On Twitter, people will say most anything if it aligns with their beliefs and their cause. In this case, climate scientist Ken Caldeira gets called out over some claims about coal and CO2 by our own Willis Eschenbach. It looks like a clear-cut case of confirmation bias.
Willis replies:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Willis, Willis, Willis, how many times do we have to tell you …The “Woke” do not do math…or logic, or science, or integrity, or honesty, or….Wait…. I need a bigger piece of paper… “42” more pages should do….. : )
Umm?
Whenever did climate scientists concern themselves with facts?
When you and Anthony pitched up and presented them. Then they just ignored them.
Thanks guys.
Hey it’s peer reviewed … Want to buy new peer reviewers 🙂
Does beg the question how long they had to shop around for reviewers?
In climate science we use palrewiew. That´s why we have friends.
The CAGW story is a test. For scientists it is a test of integrity versus self-serving career advancement; for politicians, a test of leadership versus opportunism; for environmentalists, sincerity in caring for our planet versus mercenary fear mongering; and for the average citizen, a test as to whether lazy belief in a comfortable mythology is preferable to the hard work of trying to understand what is true. I raise my glass to those who pass the test though it costs them dearly. To those who failed, my sympathies but you are not the people we want making decisions that affect all of humanity and the world on which we live.
Very well said.
Again, lefties first thing to do is screw up numbers to support their cause. That’s why math has been purposely dumbed down for so many decades — so that few can figure out or care about their deceptions.
climate science counting :
1
2
Scary big number…
… or x-axis, one-sixteenth inch per year, … y-axis, one-sixteenth inch per tenth of a degree.
Many years ago George Gamow wrote a book “One, Two, Three, Infinity” (1947). The title came from a tribe in Africa who only had numbers one, two, and three. Beyond that, there were “many”. So, four cows were “many” and 4,000 cows were the same number, i.e. “many”. Or as in our culture “infinite”.
The book is still available with even a Chinese version.
https://www.amazon.com/One-Two-Three-Infinity-Speculations/dp/0486256642/ref=sr_1_1?hvadid=77653070883400&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvqmt=e&keywords=one+two+three+infinity&qid=1561301797&s=gateway&sr=8-1
If you entertain a false belief, the belief in a catastrophic greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide, will, over its lifetime in the progression of scientific knowledge, distort gullible minds 100,000 times more than simply entertaining it once.
Totally ignores all of the CO2 sinks that absorb the CO2 guaranteeing it will not last in the atmosphere that long.
A thousand years. That involves so many assumptions, it’s ridiculous.
One of the big errors the alarmists make is to assume that the CO2 uptake by the environment doesn’t change. Also, if the atmospheric CO2 changes, the marginal contribution of any particular ‘lump’ of CO2 also changes.
You could argue ’til you’re blue in the face about CO2 uptake. Pointing out their arithmetic problems is much easier.
There is a missing element of this mathematical error. Of all the heat he claims will be “generated” so to speak, what % of it will be radiated into space?
100%.
He may as well have described the total mass of water that would be additionally evaporated from the oceans over 1000 years due to the presumed higher air temperature. So what? Will the atmosphere fill with water or will it fall to earth as rain having (slightly more efficiently) radiated the “extra” energy to space?
Answers on a postcard please.
I remember when reading of something that was the beginning of this farce in the 50s was that the rise in CO2 in the 20thC could be due to changes in the land and the weathering of rocks. While human use of fossil fuels was also brought up , its interesting that the author thought that the former was more plausible. Mind you, what chance is there that a 20 ppm rise in global CO2 was measured in the mid 50s.
The specific heat of air is 1.005 kJ/kg K at 300 K at normal pressure. It does not matter what form the energy is. Until this changes none of the above is relevant.
IOW those of us in cold climates should have burned more coal MANY years ago.
94.7% of facts, aren’t.
Good for WE.
Just one detail he left out. His own previous WUWT estimate of the efold bulk CO2 gas concentration atmospheric residency time is about 45-55 years ( efold is a bit more than half life) thanks to biological ocean carbon sinks (calcium carbonate is rather permanent except in deep ocean below ~3800 meters). So the 1000 year forcing is something less than 25-40x. Caldeira is only ‘off’ by four orders of magnitude. And sure as heck does not know about ‘dimensional analysis’ quick computational QC.
I cite https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/19/the-secret-life-of-half-life/
An injection of CO2 into the atmosphere is not quickly absorbed by nature to the extent of 43% remaining
You seem to have chopped of your post. It makes no sense as written.
Regardless, would you care to support your contention?
Willis did.
Wow, so the CO2 given off by a squawking climate “scientist” will heat the earth 100,000 times over its lifetime over the hot air given off by said “scientist”. Cool.
There is a case they should all immediately stop breathing to save us all from there CO2.
I tried my hands at some calculations independently for factchecking this. My calculations are:
One year’s worldwide forcing from increasing atmospheric CO2 from 410 to 411 PPMV is 2.132 E20 joules. (Using 3.77 W/m^2 per 2xCO2 and logarithmic relationship.) If atmospheric CO2 is bumped up from 410 to 411 PPMV and that one extra PPMV decays exponentially with a time constant (tau or e-folding time) of 59 years (see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/19/the-secret-life-of-half-life/), then after thousands of years the cumulative energy from the forcing is 59 times 2.132 E20 joules or 125.8 E22 joules.
I figure the heat of combustion of 2.123 E12 kg of carbon (the amount of carbon I figure is needed to boost atmospheric CO2 by 1 PPMV) is 6.96 E19 joules. So, as I figure, increasing atmospheric CO2 from 410 to 411 PPMV for one year causes about 3.06 times as much heating as burning the carbon to achieve that does. This figure becomes 3.06*59 or181 times as much heat from the burning of the carbon for 410 PPMV to being quickly bumped up to 411 PPMV and decaying back to 410 PPMV with a time constant of 59 years. It’s even greater but still only in the hundreds in the likely event the Bern model is largely correct instead of exponential decay.
For the record Ken Caldeira, you are full of Schmidt. CO2 in the atmosphere is good , and more CO2 is better.
Nice ‘take down’, Willis!
Correlation: I was outside mowing the lawn this morning, here in the Great NorthWet. I just came inside to get a hot cup of coffee and warm up my cold hands! If it will warm things up a bit, please burn train loads of more coal! It’s June 21, the summer solstice, for Pete’s sake!
Mark Twain once said that the mildest winter he had experienced was a summer on Puget Sound.
I lived for 11 years on Mercer Island. Only one time did summer not quite warm up.
[Other dupes moved to Spam folder. .mod]
Actually, it far less, since the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is relatively short and no where near 1000 years. The only carbon atoms that will still be in the atmosphere 1000 years from now will have been recycled by biomass many times over.
HI co2isnotevil, that was what I was mulling over too, but NOT being able to ask with any authority, just WHAT is the residency time of CO2?
I have a chart clearly showing numerous studies which has it at (at a guess of all the studies) around 10 or so years.
The IPCC has theirs at 100yr plus, so, there does seems disconnect there.
David,
Well, lets say it’s been about 150 years since man starting burning fossil fuels. If you add up all the man made CO2 based on the amount of fuel burned, cement and aluminum ever produced, about half of it is missing. Instead of increasing from 280 to 400, it would be about 520 ppm if all that CO2 was still present, most of which is expected to have been dissolved in static CO2 sinks like the oceans. Without the effects of biology, this sets the half life residence time to about 150 years.
On a yearly basis, the average CO2 seasonally varies by about 6-7 ppm, mostly as the net response to biology consuming CO2 to produce biomass which is subsequently decomposed where the N hemisphere has more biomass than the S. Otherwise, the hemispheres would cancel and there would be no ‘sawtooth’ variability in the Moana Loa CO2 record whose peaks coincide with maximum decomposition of N hemisphere biomass. The biomass of each hemisphere must consume and decompose many times more than 6-7 ppm in a season and is more like about the equivalent of about 30 ppm per hemisphere where the N consumes and decomposes 6-7 ppm more.
At a 30 ppm recycling rate by biology, it would only take about 7 years to recycle the 120 ppm NET man made component of atmospheric CO2 and about 13 years to recycle all 400 ppm in the atmosphere.
Even if you assume that CO2 is not well mixed enough for the consumption/decomposition rates to mostly cancel between hemispheres and biology is only consuming/decomposing 6 ppm per year, it would still only take less than 70 years for biology to cycle through all 400 ppm, which represents the maximum upper case ‘half life’ for the CO2 residence time.
In any event, it’s far less than 1000 years no matter how you calculate it.
Would you please write a paper and publish that.
“If you burn a lump of coal, the greenhouse effect from the carbon dioxide released from burning that coal will, over its lifetime in the atmosphere, heat the Earth about 100,000 times more than the thermal energy released from burning that coal.”
This is an utterly meaningless statistic, even if true. The heating effect on the entire planet of burning a single lump of coal is so insignificant that it can be ignored as utterly irrelevant. What does it matter that this effect, which is so vanishingly small as to have absolutely no impact on any one or any thing during any interval for which the CO2 is in the air, lasts so long that the sum of the energy retained by the CO2 vastly outstrips the energy used by burning the coal? All you’re doing is measuring the total duration of a meaningless effect. It tells you nothing about whether the benefit you get from burning coal is worth the increase in temperature caused by doing so.
The post portrays this as a demonstration of confirmation bias. That may be true, but I think it would be more apt to say that it shows a clear lack of critical reasoning skills on the part of the person tweeting the statistic. Unfortunately, I think this is par for the course among climate “scientists.”
“The post portrays this as a demonstration of confirmation bias. That may be true, but I think it would be more apt to say that it shows a clear lack of critical reasoning skills on the part of the person tweeting the statistic. Unfortunately, I think this is par for the course among climate “scientists.””
I don’t think you can call it a lack of reasoning skills, but a lack of honesty. Any “lack of reasoning” has to be willful.
Critical reasoning refers to the ability to sift through what is relevant and what is not relevant. Setting aside whether the authors of the GRS paper got their math right, one of those authors tweeted the statistic as if it is something meaningful. It is not. I don’t see any basis to chalk this up to dishonesty.
Here’s another quote from this coauthor: “If you’re talking about mugging little old ladies, you don’t say, ‘What’s our target for the rate of mugging little old ladies?’ You say, ‘Mugging little old ladies is bad, and we’re going to try to eliminate it.’ You recognize you might not be a hundred per cent successful, but your goal is to eliminate the mugging of little old ladies. And I think we need to eventually come around to looking at carbon dioxide emissions the same way.”
This is an absurdly unhelpful comparison. “Mugging little old ladies” is in no way analogous to burning fossil fuels to say, heat your home so you and your family don’t freeze to death in a Minnesota winter, or to drive to work so you can earn the money needed to provide the food and shelter you need to survive. There is no balancing of interests associated with “mugging little old ladies.” Conversely, virtually every use of fossil fuels not only provides a benefit to society, but the incremental benefit to burning those fossil fuels vastly exceeds any harm done via the greenhouse effect.
That a supposed scientist would make such a silly argument doesn’t demonstrate dishonesty, it demonstrates stupidity.
There’s no reason it can’t demonstrate dishonesty AND stupidity.
My thought exactly. I just cannot udnerstand what I’m supposed to worry about with this comparison? For one thing, everything is a trade off. If say burning the coal saves 100 lives, then you have to show that not burning the coal saves 101 lives. This is not just motivated reasoning, it is Begging the Question, assuming the conclusion to prove your conlcusion.
After all, we don’t burn coal for fun, we burn it because it produces benefits. So prove the disbenefits outweigh those benefits, not just Tweet stupid claims.
With a residence time of ~50 years the radiation forcing would be ~65 times the combustion heat.
One major issue here is that radiant forcing from the Sun and combustion are both adding new Joules (heat) to the system, while recycling surface emissions absorbed by atmospheric GHG’s is only moving existing heat around the system.
THESE TWO SOURCE OF PRESUMED ‘RADIANT FORCING’ ARE NOT EQUIVALENT!
The true radiant forcing effect from GHG’s is zero. Only the Sun is a source of radiant forcing. We can consider changes to the system, for example doubling CO2, as being equivalent to additional W/m^2 of solar forcing while keeping the system (CO2 concentrations) constant, but in no way shape or form do atmospheric GHG’s add new energy to the system and adding new energy to the system is the salient characteristic of radiant forcing.
“… Integrating the radiative forcing from zero to infinity yields about 4.5 × 1010 J of global warming per mol CO2 released to the atmosphere. Combusting one mole of reduced carbon yields about 393.51 kJ/mol (standard enthalpies of formation) [Oxtoby et al., 2011]. Therefore, on a molar basis, the time‐integrated radiative forcing from CO2 released from burning carbon, over its lifetime in the atmosphere, exceeds the thermal energy released by that burning by a factor of about 100,000…”
According to https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/Energy_From_Fossil_Fuels.htm , coal has an energy content of 39.3 kJ/g and releases 2.0 moles of CO2 per 10^3 kJ.
If I accept the “4.5 × 1010 J of global warming per mol CO2 released” figure, I get 434 as the ratio of J of global warming per mole of coal burned. Authors want to make it on a moles of C basis…still doesn’t get you near 100,000. I can get 90,000 as the ratio of J of global warming per gram of coal burned, but that’s not the claim.
In my figure of 65x the 43% reduction should not be used. Without that factor the forcing results in 150x.
There is NO greenhouse effect. Co2 has no measurable effect on temperature. There problem solved. If you want to dispute that provide a model with workings using robust science that shows how its possible for the composition of the atmosphere can warm the surface. Such a model must apply to at least mars and venus as well as the earth.
Wait a second!
When was the ECS declared to be a known quantity?
Or any warming proven to be from any particular cause?
AFAICT, the jury is still very much out on several critic details.
Let us not forget how much of the “evidence” consists of data that was never actually measured, but arrived at by guesswork and outright chicanery.
The root cause of this nonsense lies in the IPCC. definition of Radiative Forcing which defines the FORCE ; but assigns an energy flux value to it. (Watts/sq.m).
Force has units of Lbs (Kg)mass; but for an energy flux it is FtLbs(joules)A huge difference.
This flux could only have been calculated by defining accurately the state of the climate at a particular time.
It is therefore nonsense to use this figure in a changing climate situation; as for each state of the climate the value needs to be calculated which is essentially a circular logic situation.
Water, of course, is the joker in the pack as much depends on the RATE of evaporation at the time.
Assigning a variable as a constant is a no no. Particularly if you do not know how the constant was derived.
Some calculations are pointless and should never be done at all.
That 🙂
Ken was approximately 99.9986754985352% wrong.
About 1/1064 right?