“…the time has come to look at options for a planetary-scale intervention…”
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The National Academy of Science has demanded that scientists from disciplines other than climate modelling get a fair turn at the grant trough.
According to The Guardian;
“Climate change has advanced so rapidly that the time has come to look at options for a planetary-scale intervention, the National Academy of Science said on Tuesday.
The scientists were categorical that geoengineering should not be deployed now, and was too risky to ever be considered an alternative to cutting the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. But it was better to start research on such unproven technologies now – to learn more about their risks – than to be stampeded into climate-shifting experiments in an emergency, the scientists said.
With that, a once-fringe topic in climate science moved towards the mainstream – despite the repeated warnings from the committee that cutting carbon pollution remained the best hope for dealing with climate change.
“That scientists are even considering technological interventions should be a wake-up call that we need to do more now to reduce emissions, which is the most effective, least risky way to combat climate change,” Marcia McNutt, the committee chair and former director of the US Geological Survey, said.
Asked whether she foresaw a time when scientists would eventually turn to some of the proposals studied by the committee, she said: “Gosh, I hope not.”
I can understand Marcia’s point – it might be fun to build a doomsday machine, but you probably wouldn’t want to switch it on.
But the frustration of Physicists, Engineers and Chemistry majors is obvious and understandable – in my opinion they’re simply demanding that they get fair access to the climate trough, rather than seeing all the money, women, swanky holiday outings and the fancy new offices, go to the climate muddlers.
All,
“Life support is not needed to study Mars from the ground; or whatever they call all that red stuff.” Uh, here we would call that “red stuff” mostly rust….
Mike
How can anyone be anything other than disgusted with this Guardian article?
The trough is already so huge and overflowing and money is thrown at the most feeble of research subjects on the sole condition that the conclusion states Thermageddon is imminent, the direct result of almost non-existent man made climate change.
I saw on the news an arrest warrant was issued because of all the snow in the North East. I thought maybe it was for Al Gore but it turned out to be for Punxsutawney Phil.
During the witchcraft mania, first came the priests, then the professional “prickers”, i.e. the witch hunters, then came the inventors of torture and death devices for witches. We have devolved to the stage of the makers of ovens large enough for whole families.
Each stage of a mania has its economic opportunities.
Hello, sorry to get off topic, I am a skeptic that is always visiting this website for information. We are experiencing unusually high tempertures in Wyoming right now. Bill Nye coincidentally spoke to a large green audience in our community recently. He spoke of the unprecedented temperature changes in our area, it is true we do not see 40 below zero now, it is more 20 below when it gets really cold. Someone tried to counter his arguments, he shut them down with look outside, it’s 40 degrees and there is no ice on the streets, we need to get going on fixing the problem. Of course the crowd cheered. He wants carbon taxes on anything that is powered by carbon based fuels. My question is, from my own reading and what I have learned from the articles on this website, there is no evidence that CO2 is raising temperatures, it is an assumption, is that correct? He used some study that used measurements from 1911 to present. He said that 2014 was the warmest ever. But with weather like we have been experiencing it is very difficult to speak freely about what I have learned. Does anyone have any thoughts as to why we might be experiencing these weird temperatures in Wyoming?
It could be many things, but it’s almost certainly influenced by climate change caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. This is basic science, has been predicted since the 60’s and is now unfolding just as predicted, and understood as fact by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (in spite of the fact that the dollars are all on the other side of the argument.) This is an interesting site, but not a good place to look for facts on climate change.
so, what are good places to look for facts on climate change?
Bubba – you’re on this site, so you have this point of view. For some balance, I would suggest http://www.skepticalscience.com. SKS isn’t very popular around here but you can look at it and make your own judgment.
SHF.
Given that the bogus science has predicted literally everything under the sun is because of CAGW, and still manage to get it wrong, that screams, ”We haven’t got a clue”. This, in spite of the obscene funding from all angles being pumped into the alarmist pseudoscience.
There ye go. Fixed it for ye.
SHF,
So that’s where you get your misinformation from.
Thought so.
SHF –
because I am on this site does not mean I have this point of view – whatever that might be, I read lots.
I visit Jo Nova, Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, the Pielkes, Susan Crockford, Bishop’s Hill, and also SKS and more . . . not interested in Main Stream – that is all marketing anymore.
SHF,
You keep reciting the same pablum. Instead of coming here to post empty rhetoric, try reading the articles and contradicting specific points in the article. There are people who do that quite well.
Just a suggestion, I understand many find ignorance is bliss.
“…overwhelming majority of government-funded climate scientists…” There, fixed.
“now unfolding just as predicted”
There are so many predictions that failed that your statement fails without further specifying who predicted, what exactly and how you measure the success.
‘Person with a sea-view (predicted)’
How about the 1990 IPPC prediction, analyzed in 2012 in a paper in Nature and found to be remarkably accurate? Discounting it as part of a conspiracy will automatically disqualify you from credibility.http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1763.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201304
Troy,
Is there no prior record of 40F days in Wyoming in February? Really??
It is almost certainly not influenced by climate change caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. This is basic science, AGW has been refuted since the 60’s and natural climate cycles continue unfolding just as predicted, and understood as fact by the overwhelming majority of climate realists (in spite of the fact that the profligate waste of taxpayer dollars are all on the AGW side of the argument.)
That’s simply not true. Which is why ever major scientific body on the planet publicly endorses AGW. So either they are all wrong, or tens of thousands of scientists are corrupt and maintaining a giant conspiracy to get grant money, and the only ones brave enough to oppose them are a handful of multi-billion dollar fossil fuel conglomerates. Which explains why all the Ferraris are found in the parking lots of university labs and the executive lots at ExxonMobil are jammed with Hyundais. Yep, that’s plausible.
No, that is right.
Yes, that statement is correct. 92 billion dollars buys a lot of corrupt “scientists”, and silences the rest.
No, the Ferraris are bought by the corrupt politicians who fund their Big Science supporters and the hedge fund operators who need carbon taxes for their Big Government donors, money for their Big Government voters, and profits for Big Finance.
We’ve had this conversation before. The reality based community recognizes there has been no global warming for +18 years. The reality based community recognizes global warming and cooling as natural cycles.
In the face of no ‘threat’, you have only fear mongering and the profligate waste of taxpayer dollars supporting your discredited AGW hypothesis. But don’t let reality stop you, Shaman. Keep shaking your gourd rattle, repeating your well rehearsed mantra, and decrying humanity’s industrial ‘original sin’ as the cause of ‘impending doom’.
Sir Harry Flashman February 11, 2015 at 5:17 pm
That’s simply not true. Which is why ever major scientific body on the planet publicly endorses AGW.
You dropped the “C” Harry. Why is that? Not CAGW anymore?
“92 billion dollars buys a lot of corrupt “scientists”, and silences the rest.”
What is your source for the 92 billion dollar figure?
Chris
Well, you’re right. 92 billion is the most common estimate for the US government’s global warming research and development bribery (er, budget). But we’ve recently found that the Obola administration actually spent more than 60 billion just the past three budgets alone, so you are right. It is far higher than 92 billion available to buy Big Government self-selected scientists to produce results for Big Government bureaucrats to justify 1.3 trillion in higher taxes for Big Government donors to get a cut for Big Finance. But only the left’s Occupy Wall Street complains about Big Finance, don’t they?
Now, what is wrong with the science that Willie Soon wrote up?
How much did Billy get to speak to the rooters?
Carbon tax is all about $$$ – and some for the “science guy” – possibly he is stumping, maybe commission.
There is plenty of info for you here – look around – links at top and to the right.
Bill Nye believed NASA and NOAA? And repeated it? He must be some Science Guy.
If warm weather in Wyoming proves global warming, then the current cold weather in the eastern United States proves the coming ice age.
But seriously though, how does global average increase of temperature since 1880 of 0.8 C cause that amount of warming in Wyoming? I have heard that the same nonsense about out temporary warmth in south western British Columbia is a result of climate change, yet a couple of months ago we were having record cold temperatures.
That is not how climate science works with weather. Note the simple 2 step process:
1.Climate science is the only entity allowed to use local weather as proof.
2. Whether the local weather is hotter, colder, drier, or wetter, it proves climate science is true.
garymount
How does a global average increase of temperature since 1880 of 0.8C casue that amount of warming in Wyoming??
Best line of the night.
Eugene WR Gallun
Garymount, look at the province weather page and look at record temps for the day. You will notice most winter records are still outstanding with double digits in every decade since records have been kept in Vancouver
We are free to believe what we want.
Casper Wyoming saw -40 in 1949 and again in 1972. That’s it.
We have the same problem here in Canada, where Forty below is the go-to temperature that everybody invokes, and they’re convinced they’ve seen it many times. They haven’t.
I lived in the Yukon in the 1970’s and January and February often saw minimums of -40 or -45, just as they do now. That’s north of 60 degrees latitude. Even Winnipeg tends to bottom out around -35C.
In 1958 Casper didn’t get colder than +5 F. Silly Sir Harry will tell you how that came to be and what will happen next year.
Not even the most extreme warmist thinks it has changed 20 degrees in 30 years.
Troy, Interesting you mentioned 1911 — more in a sec… How about last November. If Nye had shown up then, his reception might have been a bit cooler (sorry…) Over 400 record lows for date were set in Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Nebraska and points East. Specific to your area, “Casper, Wyoming, dipped to -27 at 11:59 p.m. Wednesday night, shattering their all-time November record low of -21 on Nov. 23, 1985” an all-time monthly low. http://www.weather.com/storms/winter/news/arctic-cold-outbreak-november-locked-20141110
All that happened around Nov 11th 2014. On another Nov 11th “Many cities broke record highs, going into the 70s and 80s early that afternoon. By nightfall, cities were dealing with temperatures in the teens and single-digits on the Fahrenheit scale. This is the only day in many midwest cities’ weather bureau jurisdictions where the record highs and lows were broken for the same day. Some cities experienced tornadoes on Saturday and a blizzard on Sunday. A blizzard even occurred within one hour after an F4 tornado hit Rock County, Wisconsin.” [ http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lmk/?n=nov_11_1911_cold_front ] or the wiki page on that storm.
Classic CAGW violent weather, right? Proves CAGW, right? Except that happened on Nov 11th 1911. Well before anybody claims AGW could have started.
It’s called WEATHER, and it changes. Sometimes drastically. Climate changes all the time as well. A thousand or so years ago the Vikings lived and farmed in Greenland and the natives in Chaco Canyon, NM had a vibrant farming community. Then the climate changed, Greenland weather and ice drove the Norse out and the rains dried up in Chaco and it was abandoned. What CO2 caused that? Climate went from colder than today to warmer than today to colder than today to what we have now. All in only 1200 years and for most of that without so much as a lawn mower adding to the CO2.
You can talk to people about propaganda and deliberate falsifying of data, as shown by the climategate scandal. And it’s still being practised by those like “Sir Harry Flashman,” claiming that petro dollars are behind all sceptic science when the provable facts are that big oil is putting a LOT of money into both sides, while government is putting nearly all their money into his side. Only in Harry’s rhetorical world is Big Oil bigger than Big Government.
Speaking of Sir Harry, I’m amused and conflicted by that screen name. Why would a “Deacon of CAGW Truth” pick the name of a fictional character best known for being a liar, a scoundrel, “cad and bounder” and a cheat? I toyed with the idea that he is really a sceptic using a sort of reverse psychology to make the alarmists look bad (which he does quite well with his semi-skilled use of the standard (tired) rhetorical tricks of ad hom, misdirection, bait and switch, appeal to authority and etc.) but on further reflection I decided he is just another ideologue that stumbled across a copy of “Rules for Radicals” and, since he knew that he was a genius, he came hither to save us from our selves. I wonder if that choice of screen name is what they used to call a “Freudian slip”???
How’s that workin’ for ya, Harry?
“It’s called WEATHER, and it changes. Sometimes drastically. Climate changes all the time as well.”
Noone has ever disputed that. Climate changes based on forcings, which can mean all kinds of things. Currently the forcing that is driving the change towards a warmer planet is human-generated greenhouse gases, and much work has been done to prove this.
” Why would a “Deacon of CAGW Truth” pick the name of a fictional character best known for being a liar, a scoundrel, “cad and bounder” and a cheat? I toyed with the idea that he is really a sceptic using a sort of reverse psychology to make the alarmists look bad (which he does quite well with his semi-skilled use of the standard (tired) rhetorical tricks of ad hom, misdirection, bait and switch, appeal to authority and etc.) but on further reflection I decided he is just another ideologue that stumbled across a copy of “Rules for Radicals” and, since he knew that he was a genius, he came hither to save us from our selves. ”
Firstly thanks for the new title and list of skills, I will add those to my business card and CV. Secondly, I just really enjoy the Flashman books and figure by using the name I may encourage others to read them. There’s no other motive there. Finally, I don’t think I’m going to “save” anyone here, even if I wanted to. I’m just in it for the lulz.
Flash man:
Good news if we get a warmer planet. Warmer is better for all life forms.
It means lower heating costs, less winter mortality for all life forms including humans; less winter misery.
It means a longer growing season and more food for a burgeoning world population.
So tell, us, SHF, when will we see this heaven on earth? Because we have surely not seen much lately.
So tell us, when we we see this heaven on earth, our promised warmth?
Or maybe you are talking about climate models. Is this what you mean? Climate models?
I’m talking about 9 of the 10 hottest years since measurement began taking place between 2002 and 2014. Even “skeptics” know it’s getting hotter; I was under the impression the excuses had moved on to “Sure, but it’s not our fault” pending the inevitable “Too late to do anything about it now!”.
SHF:
Getting better and better for humankind and nature’s own, do you say?
Great!
Thank you for this wonderful news.
All the while I’ve been fearful of a descent into another Little Ice Age, or worse, which cooling is the scythe of death for fauna and flora. But now you show that sort of fretfulness is just climate alarmism, thank you for your revelation.
PS: my poor, over wrung hands thank you, too.
You are worried about not having -40 degree weather? Wow…just wow.
I guess -60 would be better. And Bill Nye would no doubt blame that on global warming.
These guys are nuts.
The arctic was -67 C (wind chill) a week or 2 back. Yet they keep claiming that it is hotter than ever.
When it is -67 (wind chill), that is just weather. When it is -20 in BF Wyoming, THAT! is Climate change.
“…the time has come to look at options for a planetary-scale intervention…”
I used to find all this climate hoopla slightly amusing and extremely irritating now I’m scared. Funging data and heating server rooms running simulations is one thing but this is asinine.
Somebody remind me again why we have a National Academy of Science? Or why anyone reads the Guardian?
Dooms Day machine, huh? I think the NSA may be working on a “solution” to the end of civilization caused by climate change.
John Holdren: I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy…heh, heh… at the bottom of ah…some of our deeper mineshafts. Climate change would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep, and in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in drilling space could easily be provided.
Obama: How long would you have to stay down there?
Strangelove: …I would think that uh, possibly uh…one hundred years…It would not be difficult Mein Fuehrer! Solar panels could, heh…I’m sorry, Mr. President. Solar panels could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses, excuse the term, could maintain plant life. Animals could be bred and SLAUGHTERED! A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country, but I would guess that dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided.
Obama: Well, I, I would hate to have to decide…who stays up and…who goes down.
John Holdren: Well, that would not be necessary, Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross-section of necessary skills. Of course, it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men and climate scientists be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition.
I so hope that Peter Sellers is enjoying a well deserved laugh at your post in his well deserved after life – if such there be.
I’ve always wondered why something like the Haber process couldn’t be used to take c02 out of the air. Nitrogen works, so what are the issues?
I dunno… maybe the end of all plant life…
my question was, is it economic to take c02 out of the air.? Necessity is the mother of invention, I cant see why nuclear power in a stable place (such as the Australian outback) couldn’t be used if it takes up a lot of energy.
thingadonta
my question was, is it economic to take c02 out of the air.?
No. Taking CO2 out of the air is a waste of time, money, effort, resources, energy, and space. There is no gain from the effort, and the CO2 removed will not change the climate, the world’s global average temperature, nor the world’s future.
On the other hand, removing CO2 from the atmosphere and compressing it to dangerous levels while trying to “store” it underground in expensive leaking cracked rock only endangers any future living thing near the storage area, and harms the plants and animals who otherwise would be able to live on the fertilizer wastefully compressed and pumped underground.
Money, time, energy, resources, people would be wasted. For no value produced.
Back when I was liquefying carbon dioxide we’d get the feed stream from refineries and fertilizer plants. There’s just not enough PPM CO2 for atmospheric extraction to be feasible. Nitrogen, at ~78%, on the other hand…Oh, and plant food, etc.
Thanks for the replies.
However there may be a benefit to removing c02, that is, to placate the alarmists.
I don’t think c02 is a problem until well over 1000ppm anyway, but it might be able to be extracted from the air using nuclear energy to make limestone or something else, to keep it around 400ppm, at the very least to placate the alarmists. I haven’t read of the issues in many places on how to achieve this.
It wouldn’t be the first time resources were spent on un-necessary mitigation. In the mining industry this sort of thing occurs all the time whenever a mine project has to get approved, but they usually do it anyway because otherwise they aren’t allowed to operate. It’s part of the cost of doing business. 9/10 of the mitigation measures are usually done from either an over-abundance of caution, or simply to placate those who won’t have it any other way. I have a feeling this is ultimately where c02 mitigation is going.
[+emphasis]
What the h*ll does that mean? It has been pretty well documented that there has been essentially zero warming for the last 15, 17, 18 years or so — depending on which data set and who is analyzing it.
“Climate change has advanced so rapidly that the time has come to look at options for a planetary-scale intervention, the National Academy of Science said on Tuesday.”
Amazing that someone from such a source can say this with a straight face when we are well under the rates of change needed for the claimed dangerous end of the estimates.
And yet, how many times has NAS been cited when some heaterist starts slinging appeals to authority?
Just musing – as American politics is a bit embarrassing with many of my long term American friends being equally divided to political alignment with democrats and republicans so we try to be neutral unless your politics or politicians intrude into the Australian political sphere, so mostly avoid commenting or supporting either.
But from an outsiders perspective it seems there is a huge opportunity for the democrats to use issues such as saving the world from mad “scientific/scientists” fiddling with dangerous nature environmental quick fixes to non existent problems and also, the extreme danger of being sold out economically at Paris.
A new leadership model to re-invent their political aspirations by rediscovering the scientific method, declaring the manipulated climate schemes of the past 10 years or so as a monumental mistake for their party and use both issues to remove Obama and present a shiny new rebadged party and leader for the next series of elections.
Perhaps even endorsing and sponsoring a great economic leap forward to beat China in its present leadership in nuclear fusion reactor development – “a space race to abundant energy and a new era of prosperity” all based on jobs, living conditions, and capable economically to supporting those that fall by the wayside in technologically rich countries.
Interesting to see some of the issues crying out for spin. I guess that could also be open to other political aspirants, but so inviting when the public like dramatic statesman like announcements, better than having wars.
Food for thought or just idle musing.
Eric Worrall, I have looked at the picture with the article several times and find it a distraction. It is hard to concentrate, and pay attention to the comments. I see the picture and my mind screams “Bacon”!
michael
and PORK
For those that are interested in what were been doing .
http://www.weathermodification.org/wmanewsarchives.php
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/weather/frontline.html
https://climateviewer.com/2014/03/26/cloud-ionization-electric-rainmaking-laser-guided-weather-modification/
We always get to see the stealth of yesterday,only after something better has come along that can do a better job . One thing electronics uses is a step up or down transformer, for reducing or increasing voltage. A good example is the microwave oven and the magnetron used to increase wattage/volts. It’s hard to calculate how many watts our wireless comes and remote sensing pump into the atmosphere. We only measure the grid power at the metre.
Geoengineering is a REAL bad idea…
This is just the last gasp of CAGW grant hounds trying to grab as much CAGW research funding as possible before CAGW collapses like a house of cards.
It’s hilarious to see phrases like, “Climate change has advanced so rapidly that the time has come to look at options for a planetary-scale intervention”
Really? “advanced so rapidly”? Just 0.8C of warming since the end of the LITTLE ICE AGE in 1850 is, “advanced so rapidly”… That’s a temp trend of just 0.049C/decade over the last 164 years.
What’s funny is that a large portion of this “0.8C” of global warming can be attributed to the homogenization of global temp data. If scientists had just stuck with the raw data, actual global warming would probably be closer to 0.5C~0.6C over the past 164 years, with CO2 perhaps contributing just 0.2C of the total… Who cares?
CAGW has become a joke that’s in its final death throes. As CAGW’s demise becomes more imminent, the shrill protestations from the Left will become crazier and more absurd.
SAMURAI,
That’s been the prevailing consensus opinion for quite some time now. Nice of you guys to finally get it. Now if we could just convince this crowd that desequestering gigatonnes of CO2 per annum is similarly inadvisable, we might not need to research such last-ditch efforts. Eh?
Sorry, I’m making sense again. I understand that’s a no-no.
No need to apologize when you make sense Gates. It’s a welcome change.
Atmospheric CO2 is entirely beneficial Gates, so relax and enjoy the benefits.
If you disagree, why please specify your disagreement. We would like to hear your views. But Gates, you need to make sense. None of this alarmist incoherence which you are prone to. No sneers, insults or snarkiness or your usual troll tactics but cogent, well supported reasoning. If you can.
Geoengineering was being seriously proposed on Usenet newsgroups back in 1999. It was my first inkling that hard-core believers in catastrophic global warming were insane.
When you chum the waters with grant money, don’t be surprised if all kinds of hungry predators show up.
Why should ‘gender studies’ be confined to humans. We must ready to examine the gender problems of climate change.
Its already been done , its a very big gravy train with lots of seats for those looking to cash in .
To stop global warming, implement the following “geoengineering”
1. Remove global warming fanatics in scientific institutions that keep temperature data
2. Put thermometers in unpopulated areas far away from man-made structures
3. Measure air temperature 5 km above the sea, not water temperature under the sea
The fundamental guiding principle should be: do not screw with Mother Nature, she will turn round and bite you on the arse (or worse).
National Academy of Science … sounds more like a kiddy’s club of imbeciles that have jumped on the dangerous man-made global warming gravy-train, that is rolling along … destination unknown!
Whenever one sees the use of the following terms, one can dismiss the commentary as a deliberate attempt to mislead the gullible and the technically incompetent.
“Climate change” is a deliberately misleading term that describes a non-falsifiable hypothesis that includes both global warming AND global cooling, both of which have occurred naturally over historic and geological time. To be precise, one must specify if one is concerned about global warming or global cooling, how much, and what is the alleged cause.
“Carbon pollution” is another deliberately misleading term that attempts to equate carbon dioxide, a colorless, odorless gas that is the feedstock of virtually all life on Earth with carbon, which occurs naturally with associated impurities as coal, lignite, etc., a black or brown solid.
_____________________
On Climate Science, Global Cooling, Ice Ages and Geo-Engineering:
[Also posted by Joe d’Aleo on Icecap.us on 18Dec2014]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/15/paleo-study-past-global-warming-similar-to-todays/#comment-1816677
David Socrates asks on December 16, 2014 at 7:57 am
“Will all the folks saying that ∆CO2 follows ∆T ([temperature]. explain why in the past 15/16/17 years, ∆T = zero and ∆CO2 is 30-34 ppm?”
Already answered in my posts on this page David:
“I suggest that at a practical level, atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
In the modern data record, the rate of change dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature and CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months.
For verification, please see my 2008 paper at
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
CO2 also lags temperature by about 800 years in the ice core record on a longer time scale.
Therefore, CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales. CO2 does not drive temperature; temperature (among other factors) drives CO2.
….
It appears that CO2 lags T at all measured time scales. This still allows for other significant drivers of atmospheric CO2, such as fossil fuel combustion, land-use changes such as deforestation, ocean outgassing, etc.”
*************
The details of this issue have been ably argued on wattsup and other sites between Ferdinand Engelbeen and Richard S Courtney – one can search under “mass balance argument”.
The issue is one of magnitudes – how can we fully explain the current rise in atmospheric CO2 – your “∆CO2 is 30-34 ppm” – when the ∆CO2 magnitudes observed in both the modern data record and the ice core record in response to ∆T are allegedly too small to solely account for this 30-34 ppm CO2 – some parties allege that other drivers of this ∆CO2 such as fossil fuel combustion must also exist (and they may be right or wrong).
Many pages have been written and it is an interesting argument, which is of great scientific importance. However, for policy discussions I suggest all we really need to know is that global temperature T is clearly insensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and the IPCC / alarmists’ fear of catastrophic humanmade global warming is without scientific merit, and is highly counterproductive, wasteful and foolish.
As we clearly stated in our 2002 PEGG paper:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
http://www.apega.ca/members/publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
Furthermore, increased atmospheric CO2 from whatever cause is clearly beneficial to humanity and the environment. Earth’s atmosphere is clearly CO2 deficient and continues to decline over geological time. In fact, atmospheric CO2 at this time is too low, dangerously low for the longer term survival of carbon-based life on Earth.
More Ice Ages, which are inevitable unless geo-engineering can prevent them, will cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations on Earth to decline to the point where photosynthesis slows and ultimately ceases. This would devastate the descendants of most current life on Earth, which is carbon-based and to which, I suggest, we have a significant moral obligation.
Atmospheric and dissolved oceanic CO2 is the feedstock for all carbon-based life on Earth. More CO2 is better. Within reasonable limits, a lot more CO2 is a lot better.
As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on Earth, I feel it is my duty to advocate on our behalf. To be clear, I am not prejudiced against non-carbon-based life forms, but I really do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. They could be very nice. 🙂
Best, Allan
Icecap comment:
This season beat out 2004 and 2009 for US crop yields with a global glut of produce. Ideal weather conditions combined with higher CO2 has improved productivity. CO2 is plant food. Even in drought ridden California, CO2 helped to limit losses by enhancing growth and reducing water needs. The losses would have been much greater with lower CO2 levels.
Your ‘paper’ does not appear in a peer-reviewed Journal, and for good reason –no Scientist working in the field would support the preposterous notions that ‘CO2 as plant food’ is relevant to AGW, or that “all we really need to know is that global temperature T is clearly insensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2 ”
The sensitivity of Global temperature to CO2 ppmv is clearly evident as a follow-on response to natural temperature-driven CO2 increases in the ice core record, and clearly visible in the modern day record as leading Global temperature rise.
Being a ‘skeptic’ is one thing, Ignoring data entirely is another.
Hey warrenlb.
How many hundred research papers have you actually read?
How many have you written?
Warrenlb cites ice core records as proof of AGW. Tell us all we need to know about his state of mind.
How many peer reviewed studies can you muster to support that fanciful idea, warrenlb?
Hey RACookPE1978:
How often have you looked at the Vostok Ice Core Data?
Did you understand its implications for the 2-way cause and effect relationship between atmospheric CO2 ppmv and Global Temperature?
Yes. And part of it I disagree with. And part of the consensus “so-called resolution” I agree with.
@RACookPE1978. “And part of it I disagree with”. How can you disagree with DATA?
Not with “data’ … With the presentation and interpretation of the so-called “data” as written up.
For example, you have written comments some 300 times claiming only “peer-reviewed literature” as the Bible of your religious belief. Well, I’ve read those papers and those articles you claim to cite. Some several thousand of them by now. And, no, the “words” in the conclusions do not represent the “world” as it exists in the real world of the planet earth. So, which days were clear and sunny? Which were cloudy, but only part of the time? What latitude? What albedo was “summarized” and which was “averaged” and which was taken on a clear day under what conditions? What is an area albedo, and what is a measured albedo under what kind of cloud cover?
What sentences in the abstract are the “we need more funding for next year’ and which were “inserted by the peer-previewer-we-were-saddled-with-despite-the-data”?
Are you competent and experienced enough in the sciences and technologies and techniques and equations involved to critically review the science literature? Are you capable of finding the errors and omissions and assumptions within the “peer-reviewed” literature you claim is “”Authority” ? I am. Are you?
RACook says:
Hey warrenlb.
How many hundred research papers have you actually read?
I would like an answer to that question, too. I know that Robert Cook reads literally hundreds of papers every year. I would be willing to bet that warrenlb doesn’t read very many; certainly not hundreds. From warrenlb’s comments, he doesn’t know much, but his mind is made up and it cannot be changed by all the facts and data in the world.
================
mpainter says:
Warrenlb cites ice core records as proof of AGW.
Yes, I would like to hear more about that conjecture. If the ice core records tell us anything at all, it is that human emissions have no measurable effect on global T. But if warrenlb believes otherwise, by all means, post your evidence here.
@RACookPE1978: So you’ve looked at the Vostok Ice Core data, and can’t see the secondary wave of temperature increase following the upsurge in CO2 after the initial temperature rise due to the Milankovitch cycles? And you haven’t noted in the modern data that Global temperature started to rise in 1880, well after CO2 started to rise??
Sorry Warren, I will not respond to you because I do not have conversations with imbeciles.
Thanks to the rest of you for your comments.
Please note that atmospheric CO2 has been increasing since prior to 1940, and yet global temperature declined from ~1940 to ~1975, increased to ~2000, and has since been flat – hence there is no apparent sensitivity of temperature to CO2. Next, we can expect global temperature to cool – and when it does the warmists will still continue to bleat about the demon CO2, even though they have already been proven wrong in all their warming predictions – by the “pause”.
My January 2008 hypo is gaining traction with the recent work of several researchers. We don’t always agree on the fine details, but there is clear agreement in the primary hypothesis.
Here is Murry Salby’s address to the Sydney Institute in 2011:
Here is Salby’s address in Hamburg 2013:
See also this January 2013 paper from Norwegian researchers:
The Phase Relation between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature
Global and Planetary Change
Volume 100, January 2013, Pages 51–69
by Ole Humluma, Kjell Stordahlc, Jan-Erik Solheimd
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
Highlights
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
– Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
– Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
A paper by a group from three Dutch universities published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics that they have found that only about 3.75% [15 ppm] of the CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, and thus, the vast remainder of the 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing and plant respiration.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/7273/2014/acp-14-7273-2014.html
*****************
Warrenlb
Ice core data shows that continental glaciation returns when atmospheric CO2 is at its highest point during the interglacial. That is to say that by this index, CO2 causes ice ages.
How about that!
Note to bloggers: I predict warrenlb will never respond to this comment
Can you link to your source or sources on this?
My source is my memory.
Any ice core (Greenland ice cores have the best resolution) data chart shows that glaciation returns when CO2 is highest.
There was a post on WUWT that showed this several months ago.
Sorry, can’t be more specific but I don’t make this stuff up.
I got to say, SHF, you come across very much as someone who is uninformed or badly misinformed on the issues.
Furthermore, I do not mean to say that CO2 causes glaciation. But the data clearly refutes the notion that CO2 amplified interglacial warming or that it can prevent a return to glaciation.
Gotcha. Its the opinion of a random internet commenter based on something he claims have read somewhere but can’t really remember. I certainly can’t refute evidence like that.
To continue my comment @2:13 pm:
The post showed the ice core record of the last interglacial and that temperatures plunged unto the last ice age while CO2 stayed steady at their highest. There was an 8,000 lag before CO2 levels declined, with respect to the temperature decline.
Murry Salby Presentation – Sydney Institute August 2011 is located at
Murry Salby Presentation – Sydney Institute July 2012 is located at
mpainter,
Problem with that is it makes it difficult to explain how temperatures rose in conjunction with CO2 levels in the first place.
SHF:
Seems to be past your skills to use the internet or the WUWT search engine.
I am content for the world to have your “gotcha” response as a means of judging betwixt you and me.
Ice core data is most easily retrieved from the web. The world notes how squeamish you are in this respect.
As far as the idea of your refuting any skeptic, you’ve got to be joking.
@Allan MacRae: How is that NO ONE in the scientific community seem to recognize your genius (or lack of imbecility)?
@Allan Macrae:
You cite Salby in a forum about ‘Hogs at the Government funding trough’??
” In 2005, the National Science Foundation opened an investigation into Salby’s federal funding arrangements and found that he had displayed “a pattern of deception [and] a lack of integrity” in his handling of federal grant money.He resigned his position in Colorado in 2008 and became professor of climate risk at Macquarie University in Macquarie Park, New South Wales. In 2013 he was dismissed by the university on grounds of refusal to teach and misuse of university resources.”
And:
“The National Science Foundation investigation report issued on 20 February 2009 found that Salby had overcharged his grants and violated financial conflict of interest policies, displaying “a pattern of deception, a lack of integrity, and a persistent and intentional disregard of NSF and University rules and policies” and a “consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit.” It debarred Salby from receiving federal assistance and benefits until 13 August 2012.[2]
After leaving Colorado, Salby joined the faculty of Macquarie University in Australia, where he was appointed Professor of Climate Risk in 2008. Salby’s employment at Macquarie was terminated in 2013; Macquarie University stated that he was dismissed for refusing to fulfill his teaching responsibilities and for inappropriate use of university resources including a corporate credit card.
There are scientists and there are “scientists”.
Looks to me like a select group of “scientists” have been spending too much time in cushy climatically controlled offices, probably set at 72 degrees F, known to those in the HVAC trade as the “dead zone” want to remain on the gravy train.
Wise up, the climate is always changing. We don’t know many things about the Earth and its atmosphere yet. What folly to think they are capable of taming nature.
Perhaps, the saying of create a fictitious unsolvable problem or crisis and money will flow to the recipients.Until it becomes an apparent scam.
When carbon can be removed from air and turned into useful materials at reasonable cost, its harvesting will make perfect sense–at which point it will happen without government mandates.
We’ve been wasting money on climate models that don’t work, Isn’t it time we come up with geo-engineering projects that don’t work?