Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
People wonder why anthropogenic global warming is a politicized issue. Here’s one reason among many. In a presentation aimed at the holidays that is impossible to parody, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has put up a website called, no kidding, “the Democrat’s guide to talking politics with your republican uncle”.
I loved how they capitalized “Democrat” but not “republican”. And here’s the advertisement for the web page that they’ve emailed out to alert the faithful to the new website:
Me, I’m not a member of either party. I vote for the person not the party, and my general political philosophy is “A Pox On Both Their Houses”. However, I like to stay current with the propaganda from both sides.
In any case, there’s a section of that DNC web page that covers climate. It’s hilarious. Here are all of the different parts of their climate claims:
Climate: 97% of scientists vs. your Republican uncle
Myth
Climate change is just a liberal scare tactic.
Fact
Forgive us for being convinced by the 97% of climate scientists who agree that climate change is real and believe that humans are probably causing it. Republican obstruction on policies to address climate change endangers our environment and hurts our economy.
[Source]
Now, their [Source] is a NASA web page, and it goes to some length to prove that the globe has actually warmed over the last few centuries … but then we all knew that most scientists agree about that. However, in a classic “bait and switch”, it says nothing about whether humans are responsible, much less whether 97% of scientists believe that humans are driving the climate to Thermageddon. In fact, the NASA site doesn’t mention the bogus 97% number even once … that’s their evidence for their “97%” claim??? Do they understand what [Source] is supposed to mean?
[UPDATE: An alert reader pointed out below that there is a link on their page to another page which is supposed to give support for the “97%” number … but doesn’t. Instead, what it has are links to meaningless statements from the boards (not the members but the boards) of scientific societies, plus a citation to the laughable Naomi Oreskes study and such. Pathetic. In any case, the appeal to consensus is meaningless. As Michael Crichton said:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Can’t say it clearer than that.]
And alas, even NASA can’t resist the hype. They say:
Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
Umm … er … no. Not true in the slightest. That claim is the result of splicing the satellite data onto the tidal gauge data, which shows no such rise. See Figure 3 here for details. [UPDATE: See also Steve Fitzpatrick’s comments below.]
NASA also gets all breathless about ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica, saying:
Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
While that might sound impressive, that’s an ice loss rate for Greenland of 0.01% per year … and for Antarctica it’s a tenth of that, only a thousandth of a percent (0.001%) over three years … bad scientists, no cookies. That’s unbridled alarmism from people who should know better.
Setting NASA aside, the “republican uncle” page goes on to say,
Myth
Humans can’t do anything to combat rising CO2 levels.
Fact
Except we already are combating rising CO2. In 2012, the U.S. recorded the lowest levels of carbon emissions in nearly two decades . And by taking steps like improving fuel efficiency, we can do more in the years ahead. Because of new standards, for instance, the average car in 2025 will achieve a fuel economy equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon, nearly double that of cars on the road today. A goal, by the way, that Republicans tried to block.
They say that we “… will achieve a fuel economy…”? I do love the idea that King Barack Canute can order the tides to roll back, or order the average car to get 54.5 miles per gallon ten years from now, and it will perforce happen. The idiocy is revealed by the “.5” in the goal. These are the same fools, using the same kind of “order it and it must happen” idiotic logic who ordered oil refiners to utilize a product that doesn’t exist … but I digress.
More to the point, the reduction in CO2 emissions is NOT from any push, governmental or otherwise, to get off of fossil fuels. It is from the shift to a different fossil fuel, natural gas … the production of which has been widely opposed by Democrats. Taking credit for changes that they opposed … like I said, you can’t parody this stuff.
Finally, whether the US makes any changes in CO2 emissions is meaningless these days. We’re a minor player in the game. Here’s a graphic I made a couple of years ago showing why:
As you can see, the developing nations are now in the driver’s seat. US emissions are already nearly flat. It doesn’t much matter what we do.
Myth
The United States can’t stay economically competitive if we address climate change.
Fact
Climate change itself is taking a toll on our economy. In 2012, climate and weather disasters cost the United States more than $100 billion . And right now, other countries are making huge investments in research and development to confront this crisis with new technologies — which means new industries and new jobs. We can’t afford to fall behind them. The longer Republicans deny climate change exists, the further we fall behind.
The myth of “green jobs” has been exploded many times and places, the latest being Germany and Spain. There’s no cheese at the end of that maze.
And they’re playing fast and loose with the facts by claiming that the $100 billion cost of climate and weather disasters has anything at all to do with climate change. It has to do with weather, but there’s been no overall increase in extreme events … and in fact, the recent year has seen one of the lowest disaster rates in quite a while. Crisis, my okole. See here for details.
Finally, their “source” for the $100 billion number is nothing but another DNC puff piece that has no sources listed, and the figures given are labeled “Estimated” … pathetic.
Myth
President Obama wants the United States to stop climate change alone.
Fact
This summer President Obama announced a plan to reduce U.S. carbon pollution 25% from 2005 levels by 2020. But he also knows that climate change can only be solved if the international community works together. That’s why this November, the President announced a groundbreaking agreement to work with China to reduce carbon pollution and to increase the country’s non-fossil fuel energy to around 20% by 2030 .
It was a “groundbreaking agreement” alright, but not for the reasons they claim. It was groundbreaking because never in history have we given up so much in return for so little. It requires the US to take action immediately, but it allows the Chinese to increase their CO2 emissions as much as they want until 2030. Brilliant piece of negotiation, groundbreaking to say the least. The Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank … and the myth is absolutely true, Obama is left going it alone.
The best part of the web page, however, is that sprinkled throughout the document are a number of links with the little Twitter tweety-bird symbol next to them. If you click on one, it composes an automatic tweet all ready to go out under your byline, like this one:
#FACT: 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and believe that humans are causing it. http://my.democrats.org/yru-climate
And the link at the end, to the website called “yru-climate”? …
Why, of course, that link goes to the website called “your republican uncle”.
Somewhere, the Founding Fathers are weeping …
Best to everyone, whether your uncles are Repuglicans or Demagogues,
w.
PS—If you disagree with someone, please be so kind as to QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH. That way we can all understand the exact nature of your objections.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Aaarrgghh!! one more try:
For some baffling reason, the following quoted material failed to appear after the words, “Brute wrote:”
Brute
wrote:
‘The fact is that global warming was created as a political tool by a conservative (so called “right wing”)
party. Look it up. It’s not a secret.’
Nothing new to see here, folks. Move along.
Jan Kjetil Andersen December 27, 2014 at 2:31 am
Look at my answer to KaiseDerden December 25, 2014 at 9:39 am
This is if cause not the largest danger I see, but it is a quite uncontroversial one.
———————————————————————————-
This is just getting silly Jan. I followed the link, and nowhere was there any data showing an increase in concrete corrosion due to anthropogenic CO2. In fact, there was no mention of it. What I read on the site seemed to be mostly about fixing the corrosion caused by all kinds of agents.
Why don’t you do this?
1) Take the largest danger that you see.
2) Show the scientific evidence, i.e. real world data (not models or speculation) that CO2 going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm has had any measurable effect on your “largest danger”.
Why don’t you do this too?
1) Talk to one of the people who is laughing (should be easy, as it’s apparently most of the world).
2) Have them undertake the exercise above, and then please report back.
The first link says: “The most frequent aggressive agents are pure water, chlorides dissolved in water and carbon dioxide (CO2) in atmosphere” and
“In practice, carbon dioxide (CO2) initiates reinforcement corrosion, when the concrete cover in contact with this steel is carbonated and rather wet (even in a non permanent way).”
How much clearer do you need it?
If you miss the direct reference to anthropogenic sources you can look at this:
https://www.academia.edu/2347430/Carbonation_in_concrete_infrastructure_in_the_context_of_global_climate_change_Development_of_a_service_lifespan_model
As I explained to Willis, it just leads to an endless discussion to argument for CO2’s role in global warming or less alcaline seawater. That has been done before, and we will perhaps get the chances to do it again.
Since KaiserDerden asked for one loss, I picked corrosion in concrete enforcement because I think it is easiest prove that effect.
I did not want to discuss how harmful CO2 might be or not in this thread as I see that as a diversion from the topic. The topic I started and want to focus on is whether it matter or not what the US do in the climate talks concerning global CO2 emissions.
/Jan
Willis Eschenbach said:
It’s been an awful long time since I studied thermo and heat transfer but I seriously doubt that, considering the total heat capacity of the ocean, a 0.6 degree increase in air temperature at the surface would cause a detectable change in the rate of expansion. Of course, looking at the “science” they have produced so far, I also doubt that many (if any) of the alarmists are even slightly familiar with thermodynamics and heat transfer.
This is just wrong. CO2 levels have no effect whatsoever on Carbonation of concrete. It is totally dependent on the relative humidity of the environment and the concrete permeability. The concrete and the structure can be designed to reduce/eliminate carbonation by decreasing the permeability, increasing the depth of cover over the reinforcing steel, using epoxy coated rebar, minimizing cement replacement, or using liquid admixtures that inhibit corrosion. Proper design and construction techniques virtually eliminate carbonation.
Sorry that was in reply to Jan..
Yep, that’s what his link was all about. I was hoping to provoke him into actually finding some data (to be further disemboweled, I’m sure, if he could find some). However, I don’t think Jan knows what data is.
……. and that’s the uncontroversial one too, apparently.
You are wrong there Doc, take a look: https://www.academia.edu/2347430/Carbonation_in_concrete_infrastructure_in_the_context_of_global_climate_change_Development_of_a_service_lifespan_model
/Jan
Jan, did you even read that paper? First it is all based on models, no actual real test data or existing structure evaluations. Secondly, even in their own paper they say, based on their “models and calculations” that the structures service life would be in excess of 55 years, which is greater than most structures (other than bridges) are designed for. They also use an estimated w/c ratio of 0.5 which is ludicrous, no structural concrete member would be that high. Typically they will be 0.42 or lower for structures of importance (bridges,etc). If they are talking about building then there whole study can be put in the trash. They also use a layer of cover of only 25mm which is not acceptable, it is half of what is used under most building codes.
So, they use a model (s) that use unrealistic w/c ratios, inappropriate coverage, don’t consider any modifications to improve permeability of concrete and or epoxy coated rebar. They perform no actual testing or gathering of field data and they also make a standardization of the exposure class ( saying the weather/humidity is going to be constant), give me a break. These guys need to go back to Undergrad Material Eng class.
Hilarious.
Jan goes right out and proves my point that he doesn’t know what data is.
I mean … do any of these blockheads know how to design a fkin experiment ?
philincalifornia
December 28, 2014 at 10:13 am
I mean … do any of these blockheads know how to design a fkin experiment ?
Short answer; no. Why do they need experimentation when they have the Holy Grail of 97% consensus? They don’t need no STEENKIN’ facts! Ya gotta BELIEVE!! LOL!
thedocrock December 27, 2014 at 1:50 pm
Quote: “First it is all based on models, no actual real test data or existing structure evaluations.”
Yes, and they don’t care. A number on a computer screen has greater value to them to help stop the horror that is CO2 released into the air than are actual measurements that don’t support their cause.
No… From what I have gathered, it’s just that with the requirements in academia to publish-or-perish, unless they are working on a fairly large project with plenty of funding, they dream up these (mostly small) computer model studies they can complete, write-up and submit in their spare time just to have something to add to the CV. That’s probably one of the main reasons why something like 80% of the peer reviewed papers are falsified within a few years of being published.
I learned a long time ago, at several start-ups, that you just had to laugh and then ignore most of the relevant papers you could dig up. But, at least you could usually tell this from reading the abstract and didn’t have to waste time digging into the full paper.
Frankly, some of the papers touted both here and at Real Climate are in that category and probably should have just be consigned to the dust bin. The problem is that the only reason a lot of them are written and published is to keep the main stream media engaged and continue the proselytizing for the CAGW meme.
Jan Kjetil Andersen December 27, 2014 at 11:50 am
Of course you don’t want to discuss how harmful CO2 might be, because you have no evidence of any significant harm. I will point out, however, that it’s not a “diversion from the topic”, because the claims of harm from CO2 underlie the entire CO2 discussion. If these bogus claims didn’t exist we wouldn’t be having this discussion
In any case, since you want to discuss whether US actions matter, I’ve shown in the head post that what we do doesn’t make any difference because the US emissions are trivial in the global scheme. By that I mean that the US emissions could go to no growth at all for the next fifty years and only make a trivial difference in atmospheric CO2 totals. You have not provided a scrap of evidence to show that this is incorrect.
Here’s a question for you, Jan. From 1994 to 2012, global CO2 emissions increased by 60%, from 6,069,597 kilotonnes of carbon to 9,666,501 kilotonnes. That’s an increase of 3,596,904 kilotonnes per year.
Perhaps you could inform us just how much of that three million kilotonne plus increase was from US emissions? …
w.
PS—The answer is, 128 measly kilotonnes, a whopping 0.003 percent of the increase. The US emissions in 2012 were essentially identical to the US emissions in 1994 … and you can see just how much difference that made to the global emissions. None at all.
Note also that none of the developing countries have jumped on board to emulate us in holding our emissions flat, so don’t even try the “If the US does it the developing countries will follow” BS … our lack of increase in emissions has made no difference at all to the other countries.
Willis says
As I have said before, the US emissions are the second largest in the world after China. That means that all other nations can use the same excuse to not do anything to their own emissions.
The Chinese can use the excuse that they are more people and they should have the same right to use as much carbon per capita as the US citizens.
The US matters more than any other nation in international treaties. We have seen two such treaties lately. The first was a bilateral treaty between the US and China to set emission targets. Do you think China had solitarily declared those targets for themselves if the US had not set any target for the US emissions?
The other was a multilateral treaty where almost all nations declared to set targets to cap emissions. Do you really think that it would be possible to include developing nations in this treaty if the US had stayed outside?
Here’s a question for you, Jan. From 1994 to 2012, global CO2 emissions increased by 60%, from 6,069,597 kilotonnes of carbon to 9,666,501 kilotonnes. That’s an increase of 3,596,904 kilotonnes per year.
Perhaps you could inform us just how much of that three million kilotonne plus increase was from US emissions? …
With an accuracy of seven decimals, that’s funny.
The increase has not been high in the US since 1994, it is a good reason for that, namely that the US already had very high emissions in 1994. The US emission in 1994 was 19.5 tons per capita. In comparison had Germany 10.6, France 6.2, China had 2.6 and India only 0.9 tons/capita.
See: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?page=4
The situation was a little more even in 2014: the US now uses 17.6, Germany 9.1, France 5.6, China 6.2 and India 1.7 tons/capita.
This only shows that any international treaty without caps in the US would be regarded as very unfair by other countries.
Look to France, they have obviously done something right.
/Jan
Returning to the lead sentence of Willis’ article, the real issue is Taxes and Control.
Global Warming/Global Cooling (I remember that in the ’70’s) / Anthro-whatever Climate Change, Climate Disruption….. whatever the name is this week……. the so-called ‘solution’ ALWAYS boils down to more taxes and more control by the nitwits who believe they are smarter than the rest of us.
THAT is why the Left is always pushing it.
Promoters of most any agenda judge “facts” in terms of “usefulness”. If the quoted facts are actually true, that’s a happy, but not terribly important bonus. Promoters know that in any contested event, whatever “facts” they put out there will be covered over by opposition “facts”. In a scientifically based fact-slinging contest, truth is particularly irrelevant because a generally science-illiterate public will judge the winner by the height he’s added to the pile. On that realistic basis, AGW promoters pretty much had the general public won over, thanks to corrupted science and compliant news media.
Then Mother Nature intervened by throwing tons of snow and ice onto the “skeptic” pile. She added insult to injury by following Al Gore to global warming conferences all over the world and gracing the proceedings with “cold snaps”. Back home, Ma and Pa Kettle have always known how to read a thermometer. After several decades of watching the thing bounce around from year to year, they’ve noticed that whether the reading goes up or down, AGW promoters throw that “fact” onto their pile as evidence of “warming” (relabeled as “climate change” but still defended as “warming”).
In my estimation and according to the polls, Ma and Pa Kettle “ain’t buyin’ this crap no more” and any political party or politician continuing to carry the AGW banner loses credibility where it counts in the political world and may soon be lain bare to public contempt and ridicule.
I can give a short summary of my view, you may label it lukewarmer or alarmist as you like, but this is how I view the situation.
I consider these moments as facts:
1. We experience very high global temperatures. The last two decades have been approximately 0.8 degrees warmer than the average from 1850 to 1920. The last decade has been the warmest in at least several hundred years.
2. The current CO2 level at 400 ppm is the highest in at least 800 000 years and this elevated level is either for the most part, or only, a result of human emissions.
3. The current CO2 level is approximately 43% above the pre-industrial level. The level will increase to approximately 900 ppm, which is 220% above the pre industrial level, in the year 2100 if the current trend in increased carbon emissions continues.
4. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If the Earth had no greenhouse gases the average temperature on Earth would be about 33 degrees Celsius lower than it is today.
5. When we increase the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere we will likely get higher greenhouse effects. The extra greenhouse effect of doubling the CO2 level without accounting for feedback mechanisms is approximately 3.7 W/m2, which gives an extra warming of approximately 1 degree Celsius. It is not proven that an increase of this magnitude has more negative than positive effects.
6. There will be feedback mechanisms, some negative and some positive. It is not proven how much the sum of these mechanisms will decrease or increase the climate sensitivity, but most models gives a net positive feedback resulting in a sensitivity between 2.0 and 4.5 Celsius.
7. Some of the anthropogenic CO2 will be dissolved in sea and freshwater and this causes the PH to drop. It is not yet proven that this drop will cause any substantial negative effects.
Judgment
Most well informed people and climate scientist will agree to the points above, although quite many mainstream scientists will think that the points 5, 6 and 7 are too conservative.
What concerns me most is number 3 and 6.
My alarm systems start blinking when I look at the graph below. We are after all not talking about any random gas; CO2 is one of the two life bearing gases here on Earth. The other is oxygen and all the rest is something less important.
My natural skepticism is not only triggered by people who are sure this will be catastrophic, it is just as much triggered by people who claim that this is nothing to worry about.
If the CO2 level reaches 900 ppm, we will by a logarithmic scaling of the climate forcing of CO2, get a warming of 168% of the climate sensitivity.
This means that even if the climate sensitivity is in the low end of current estimates, i.e. around 2 degrees Celsius, we will get a warming of 3.4 degrees Celsius in the year 2100.
I think this is worrying, and that we should take some actions to prevent the CO2 level to reach 900 ppm in 2100. However, it is no reason for hysteria which I think we sometimes see in the media.
/Jan
Wow! That is some serious assuming! Good luck!
Considering it lacks citation…
We don’t need no steenkin’ citation! 97% says it’s real. Ya gotta BELIEVE!!! Ya gotta FEEL!!!
Gee, Jan, could ya bump your CO2 allowance up to 1000ppm for us farmers?
http://www.novabiomatique.com/hydroponics-systems/plant-555-gardening-with-co2-explained.cfm
By the way, welcome to the search for the truth.
Jan, pre-industrial levels of CO2 are thought to be 280ppm. Current levels are 400ppm, which represents, logarithmically speaking, 50% of a doubling.
You’ve had a few days now to find and post any climate parameter where there is empirical evidence that this half-doubling has had any effect, and you haven’t even come close to addressing this. In other words, it is between zero and immeasurable.
If we double it from 400ppm to 800ppm, which is getting up towards your 900ppm, then we will have 3 X zero to immeasurable.
Hope this makes you sleep better
3 X zero equals zero? Who knew?
Jan Kjetil Andersen December 28, 2014 at 11:42 am Edit
Sorry, but until you answer my question, I don’t care about the assumptions that you’re trying to pass off as facts.
w.
PS: you say:
This is not a “fact”, it is the combination of a host of assumptions. The most egregious of these assumptions is assuming that you can draw a straight line extending the current trend in emissions until the year 2100.
Hello Jan,
I agree with some of what you say, but there are a few points that seem to me very unlikely:
1. Warming (based on whatever the true climate sensitivity is net GHG forcing) will not approach the equilibrium values for hundreds of years, but only then if the atmospheric GHG levels (CO2 and all others) levels were maintained at a constant (much higher) level. They won’t be, they will almost certainly be falling by 2100, if not well before then.
2. Reaching 900 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere is very close to impossible because a) there probably isn’t enough economically recoverable fossil fuel available, and b) the rate of ocean uptake will rise roughly in proportion to the atmospheric concentration, making equal emissions of CO2 less able to raise atmospheric CO2 when the level is higher. More plausible CO2 emissions projections do not lead to such high atmospheric CO2 levels.
3. Any substitution for fossil fuels needs to be practical and reasonably inexpensive. Current solar and wind power technologies are neither.
If you are very concerned about future warming from CO2, then I suggest that you lend your support to rapid development of third generation (inherently fail-safe) nuclear power technology, and on helping poor countries modernize and become at least mid-income countries; that means making energy available and affordable. There is no better way to reduce long term population growth than for people to stop being poor…. it has the added benefit of reducing human suffering, improving health and quality of life, and avoiding early death.
Thank you Steve, you have many good points.
Concerning the first, you are right that there will take long time to reach equilibrium climate sensitivity and the transient climate sensitivity is in the range 1.0 to 2.5 Celsius. But I am not convinced that the CO2 level will be falling by 2100 unless we do something to make it happen.
You are right that we will likely be short on oil and gas resources in 2100, but the world’s coal resources are really huge.
/Jan
Jan,
I don’t disagree with your items 1 through 4, just that they present any cause for concern. When temperatures have been higher than today (e.g. Medieval and Roman Warm Periods), mankind seems to have flourished. It has been the colder periods, both between and before, that have been the more troubling times.
Items 5 and 6 both imply positive feedbacks (I’m glad you didn’t use the term ‘forcing’) which, if any do exists, we won’t know until some time far in the future. Newer research seems to keep dropping the estimates of temperature change caused by a doubling of CO2. As far as item 7, I think the classic picture of the coral reef with CO2 bubbling around it answers that, at least for me.
The current crop of ‘Climate Scientists’ has so thoroughly screwed up the actual science of climate (if by any stretch of the imagination you can call what they have produced science) that it is going to take decades to recover. However, that we can recover. But, they have also destroyed the reputation of scientist and scientists in general. No longer can we expect honest statements of the assumed, the known and the unknown along with their probabilities. I can live with uncertainty and I can accept ignorance, both my own and in others. What is intolerable is incompetence (i.e., not admitting your ignorance) and lying, even if (they think) for the better good. I’m afraid that once the public becomes aware of being misled, and to what extent, it will take one or more generations to recover the lost respect, if ever.
I like to think of George Carlin when I see this sort of propaganda, and imagine who it will impress. “You know how dumb the average person is? Well, half of the population is even dumber than that.” And they voted for Obama.