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.
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.