open-six-more-coal-power-stations-in-2013/
Nov 2013: “Ten new hard-coal power stations, or 7,985 megawatts, are scheduled to start producing electricity in the next two years”
http://www.thegwpf.org/germany-open-10-coal-fired-power-stations/
thebleedingobvious says:
“Why do alarmists use the wrong term?”
The answer is simple: because they are scientific illiterates, who are just repeating the standard talking points given to them.
Quick point: Damian Carrington is head of the Environment section at the Guardian.
He’s the best they’ve got.
If Damian Carrington has decided that the important scale for CO2 concentration is a political definition (not a physical definition) then the Guardian has officially classified AGW as a political story – not a story about the physical world.
He is trying to be too cute, he even managed to misquote Fiona Harvey’s piece which said “more than half”, as it had to be “right now is half” to fit with the glass half full/empty metaphor.
dbstealey – it’s a catechism and they’ve been practicing for ten years.
As the Guardian goes full on crazy the sales go down the drain.
http://www.climate-resistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/independentAndGuardianCirculation.jpg
mpaul says:
January 22, 2014 at 12:31 pm
….. I’ve also noticed that many of the talking points that the CAGW industry uses seem (IMO) to be crafted language – meaning produced by someone with expertise in linguistics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Climate Change industry has hired Stan Greenburg, husband of Ms. DeLauro (D) CT of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. Greenburg is an iinternationally renowned campaign strategist
From another source:
Dirk, you are learning the million man math that all alarmist use? yes, anyone can do it! Just say 10 is closer to a million than it is to zero! So just round it up!
“thebleedingobvious says:
January 22, 2014 at 1:03 pm
Carbon dioxide is not the same thing as carbon.
Why do alarmists use the wrong term?”
I’ve commented on this phenomenon in the past here. The climate alarmists these days are taking their cues from George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four. They are rewriting history by altering past temperature data and are engaging in Orwellian newspeak by renaming CO2 as “carbon pollution” so as to demonize the source of CO2 and manipulate people’s perception of it.
When engaging in a propaganda campaign, it is important to take advantage of the people’s lack of literacy in the given subject (in this case climatology), to rewrite history, and to control the means of disseminating information so that the truth does not get out (note the cooperation of the MSM with regards to climate alarmism).
Orwell’s Big Brother is alive and well.
Gail Combs, I don’t doubt you when you say “The Climate Change industry has hired Stan Greenburg”.
However, I question the fearsome reputation, effectiveness and even significance of Stan Greenburg.
If he was any good the alarmist blogs and the Guardian wouldn’t need to censor the wit and wisdom of their opponents.
Any expert coach who’s only tactic is kick’em off the park will not have a long career.
Since the ideal CO2 level is probably somewhere around 1,000 ppm, at close to 400 ppm we still have about another 100 ppm to go before we’re at half full. But, close enough. Burning more coal could help us get there.
He is more optimistic than I am; I think the atmosphere is half-empty of carbon dioxide.
(the preceding has been a joke)
(Sorry if it seems like I am being pedantic (below), but I think we are ‘talking’ about precision and effective communication.)
Quote: “EU citizen’s pockets are *half empty* after a crushing recession.”
*Empty* means that there is nothing in it. (Whatever “it” is.)
It is impossible to calculate *half* of nothing.
I believe what people really mean is that half of the material has been removed, and/or the container is half of the way to being emptied. .. They are just using the phrase “half empty” as a short form of the description when they are speaking and writing casually. It would not be a good idea to use the phrase in formal language where it is necessary to convey ideas with clarity and precision.
M Courtney says:
January 22, 2014 at 1:07 pm
“If Damian Carrington has decided that the important scale for CO2 concentration is a political definition (not a physical definition) then the Guardian has officially classified AGW as a political story – not a story about the physical world.”
Spiegel shifts CO2AGW around between Bojanowski, their science guy who is actually competent, and “Spiegel-Mitarbeiter”, some anonymous member of the old Spiegel collective (owning 51% of the paper). The latter stories are agitprop. There is no special rhythm between the shifts; seems to happen according to what political pressure must be excerted.
Silver Ralph:
You are asking about a couple of different things. The “saturation point” refers to the concept that above a certain level of CO2, there is no additional greenhouse effect. The kids at SkS actually do a fairly good “myth” debunking on this one – up to a point. They do not allow for differences in incoming solar wavelengths having any effect on absorbtion patterns, and their reliance of just the two measurements – at least in the write up.
It is generally reported that the response to increasing CO2 concentrations is logarythmic, and not bounded by a saturation point, except extremely low and high concentrations – beyond consideration here.
Hope this helps.
A few million years ago, the atmosphere had almost ten times as muchCO2 in it compared to today’s atmosphere. The idea that the atmosphere is half full is something so dumb that only someone completely in thrall to his religion could believe it.
M Courtney says:
January 22, 2014 at 1:40 pm
“Gail Combs, I don’t doubt you when you say “The Climate Change industry has hired Stan Greenburg”.
However, I question the fearsome reputation, effectiveness and even significance of Stan Greenburg.”
The inventor of modern propaganda a.k.a PR, Eddie Bernays, was advisor of Woodrow Wilson on Wilson’s triumphant appearance at Versailles.
The entire 20th century politics of the West have been shaped by Bernays and his successors.
Rational debate is dead and the populace has been dumbed down to a half asleep state; deliberately.
Your side of the political spectrum constantly redefines words and castigates anyone who uses a non-.politically correct term. You are master manipulators, and can thrive only through manipulation.
Find the film “Century Of The Self”.
DirkH says at January 22, 2014 at 2:41 pm…
Yes, I am aware of the work of the Freud family in advertising. I’ve seen that documentary (although the anecdote about liberation philosophy making a convent lesbian seems unsupported outside of that BBC film); it is excellently edited.
Look, we disagree on a lot but I am not claiming that marketing is ineffective; on average it does work and I suspect we agree on that.
I am claiming that the rise in suppression of opposing views in the Guardian, SkS and the rest is ineffective. And that has increased since this Stan Greenburg character has got on the money train.
He doesn’t scare me. He’s the kind of enemy I like to have.
Anthony, do you have the source for the chart at the end of your post showing the temperature response to CO2?
REPLY: See link in the story -A
Not ‘couple orders of magnitude’. Three. Three orders of magnitude.
They out to stop presenting in ppm and use something like percent. I’m not sure the average person knows what a ppm is, or has any appreciation what-so-ever how small it is.
Why is it that they settled on ppm and not ppb : 398,580ppb is even scarier, it feels like more than half, it feels like way more than even the entire atmosphere is filled with CO2!!!! /sarc
not a day goes by without unsubstantiated claims about and in support of CAGW being published by the MSM worldwide, yet Australia’s equivalent of Rush Limbaugh got into trouble TWICE for ridiculously trivial & irrelevant off-the-cuff comments of no consequence whatsoever. more silly was the outrage on each occasion in our CAGW-infested MSM:
Wikipedia: Alan Jones (Australian radio broadcaster)
Climate change commentary
On 15 June 2012, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) found that Jones had breached the commercial radio code of practice in his reporting of environmental issues. This related to his claim that “human beings produce 0.001 per cent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere”. ACMA chairman Chris Chapman said that the watchdog was not penalising the licensee of 2GB, but was working with it to improve procedures. On 18 October 2012 ACMA ordered Jones to undergo factual accuracy training and employ a fact-checker.Jones responded to these claims on 19 October 2012 claiming that he had mistakenly claimed the 0.001 to be of all “carbon dioxide in the atmosphere” where it should have been “all gases in the atmosphere” and that he had repeated the correct and undisputed figure of 3 percent numerous times later that week and offered a correction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Jones_(radio_broadcaster)
Oct 2013: SMH: Alan Jones breaches code with exaggerated climate change broadcast: ACMA
Radio talk back host Alan Jones is in hot water again with the media watchdog after breaching the commercial radio code of practice by making unsubstantiated comments about power station closures and the salaries of climate change bureaucrats.
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/alan-jones-breaches-code-with-exaggerated-climate-change-broadcast-acma-20131023-2w0ui.html
Those glasses are FULL! Half liquid,half air…
1/2 full of carbon dioxide ??
500,000 ppm?
Hmmnn…..
Perhaps Mr Carrington should have read this…
http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/summaries/carbondioxide.php
Three orders of magnitude off. Geeze they’re getting more accurate. How did that happen?
The graph in the head post should be presented to the public in every possible media source as well as to every elected government official (I’m in the USA). The truth about the actual effect that an increase on atmospheric CO2 would/should sink the CAGW ship on the spot.
Provide Spencer’s (hope I attribute this correctly) spaghetti graph of the models vs observed temperatures as an accompanying doc and the whole CAGW scam would/should be over.
The entire scam has been sold as a result of a lack of knowledge presented to the public at large. The two graphs as noted above and sent to every journalist, educator, and politician known would certainly cause upheaval in the ranks. Just think about that for a minute. An eco activist writer continuing to spew out nonsense while walking through the office knowing that everyone from the sports to entertainment writers know his game is up.
Just a thought off the top of my mind.
CS#1 : “the atmosphere is half-full of CO2”.
CS#2: “well that explains the lack of Antarctic sea ice”.
That just makes the stupidity even more appalling than the ignorance: Half of a maximum addition to something is not in general the same as half of the total amount.
contender for Friday Funny, but I don’t think Roston realises just how hilarious this piece is:
23 Jan: Bloomberg: Eric Roston: Is It Hot In Here or Is It Just Me Telling You It’s Hot In Here?
As the mercury drops in the eastern U.S. this week, expect snow, icy driving conditions and ludicrous statements about global warming from Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh…
A new study in a leading peer-reviewed journal, Nature Climate Change, asks why the local warming effect should be so influential. The researchers conducted several experiments to try to overcome participants’ reliance on cues from weather. The work was led by Lisa Zaval of Columbia University’s Center for Research on Environmental Decisions…
A third approach investigated the effect of “priming,” or providing subtle topic cues. Researchers gave subjects hotness or coldness cues before answering questions about climate change. Study participants were asked to make four-word sentences from five-word groups, such as:
potatoes she the roasted it
Or:
the shivers man old of
People who were given “hot” priming sentences tended to believe and be concerned about climate change science more than those given “cold” or neutral sentences…ETC ETC
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-22/is-it-hot-in-here-or-is-it-just-me-telling-you-it-s-hot-in-here-.html
Someone should ask Glenn Greenwald if his leaving related to a sinking ship…
The golden portugeese will migrate…
“The atmosphere right now is half full of carbon dioxide”?!?!
========================================================================
I seem to recall that Apollo 13’s crew had mental challenges when their capsule was way less than “half full of carbon dioxide”.
Maybe these guys just need to open a window or get out of the office from time to time?
Man it is a good idea to flash that CO2/temp curve frequently. By the looks of it, if the earth is at 15 C (288.15K), and we will only be able to get it to 289 with 750ppm. Thereafter we will take forever to get to 290K or 16.85K. No wonder these guys are pressing hard now. 100 years from now emissions would have to be slashed~ 90% to knock it down a meaningful amount (assuming away any possible thermostat control of warming). Talking about boiling seas to come and painting all the anomalies fiery colours over warming so far of less than a degree must have a more powerful word than exaggeration to describe it. Schneider would even blush I would think. Yeah, its good to look again and again at what all the fuss is really about.
Is Barroso’s pose in the photo appropriate?
pat says:
January 22, 2014 at 6:13 pm
expect snow, icy driving conditions and ludicrous statements about global warming from Donald Trump
Is this what you had in mind:
See:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/colbert-trump-climate-change_n_4561585.html
This gives the views of Donald Trump on this general topic:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Follow
This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice
5:39 PM – 1 Jan 2014
It doesn’t add up… says:
January 22, 2014 at 8:00 pm
Is Barroso’s pose in the photo appropriate?
It doesn’t add up…,
Without seeing his boots…. I can’t be sure. };>)
You vill stop exhaling CO2 NOW….Undt you vill LIKE it!
Think I’ve seen this script somewhere before….
Of course they did. More than a half is the most politically useful conclusion so that result was preordained. If they hadn’t been able to get the number to come out like that they wouldn’t have published the study.
Richard, Kevin.
Thanks, but no you have not really explained this to me yet. Or at least I still don’t understand.
We have a graph where increasing CO2 concentrations do not increase temperature. If the CO2 in the atmosphere is no longer increasing in temperature, with increasing CO2concentrations, then it cannot continue to increase the amount of long-wave radiation transmitted back to the ground.
If the amount of long-wave radiation being returned from the atmosphere reaches a plateau, then so must the greenhouse effect of CO2 also reach a plateau. So from here on in, any further increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will have no effect on surface temperatures.
Please tell me where my logic is failing.
And if it is failing, then please could you explain what that graph really means.
Thanks,
ralph
It occured to me that, even when using the twisted logic that the Groaniad uses to determine that the atmosphere is 1/2 full of CO2, that this isn’t that alarming.
For example, my disk drive is half full. This is quite satisfactory. If is was 90% full I might be concerned, and consider cleaning up or expanding capacity, but half full is good.
My car’s fuel tank is half full. That’s fine – I’ll think about refilling when it gets below a quarter.
Les Johnson says: January 22, 2014 at 11:01 am
As the Brits would say, Carrington has “form” when it comes to “communication problems”; and, as others have noted, “sloppiness” in his writings and profound deficiencies in his “investigative” skills.
By way of example, readers might be interested in Carrington’s July 2011 performance vis a vis the IPCC’s “Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources” (SRREN) which was contaminated by the high-level involvement of Greenpeace’s Sven Teske, as I had noted in:
In defence of the IPCC, “journalist” ignores the real scandal
Silver ralph:
Your entire post at January 23, 2014 at 2:02 am says:
For the benefit of others I provide this link to a WUWT article by David Archibald which provides explanations and graphs of what you are questioning.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
I assume you have read the replies in this thread to you from me
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/22/climate-craziness-of-the-week-guardians-damian-carrington-glass-half-full-moment/#comment-1545355
and from Kevin Finnegan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/22/climate-craziness-of-the-week-guardians-damian-carrington-glass-half-full-moment/#comment-1545511
We each said the subject is too large for a full answer in this thread, and I suggested you read the links obtained by using the WUWT search for climate sensitivity so I suppose you have done that.
And Kevin told you
Simply, atmospheric CO2 concentration is so high that it is near a saturation point but has not reached saturation. But the concentration is so near to saturation that effect of additional CO2 is small.
The direct effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 concentration from its present level would only be ~1°C increase in Global Average Surface Temperature Anomaly (GASTA). This is so small an effect compared to natural climate variability that it would be indiscernible.
However, that brings us to the issue of feedbacks.
The increase to GASTA would alter phenomena in the climate system. And those alterations could also alter GASTA by enhancing the effect of increased CO2 (i.e. positive feedback) or reducing the effect of increased CO2 (i.e. negative feedback).
So,
(a) the climate sensitivity without feedbacks is an insignificant ~1°C increase in GASTA from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent,
and
(b) the climate sensitivity with positive feedbacks would be more (possibly much more) than 1°C increase in GASTA from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent,
And
(c) the climate sensitivity with negative feedbacks is an insignificant less than 1°C increase in GASTA from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent.
I hope that is helpful and makes sufficient sense for you to follow up the matter elsewhere.
Richard
There isn’t enough carbon on the planet to get to 10%, let alone 50%. But the Guardian is a pamphlet of the left, hence of and for people who mostly cannot count. This is just another example.
He simply doesn’t know the difference between 400 per million and 400 per mille.
M Courtney says: @ January 22, 2014 at 1:40 pm
Gail Combs, I don’t doubt you when you say “The Climate Change industry has hired Stan Greenburg”.
However, I question the fearsome reputation, effectiveness and even significance of Stan Greenburg.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Greenburg is one of the behind the scenes guys like Maurice Strong, another powerful man many people have not heard of. I mention him because he is completely over looked and he should not be. You may not have heard of him but he has been active behind the scenes in your country.
Greenberg is no light weight.
Pacific Standard The Science of Society: Why Are You So Smart, Stan Greenberg?
Richard.
We each said the subject is too large for a full answer in this thread, and I suggested you read the links obtained by using the WUWT search for climate sensitivity so I suppose you have done that.
_____________________________________
Your tone is hardly conducive to a warm reception. It would have been far easier to say ‘yes’ you are perfectly correct.
According to Archibald, a doubling of CO2 will only give 5 w/m2 of extra forcing, which a pee in the ocean. So the graph is much as i expected – increasing CO2 has little or no effect.
Thanks,
Ralph
Silver ralph:
I and Kevin Finnegan each went to the time trouble and effort of answering your technical question.
You replied that our answers were not sufficient, so at January 23, 2014 at 4:41 am I provided another and fuller answer. It is here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/22/climate-craziness-of-the-week-guardians-damian-carrington-glass-half-full-moment/#comment-1546205
As anyone reading my answers can see, I explained that the effect you were questioning depends on climate sensitivity and has no specific answer. It concludes saying
Your reply at January 23, 2014 at 1:51 pm is churlish and includes this
How dare you misrepresent me like that?!
OK. I have learned. You are filed under ‘Offensive time waster’ so I will not provide you with technical information again.
Richard
If the atmosphere was half full of carbon there would be no comments here.