Summary
Earth has existed for some 4,600 million years. This condensed history sets the current concerns about the level of atmospheric CO2 and the possible recent impact of extra Man-made CO2 affecting global temperature in a rational context.
CO2 in the atmosphere
To understand the context of current concerns about the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from the Man-made activities, it is useful to review the long-term history of the Earth’s atmosphere.
- as far as the development of life on Earth was concerned the first 4,000 million years were comparatively uneventful. It took evolution all that time to make any advances beyond single cell/algal organisms.
- in those earlier times, ~3,300 million years ago CO2 had reached its maximum level of about 35%, 350,000 ppmv: atmospheric CO2 concentration has progressively diminished ever since.
- it was only when photosynthesis took hold, that the level of atmospheric Oxygen could rise to its current level of ~22% of the atmosphere.
- over the same period CO2 concentrations diminished as plant photosynthesis used the sun’s energy to convert atmospheric CO2 to sugars and thus to generate all other types of organic molecules associated with life.
- CO2 has progressively disappeared from the atmosphere both being absorbed by the Oceans to be sequestered by Ocean life as limestones or later converted into fossil fuels from luxuriant Plant growth.
- as a result atmospheric CO2 has reduced by some thousand fold from its high point of 35%, 350,000ppmv to arrive at the current levels around 400+ppmv.
The Phanerozoic Eon: the most recent 600 million years
It is only in last 600 million years, the Phanerozoic Eon, (meaning, visible life), that Life on earth developed and changed radically:
- throughout much of this period global temperatures were fairly stable. In the main they were significantly higher at ~25°C more than 10°C higher than at present.
- 600 million years ago all life only existed in the Oceans and atmospheric CO2 levels were high at 5000 – 7000 ppmv more than 12 – 15 times current levels.
- about 500 million years ago Plants evolved to populate the land with CO2 levels still at 4000 – 5000 ppmv.
- so, plant evolution took place with CO2 levels at more than 10 times higher than at present.
- by 400 million years ago, Plant life on land had become very successful and productive worldwide at the a CO2 level, (~3000 – 4000ppmv).
- that abundant Plant life was progressively laying down Coal formations and other fossil fuels.
- this abundant period was followed by an extended ice age 320 – 280 million years ago when CO2 levels fell to close to current modern levels, (~500ppmv).
- with higher temperatures again reaching to ~25°C CO2 levels advanced to a maximum of ~ 2500ppmv, ~170 million years ago.
- this was the time of the dinosaurs lasting some 160 million years from 230 – 65 million years ago.
- following the Global catastrophe, probably the Chixulub asteroid impact, when the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago the World was gradually repopulated by mammals, who progressively filled the environmental niches vacated by the dinosaurs.
- from a high CO2 level of ~2200ppmv some 160m years ago, CO2 concentration has declined consistently down to the current levels ranging from 180 – 410 ppmv.
- likewise temperatures have also declined from about 25°C to about 15°C or lower.
The Quaternary Era
About 2,600,000 years ago the World again descended into a true Ice Age with permanent ice sheets at both poles. The world is now living in that Ice Age. There is no indication of how long Planet Eath may remain in its current state of glaciation.
These long-term ice age conditions have generally maintained global temperatures as much as 8°C lower than in the present Interglacial. These long-term Glaciations have resulted in massive Ice sheets covering much of the currently inhabited portion of the land mass of Northern Hemisphere.
During those 100,000 year long glacial periods CO2 levels have repeatedly fallen significantly. This is a result of colder oceans being capable of re-absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. Once in the Oceans, CO2 can be lost permanently from the atmosphere, it is sequestered by marine life forming protective shells, which eventually sink and progressively form limestone rocks.
Variations in the planetary orbital geometry within the Solar system have meant that this state of glaciation has been punctuated fairly regularly at roughly ~100,000 year intervals by interglacial periods, when temperatures have risen.
Interglacial warming has caused an enormous, positive but temporary change in the habitability of Planet Earth.
These interglacial periods have been very productive for the biosphere and most recently for the development success of Man-kind.
As Oceans warm during Interglacials, they can no longer retain as much dissolved CO2 and as a result they slowly out-gas CO2. Accordingly atmospheric CO2 increases following any temperature increase by about 800 years.
Interglacial periods generally last 10,000 – 15,000 years. The rate of temperature change from full glacial conditions to the benign environment of an interglacial can be sudden in geological terms, as seen here at the end of the Eemian interglacial and in the rapid temperature recovery at the beginning of our own benign Holocene. Most Interglacial periods have been warmer than the present Holocene: in the previous Eemian interglacial Hippopotami thrived in the Rhine delta some 120,000 years ago.
Our Holocene epoch
Our current Holocene epoch is just the most recent of these warm interglacial intervals. Our current warm Holocene interglacial has been beneficial to the Biosphere World wide. The Holocene Epoch has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years. The congenial climate of the Holocene epoch spans from mankind’s earliest farming to the scientific and technological advances of the last 200 years. The temperature profile of the Holocene interglacial has been remarkable when compared to the previous interglacial periods: the temperatures have been lower and the profile apparently flattened and prolonged.
It is useful to look at climate change from a longer term, century by century and even on a millennial perspective when considering the scale of temperature changes that “Climate Alarmists” anticipate arising from Man-made Global Warming and their view of the disastrous effects of additional Man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions in the second part of the last century. The differences shown by the Greenland Ice core records across the Holocene can be seen to be minor in comparison to the assertions of Climate Alarmists.
From the record of past interglacials in the Quaternary era, our Holocene interglacial is now likely to be short lived on a geological timescale: although as the Earth’s current orbit is less elliptical than in the past this Holocene interglacial may well be extended somewhat.
The Northern Hemisphere Ice Core records from Greenland show:
- for its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, including its high point, known as “the Holocene Climate Optimum”, had virtually flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium.
- but the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at ~1000BC, has seen a temperature diminution at more than 20 times that earlier rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium.
- each of the notable high points in the Holocene temperature record:
- Holocene Climate Optimum
- Minoan
- Roman
- Medieval
- Modern.
have been progressively colder than the previous high point.
- the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD, encompassing the “Little Ice Age”, has been the coldest millennium of the entire Holocene interglacial.
- the Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old and judging from the length of previous interglacial intervals the Holocene epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.
- the beneficial recent warming, recovering from the Little Ice Age since the 1850s, occurred with two particular 20th century bursts to a Modern high.
- only the latter of these 20th century temperature increases from ~1975 onwards till 2000 could have been influenced by any CO2 emissions from Man-kind’s fossil fuel use.
- This temperature increase has has been “rebranded” as the:
- “Great Man-made Global Warming Alarm”.
- “Catastrophic Man-made Climate Change”.
- “the Climate Emergency”
- however Climate Alarmists seem to expect that because of the brief increase of temperature over the last quarter of the last century, that the warming recovery from the Little Ice Age will continue inexorably upwards.
- meaning that in their view that there will be an immediate and exaggerated precipitous reversal of the long-term temperature trend of the last 3000 years resulting from Man-made CO2 emissions.
- eventually this late 20th century temperature blip may come to be seen as just noise in the system in the longer term progress of comparatively rapid cooling over the past 3000+ years.
- all published Greenland Ice Core records corroborate this finding. They exhibit the same pattern of a prolonged relatively stable early Holocene period followed by a subsequent much more rapid decline in the more recent (3000 year) past.
- however, it would seem more likely than not that the Earth’s temperature will continue its downward course of the past 3000 years, unless it suddenly falls precipitously, as temperature has fallen rapidly terminating other interglacials.
However the much vaunted and much feared political “fatal” tipping point of +2°C would only bring Global temperatures back to the level of the very congenial climate of “the Roman warm period” 2000 years ago. Were possible to reach the “horrendous” level of +4°C postulated by Alarmists, that extreme level of warming would still only bring temperatures to about the level of the previous Eemian maximum, a warm and abundant epoch, when hippopotami thrived in the Rhine delta.
For a more comprehensive views of the decline of the Holocene see:
Climate and Human Civilization over the last 18,000 years
The effect of future growth of CO2 concentration
As well as the out-gassing of CO2 from warmer oceans, atmospheric CO2 concentration has also seen a contribution due to the CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels by Man-kind over the past 200 years as the industrial revolution has advanced. The records show that at present atmospheric CO2 is increasing from both these sources in combination is at about 2ppmv / year. About half of any extra CO2 emissions are absorbed virtually immediately by the Oceans and the biosphere.
As life has thrived and as plants evolved with CO2 levels at about 10 times this level, any recent comparatively minor increase of atmospheric CO2 ought not to be of any real concern:
- nonetheless, at its current low level, ~400ppmv, all Life on Earth is still entirely dependent on the CO2 in the atmosphere: it is used by plants via photosynthesis to release oxygen and to thus generate all other organic compounds.
- if atmospheric CO2 concentration falls below 150 ppmv, photosynthesis stops and plants and thus Life on Earth would be extinguished.
- only ~30,000 years ago, in the depths of the last glaciation, all Life on Earth came close to that total annihilation, when atmospheric CO2 concentration fell to 180 ppmv, only ~15% above the terminal CO2 value of 150 ppmv:
- this atmospheric CO2 reduction process is driven by colder Oceans absorbing more atmospheric CO2
- in colder oceans atmospheric CO2 is progressively sequestered over millennia by marine life and eventually deposited as limestone.
- so, as far as plant life is concerned even at ~400 ppmv the World is still in a state of CO2 starvation
- from the point of view of plant life, at least 1200ppmv or more would be preferable: this is well understood by horticulturalists
- in the recent past, (the last 12,000 years,) as the present Holocene interglacial epoch has advanced, the Earth warmed, so warmer Oceans out-gassed CO2 to approach a pre-industrial level of ~300ppmv.
- but when plants evolved on land, atmospheric CO2 levels were very much higher, (3000 – 4000 ppmv), ten fold current values and no runaway Global warming occurred.
- there was very luxuriant plant growth in the Silurian and Devonian eras leading to the laying down of massive Coal deposits.
- in the course of some future glaciation, natural processes with the cold Oceans absorbing atmospheric CO2 will finally extinguish all Life on Earth due to the starvation of Plant life for the of lack of sufficient of CO2 in the atmosphere.
- thus, the interference of Man-kind, emitting extra CO2 into the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels has the potential to slow these processes and thus probably extend the viability of all Life on Earth.
- slow and deferred CO2 out-gassing process from warming Oceans is continuing and has been supplemented by Man-made CO2 emissions since the 1850s from the use of fossil fuels.
- with these two CO2 sources in combination, CO2 level has now reached ~410ppmv
- plant productivity improves radically with increasing atmospheric CO2 and NASA has already reported ~+15% more green growth worldwide.
- globally over the last 50 years, enhanced agricultural productivity has enabled the growth in food supply for a growing World population.
- plant productivity is hampered in colder weather: any cooling can immediately lead to agricultural losses, as has already been seen in the last two growing seasons, 2020-2021, at the present Solar mnimum.
- with cooling weather gets worse: the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles increases and with that greater energy differential weather deteriorates.
- the only way that atmospheric CO2 levels will ever reduce is by the cooling of the Oceans: as they cool they will once again be able to re-absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, that can only occur in some coming major ~100,000 year glacial period.
The impact of future Man-made CO2 emissions
Climate Sensitivity is defined as the temperature effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 concentration. This is the value assessed by Climate Modellers as their definitive result on which to base international policy.
A simplified estimate of the potency of CO2 as a Greenhouse gas is that its effectiveness diminishes logarithmically as concentration increases. A simple, “back of the envelope calculation”, can thus show the likely temperature effect of doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration from the current 410ppmv up to a future 820ppmv. The calculation takes no account of any possible feedbacks, which might enhance but which are likely to reduce the temperature effect of added CO2.
The assumptions behind the calculations and graphic below are as follows:
- the Earth’s Greenhouse effect sustains Global temperature by about +33°C.
- water vapour and clouds are responsible for approximately 90% of the total Greenhouse effect: the net overall effect is correct but the actual effectiveness of water vapour and clouds is bound to be very variable according to latitude and local environmental conditions.
- other than Water in the atmosphere CO2 is the next most effective greenhouse Gas.
- CO2 and the other minor Greenhouse gases are responsible for roughly 10% of the total effect of about +~3.3°C.
- logarithmic diminution operates for CO2 doubling concentration across the full range of CO2 concentration values: the CO2 warming effect diminishes as its concentration increases.
- so, in effect CO2 is a relatively insignificant “Greenhouse Gas”, and it is only in trace amounts at ~410 parts per million by volume, (ppmv).
- the present ~410ppmv concentration of CO2 is an order of magnitude lower than the CO2 concentration levels existing when plants evolved some 500 million years ago.
- if Plants had the vote they would much prefer higher CO2 levels and they would thrive even more.
The diagram above shows how:
- there is no direct, straight-line relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and its influence on temperature.
- the “Greenhouse” warming effectiveness of CO2 diminishes logarithmically as its concentration increases, which implies:
- CO2 at 20ppmv, ~42% of CO2 warming effectiveness is already taken up.
- CO2 at 100ppmv, ~67% of CO2 warming effectiveness is taken up.
- CO2 at 150ppmv, the CO2 level of plant and thus planetary viability, ~72% of CO2 warming effectiveness is taken up.
- CO2 at 300ppmv, the long-term pre-industrial CO2 level, ~82% of CO2 warming effectiveness is taken up.
- CO2 at the current level in the atmosphere at 410ppmv ~88% of the warming effectiveness of CO2 is already taken up.
- the warming capability of CO2 is now so close to saturation because of the logarithmic diminution effect, that doubling concentration from 410ppmv to 820 ppmv results in a temperature effect of about +0.35°C, .
- at the current rate CO2 of emissions growth, ~2.5ppmv/year, the transition to double the present CO2 concentration could take up to ~160 years.
- thus, the minor temperature increase that might be attained from further Man-made CO2 emissions is both miniscule and far in the future.
Recent paper by. W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer. 2020
“Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases”
Abstract:
The atmospheric temperatures and concentrations of Earth’s five most important, greenhouse gases, H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4 control the cloud-free, thermal radiative flux from the Earth to outer space. Over 1/3 million lines having strengths as low as 10−27 cm of the HITRAN database were used to evaluate the dependence of the forcing on the gas concentrations. For a hypothetical, optically thin atmosphere, where there is negligible saturation of the absorption bands, or interference of one type of greenhouse gas with others, the per-molecule forcings are of order 10−22 W for H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4. For current atmospheric concentrations, the per-molecule forcings of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are suppressed by four orders of magnitude. The forcings of the less abundant greenhouse gases, O3, N2O and CH4, are also suppressed, but much less so. For current concentrations, the per-molecule forcings are two to three orders of magnitude greater for O3, N2O and CH4, than those of H2O or CO2. Doubling the current concentrations of CO2, N2O or CH4 increases the forcings by a few per cent. These forcing results are close to previously published values even though the calculations did not utilize either a CO2 or H2O continuum. The change in surface temperature due to CO2 doubling is estimated taking into account radiative-convective equilibrium of the atmosphere as well as water feedback for the cases of fixed absolute and relative humidities as well as the effect of using a pseudoadiabatic lapse rate to model the troposphere temperature. Satellite spectral measurements at various latitudes are in excellent quantitative agreement with modelled intensities.
This paper shows detailed results for all greenhouse Gases and their combined effect on the thermal radiation to space and thus their influence on Earth’s surface temperatures according to ~300,000 frequency bands. It also assesses the the difference in radiation to space of differing concentrations of CO2 from 400 – 800 ppmv.
Further graphs can represent differing environments, at different latitudes with differing climates at differing cloudiness and humidity across the world: nonetheless they all show the same fundamental picture. Other natural feedbacks may on occasions change the parameters nonetheless the basic result remains. At a maximum the value for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity can not be greater than +0.75°C.
The graphic below summarises those results at temperate latitudes. The effect of added CO2 up to 800ppmv is the difference in area between the red and black curves in other words just 3 Watts / square meter. That amounts to a 1% reduction to the radiation to space and confirms that as an overall estimate of logarithmic diminution of CO2 warming effectiveness is reasonable.
As Will Happer said in a recent lecture
“The important point here is the red line on this chart. It shows what would happen if the concentration of CO2 was doubled. The gap between the black line and the red line shows the extent of the effect of doubling CO2. So, you can see that doubling CO2 now makes virtually no difference.
On the basis of this miniscule difference, we are supposed to give up our liberties, give up the gasoline engines in our automobiles, give up all the benefits of Western Industrial society and submit to dictatorial left-wing Government controls.
The message I want you to understand is: don’t let anyone convince you that is a good bargain: it is in fact a terrible bargain.”
Conclusions
If the true limited future temperature effect of additional atmospheric CO2 is anywhere close to reality this result means that:
- there is no immediate and catastrophic overheating problem arising from the further Man-made emissions of CO2 nor from the continued burning of fossil fuels.
- at the current rates of growth of CO2 comcentrations it will take about 150 years for the effect of doubling CO2 to ~820 ppmv to materialise.
- any Man-made increase in atmospheric CO2 can only beneficial for the Biosphere and for Man-kind.
- more CO2 emitted to the atmosphere is likely to extend the viability of all life on Earth through future glacial periods.
- the whole Global Warming / Climate Change agenda is a fabrication supported only by quasi-religious beliefs in the evils of Western industrial society and a political agenda intended to undermine Western capitalism.
As the undeveloped world advances, seeking the advantages of Western civilisations, atmospheric CO2 levels will continue to increase from their CO2 emissions with cheap coal-firing for electricity generation, for their greater general wellbeing and for their greater personal mobility.
Quantifying Futility: 2020 estimate of future CO2 emissions
Therefore whatever CO2 reductions and sacrifices of wellbeing are made in the Western World will be overtaken and soon exceeded by them. It should be realised that climate change policies in the West are being enacted not on valid scientific evidence but on the basis of quasi religious emotions and active government propaganda.
So, all efforts in the West at CO2 reduction are futile, just inducing massive economic self-harm to Western Nations.
Completely agree the entire global warming debate is a fabrication of the Left, and several IPCC members confirm this … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36cyEt5JfRA
utter nonsense.
The ‘left’ are not inventing science for some peculiar political purpose.
If you want to argue on climate change, prove your point on the science with science
Practice what you preach.
Okay Griff, which one of these predictions over the past 50 years based on the “science” you talk about came true?
https://extinctionclock.org/
Let me help you: absolutely none of them came true. Why do you listen to a bunch of people who’ve been getting it totally and hopelessly wrong for half a century? Why are you so easily taken in by these charlatans?
AW,
The griffter is one of the charlatans!
Nice site, thanks for posting.
Happy to help.
It’s superbly tongue-in-cheek and every time I’ve posted the link the thermaggedonists go extremely quiet…
What was that website you referenced the other day? science for socialists? the socialist scientist? the scientastic socialist? something like that..
First off, the left has a long, long history of inventing science for political purposes. Just as they invent history for political purposes.
As to proving your point, you are the side that wants to convert the entire world to socialism in order to fight “climate change”, so it’s up to you to prove your claims, using science.
So far all you have done is lie and use the output of broken climate models.
You socialicommimarxifascists are pathetic creatures. When shown the evidence you continue to demand ‘evidence’, apparently being either too ignorant to understand the evidence presented or not understanding the meaning of the word. So, which is it?
Click bait.
Yes, that is exactly what the Left did … they invented the CO2 hoax with the irrational demonization of CO2 to achieve their Agenda 21 goals — which will be on a future video. In the meantime, here is another video, again using Ottmar’s “illusion” statement, which clearly states the “invented” purpose of the Left’s climate change agenda … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOpOnaRMGCY
Excellent!
Yes, an excellent summary written piece from Ed(i).
Long but lean… and “mean” 🙂
Really “envy” Ed’s English.
While rating the post a 5, I have to take exception to the statement that “as far as the development of life on Earth was concerned the first 4,000 million years were comparatively uneventful. It took evolution all that time to make any advances beyond single cell/algal organisms”.
During the four billion years before c. 540 Ma, the first protocells arose, evolved into prokaryotes, which gave rise to eukaryotes, which developed sexual reproduction and multicellularity. In the last era of the Precambrian, ie the Neoproterozoic, one billion to 541 million years ago, animals, ie multicellular, heterotrophic, motile eukaryotic organisms, evolved. Especially in its last period, the Ediacaran, did macroscopic animals became common.
Those are a lots of pretty important events.
John it is like a 3D spherical mirror… useful for all, kinds of “earthly” view points.
The number;
4,000 million,
does not actually properly exist in a zero counting math system.
And yet, you “naughty” one, utilise it just like that.
Technically speaking,
that number will be equivalent to 2.4 billion in
a zero counting math system.
Does this help? 🙂
👇✌
“Climate Alarmists seem to expect that because of the brief increase of temperature over the last quarter of the last century, that the warming recovery from the Little Ice Age will continue inexorably upwards.”
No, the reason for expecting future warming is the known consequence of putting large amounts of CO₂ in the air. It is not deduced from observed warming since 1975. Arrhenius set out the reasoning in 1896.
If it were just up to the CO2, adding more would produce a benign, beneficial warming.
The only way ‘they’ get to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is to apply positive feedback. The warming due to extra CO2 causes more water to evaporate. Since water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, more of that causes even more warming.
It’s a lovely hypothesis but there is no evidence it’s actually happening. The whole CAGW thing is really just castles in the sky.
Right. They seem to forget that more evaporation producing more water vapour also means producing more clouds, blocking the Sun. As pointed out on WUWT by much smarter people than me, the tropic oceans seem to have a limit of 30-31° C regulated by the clouds that develop.
Rather than castles, it is more like dungeons in the sky…
“The only way ‘they’ get to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is to apply positive feedback. The warming due to extra CO2 causes more water to evaporate. Since water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, more of that causes even more warming.
It’s a lovely hypothesis but there is no evidence it’s actually happening.”
Back in the real world water vapour feedback was observed and quantified over a decade ago, and found to be in line with model predictions.
“The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse-gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL035333
The sentence you quoted gives them away. Dispassionate science, which seeks only the truth, just states the facts as they have been found. These folks are trying to prove a point. That gives rise to motivated reasoning. It’s the same kind of ‘science’ the self confessed* fraudster Dr. Michael Mann used to concoct his fraudulent hockey stick in an attempt to erase the Medieval Warm Period.
*By refusing to present evidence under his control in his lawsuit against Dr. Ball, Dr. Mann allows us to invoke adverse inference. ie. he does belong in state pen, not in Penn State.
Read the paper. The sentences I quoted are 100% factual.
Nothing in the Mann/Ball ruling had any bearing on the science.
HTH.
You write this amusing statement:
“Nothing in the Mann/Ball ruling had any bearing on the science.”
That was because Dr. Mann dragged his ass on getting into trial, heck he STOPPED the first trial by request, thus the science was never under discussion as Dr. Ball had intended to do in the beginning.
Then under advice, Dr. Ball made a request to shut the case down due to Mann’s foot dragging.
Thanks for confirming that nothing in the ruling had any bearing on the science.
Thanks for confirming that Mann chose not to defend his “science”.
Ball said Mann belonged in state pen not Penn State. Why? Because Mann’s purported science is actually fraudulent or something like that. So, yes, it was indeed all about science or the lack thereof.
Mann also insists he didn’t lose. Liar! Idiot!
Mann should sue his lawyers for not warning him about adverse inference.
No it had to do with Mann’s lack of integrity. Mann is a confirmed liar PERIOD!
I’ve always been amazed how much mal-feasance the left is willing to tolerate from anyone who supports them.
Like Bill Cosby, who many in entertainment knew was a serial rapist.
John you understand,
that you are commenting in a thread, started by Nick’s comment in a very particular given point point,
where regardless of Nick’s opinion expressed there;
the main point, whether true or false there, it actually contemplates that the climate alarmist, the real alarmists in academia and propaganda machine, directing and dictating the climate panic porn, are clear from and negative testing for foolishness, like idiocy or stupidity…
They clearly do know what, why how they are doing when also know equally the same that “climate Science” is a foolish climastrology they have designed and constructed themselves.
What about you John, where do you think or know you stand or belong in all this?
What do you see there John, when looking at the mirror?
cheers
And all of the above paleo-evidence bedamned,
Nick doesn’t need data. The sacred models have spoken and must be believed.
MarkW,
Not only is Nicky a denier of the science; he is also, apparently, in favor of letting all life on Earth die off in the near geologic future from the CO2 starvation of plants and subsequent death of all animals as a result!
You have to wonder what kind of person is so blinded by their religious beliefs that they would rather kill off all Life than admit that a moderate warming is beneficial! Probably the same type of person as those that would withhold effective medications from people sickened by a biological weapon of war, released into the world population to destroy Western societies!
If CO2 starvation was a thing, how on earth did the vast primeval forests of Europe and the Amazon manage to struggle to exist in the CO2 poor past?
Griff, you just don’t understand at all. Co2 starvation is a thing which plants are enduring right now. Consider how much more verdant the forests would be today if carbon dioxide levels were at the average level they were over the last 500 million years.
Griff, I will give you an example which I think you may understand.
Say I need 2000 calories a day to flourish. But I was reduced to a ration of 300 calories which meant that I was starving. My ration was increased to 400 calories but this means that I am still starving. What I really need is 2000 calories a day.
Bill,
I’d say that the griffter needs to see pictures of the survivors of the Bataan Death March, or the Nazi concentration camps to get a better idea of what a starvation diet is; but I’m afraid he might enjoy them too much, and share them with his little friends as goals instead of the horrors they are!
Griff, how did this happen?
How? They struggled, as you have admitted. Imagine how much better they would have been without the struggle.
Wow, griffter!
Are you trying to sound uneducated? Perhaps a remedial study program in geology, especially regarding Ice Ages, and botany or natural history would be in order!
The latter would be particularly helpful as you might learn to care about the biosphere, and stop trying to kill it off!
Actually they died back a lot, the Amazon was around 10% the size of today around 18,000 years ago.
It really is amazing how hard griff works in order to completely ignore the point.
It is all explained in the above article. Read it again, this time try to understand it, rather than looking for things to disagree with.
Hey grifter, read and study alittle before pushing your stubby fingers. The Amazon rain-forest was devastated by the low CO2 in the glacial period, reduced to mere patches in mostly savanna.
Abolition,
Nick is neither blind or a fool.
His comment you address simply addresses and counters against the claim:
that,
“climate alarmists are nether blind or fools.”
cheers
He didn’t read the paper. Don’t try to confuse him with the the facts. He’s a schmart climate prestidigitator. He don’t need no facts …
“Known consequence” LOL
“No, the reason for expecting future warming is the
knownspeculated consequence of putting large amounts of CO₂ in the air.”Known consequences. The physics of the greenhouse effect are absolutely certain.
No one here disputes the small reduction in the Radiative Cooling power of CO2, but the Positive feedback part isn’t showing up, that is the fail of the two part AGW conjecture.
Did you even bother to read the above excellent compendium about paleoclimate?
The physics are fine, your understanding is missing
You’re on to something, Lrp.
The physics of the greenhouse effect are absolutely certain.
Is it ?
The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”.
This article explores the “Greenhouse Effect” in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The “Greenhouse Effect” is defined by Arrhenius’ (1896) modification of Pouillet’s backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius’ incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The “Greenhouse Effect” is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the “Greenhouse Effect” has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier’s Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius’ Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth’s surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”, which rests on the “Greenhouse Effect”, also has no real foundation.
Indeed. But the understanding of that physics leaves a lot to be desired. In particular concerning climate scientists.
It seems that you and Stokes have a very low bar for standards of proof. If the results of the ‘greenhouse’ effect were “absolutely certain,” there wouldn’t be so many bright, well-educated commenters offering plausible reasons why it should be questioned.
You don’t seem to understand the difference between personal belief in something, and absolute certainty. I know many people who are absolutely convinced that the Christian God exists, but can’t offer any scientific proof to support their belief. Your belief in Gaia is no different. It is acceptable to have a belief that isn’t supported by scientific facts. But, it isn’t acceptable to claim that your belief is supported when it isn’t. It says much about you that you don’t understand the difference, and persist in making claims that are not substantiated.
“The physics of the greenhouse effect are absolutely certain.”
The ECS = 0.75C, Griff, according to this article. Others say it is higher. You imply you know the correct number, so what is it? Show us how certain you are of the science.
Nick, ten years after 1896, Arrhenius realized he had over-estimated the heating effect of a doubling of CO2, and published a reduced climate sensitivity of about 1.5 degrees C per doubling, less than half the amounts to which your CAGW clan still clings.
Quite trying to confuse Nick with facts.
Just untrue.
Prove it, beyond a reasonable doubt, that is all one can ask!!!
Follow the link, to here. Or better still, provide some evidence that it is true.
Nick,
Now you are obfuscating.
I have followed your link.
We have had this discussion before on that thread.
Read the Translation of the 1906 paper at friendsofscience.org
It is clear beyond argument that he stated 1.5C (for halving) and 1.6C ( for doubling) in revising his 1896 figures in that 1906 paper.
The only issue is how correct his assessment of a possible further 2.4C for water vapour impact was.
Was the final result 1.6C or 4.0C or some figure in between?
Your further reference to his 1908 book only confirms what I am saying, 4C, (with ??) not 5-6C.
A presumed possible further 2.4°C increase based upon assumed water vapor increases, NOT tested and thoroughly defined increases under all conditions, all environments, all altitudes.
A presumption that explains Arctic and Antarctic warming, but utterly fails to explain tropical and temperate zone warmings especially over the oceans.
It’s amazingly like religion. One person’s reading of an alleged holy text is assumed to have absolute meaning everywhere for all time…
Never mind that a particular holy text’s origins have gone through multiple translations, including a primary translation from oral history to written word in an archaic language without vowels or punctuation.
19th Century scientific claims demand full analysis and thorough testing using modern standards, equipment, methods and rigor.
Circular links to stokes circular reasoning?
Phooey.
There is also the quote, given below from his 1908 book “Worlds in the making, p53”:
“If the quantity of carbonic acid [ CO2 + H2O → H2CO3 (carbonic acid) ] in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°.” (p. 53)
The “Translated” version was published in 1908.
How many years was the translator working on the translation?
Looks to be Arrhenius’s earlier works, not current to 1908.
No, he wrote it in English. And it expresses exactly what he wrote in his 1906 paper.
No. Wrong again.
The front of the book identifies the translator for the published version..
Which indicates the translator was handed the book to translate. The 1908 version was published years after it was originally written.
Nick, here is the reference. The Probable Cause of Climate Fluctuations – Svante Arrhenius, A Translation of his 1906 Amended View of “Global Warming”. Original title: “Die vermutliche Ursache der Klimaschwankungen”
Meddelanden från K. Vetenskapsakademiens Nobelinstitut Band 1 No 2.
English Translation of the key point:
“Likewise, I calculate that a halving or doubling of the CO2 concentration would be equivalent to changes of temperature of –1.5 Cº or +1.6 Cº respectively.” So you are correct that what I said was slightly untrue, I did mistakenly say a doubling would result in 1.5 degree rise, instead of 1.6. My bad. But still less than half the IPCC midrange value. Are you willing to admit your mistake in thinking Arrhenius supports your view, based on this apparently new information for you?
“Are you willing to admit your mistake in thinking Arrhenius supports your view, based on this apparently new information for you?”
Good heavens, I have spelt this out at least three times, just on this thread, for example here. I even spelt it out in the link I first gave to your comment. You too stop reading just when you think you have reached a gotcha. Just read the very next line:
“In a similar way, I calculate that a reduction in the amount of CO2 by half, or a gain to twice the amount, would cause a temperature change of – 1.5 degrees C, or + 1.6 degrees C, respectively.
In these calculations, I completely neglected the presence of water vapour emitted into the atmosphere. This acts in two ways: In part, the water vapour reduces the radiation…”
and then read on to where he gives the completed answer
“For this disclosure, one could calculate that the corresponding secondary temperature change, on a 50% fluctuation of CO2 in the air, is approximately 1.8 degrees C, such that the total temperature change induced by a decrease in CO2 in the air by 50% is 3.9 degrees (rounded to 4 degrees C). “
Pls, could you help me with a link to the referenced second article from Arrhenius? I could use the article rather well. Many THX in advance.
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf
I included it in a reply to Nick above, Hari. Check out the FriendsofScience website, for the translation from the original German.
Thankyou for this artificial it is very concise and it is what we have been telling those deniers like Simon, Griff and Nick Stokes ,and a lot more for the last 25 years .
This should be mailed to every politician in the world and every University .
If any scientist can disprove what is written here I would like to hear what they have to say and their see proof.
If they believe that any of this is not backed by science I would like to see their reasons .
Graham
And you are still wrong: observed evidence shows this.
I’ve been following Watts since about 2009 and have lost count of the predictions of a new ice age imminently, the ‘recovery’ of arctic sea ice, the massive fails in renewable powered grids coming any day…
And of course the constant assertion it is a leftist/marxist plot… well if it is, then boy are those Marxists really bad at their job!
On the contary, they’ve been very successful.
Have you seen Joe Biden’s legislative agenda?
Also note how much of the Green New Deal’s provisions have to do with Environmental Justice as contrasted to the reduction of CO2.
I have visited this site for about the same length of time.
Please provide a link to even ONE article predicting:
1) An “immanent” ice age.
2) The “recovery” of arctic sea ice, whatever that means. I guess that would be to the perfect amount that is the only acceptable level, you know, the level the day you were born. Anything else, more or less, is just not right!
As to the massive “fails” of the renewable power grid, that happens every time the sun sets or clouds appear for solar, and every time the winds does not blow or blows too hard for bird chopping generation, so no need for a link, that is already obvious and proven. Lucky “the grid”, wherever that may be, still has sufficient FF generation capacity, in most cases, less Texas’ recent massive COLD spell, to bridge the gap.
Of course predictions are about the future, and Texas IS an example of grid wide failure due to excessive reliance on unreliable wind. “Renewables”, less hydro and biomass, are not DISPATCHABLE, so unreliable, and the shoe will drop, sooner or later, in places like Germany and California.
I just would like to see the extremists blow a couple of interties to, for example California, the UK and/or Germany, to make the “green” grids survive on their own. griff’s narrative would be proven false by the total collapse the first day the wind was calm.
Unlike leftist extremists, conservatives don’t go around blowing up stuff in general, but a very few well placed explosives on transmission towers from the nukes in France and the Scandinavian hydro would crush the German grid and prove the whole renewable electricity scam for what it is.
What would most of New England, which has VERY LITTLE wind and solar even though their politicians vote to force that crap on the whole of the US, do without hydro Quebec? What would LA do without the Hoover Dam generators? Just a few questions for you to ponder, griff, although answering questions is not your strong suit.
If you have to lie about what others are saying, then you have proven that even you know you can’t defend what you have been saying.
Every one of those persons who has talked about “imminent” ice ages, have been giving time frames of several hundred to several thousand years.
How odd?
I’ve been reading WUWT’s articles since 1908.
I do not remember any “new ice age” predictions or Arctic sea ice recovery nor any predictions regarding renewable power grids.
Obviously, you need to post the predictions themselves with links to the articles predicting them.
There was a lot of details regarding cycle regarding Arctic sea ice and Antarctic sea ice, and many renewable energy weaknesses and failure including renewable energy’s negative effects on machinery, appliances, electrical grid and electrical grid stability.
All of those came true.
WUWT’s articles regarding global cooling, Arctic sea ice and renewable energy have been remarkable for their prescience.
Now, name any of the your predictions that actually came true? True in every detail, not generically better than falsehoods.
three legged crickets, three legged crickets, three legged crickets.
(They make much less noise that fully limbed crickets.
Known consequences?
Known to whom?
The data shows that CO2 is a minor player in climate and that it’s pretty much played out already.
Only models that have been proven to run hot, predict more than a trivial amount of future warming.
Even the worst case projections of the broken models and their paid sycophant’s would barely get us back to warming levels the planet enjoyed in the past.
To Nick the denier ,
Arrhenius did publish this but he did come to the same conclusion as this paper states later on in his life as he came to understand more as he worked.
Arrhenius admitted that he was in error and it is well known that he cancelled the 1896 paper .
Why do you deniers keep quoting him when it is false ?
It is well know that the effects of CO2 on temperature is logarithmic . That is a scientific fact and has been understood for well over a century .
Is that the best you can come up with ?
If that is all that you can contribute you better go back to your unheated hut .
Graham
“ well known that he cancelled the 1896 paper .
Why do you deniers keep quoting him when it is false ?”
Your story is false
(WIKI)…In developing a theory to explain the ice ages, Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth’s surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. These calculations led him to conclude that human-caused CO2 emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming. This conclusion has been extensively tested, winning a place at the core of modern climate science. Arrhenius wanted to determine whether greenhouse gases could contribute to the explanation of the temperature variation between glacial and inter-glacial periods. Using ‘Stefan’s law’ (better known as the Stefan–Boltzmann law), he formulated what he referred to as a ‘rule’. In its original form, Arrhenius’s rule reads as follows:
if the quantity of carbonic acid (his reference to CO2) increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression
Arithmetic Progression
ar·ith·met·ic pro·gres·sion /ˌeriTHˌmedik prəˈɡreSH(ə)n/
noun
a sequence of numbers in which each differs from the preceding by a constant quantity (e.g., 3, 6, 9, 12, etc.; 9, 7, 5, 3, etc.
Which stands to draw a linear correlation
But as we know CO2 presents a Logarithmic progression
Logarithmic growth is the inverse of exponential growth and is very slow.
So it appears that Arrhenius believed the CO2 increase during the Interglacial periods was the cause of the Temperature increases during the same periods (which we know today to be of reverse causation) And that the Temperature increases caused by CO2 were Arithmeticaly progressive (constant quantity) rather than Logarithmic (diminishing quantity)
I can’t make out what all that is supposed to mean, especially as you seem to mix up Wiki text with your own. But that wiki article gives a correct quote from his 1908 book which should make the log behaviour, and the 4°C sensitivity, absolutely clear
“If the quantity of carbonic acid [ CO2 + H2O → H2CO3 (carbonic acid) ] in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°.” (p. 53)
That is correct. If CO2 Should fall by half…360ppm to 180ppm (-180ppm) temperatures would fall by minimum 4c, likely more BUT if they increase from 360ppm to 720ppm (+360ppm) the logarithmic progression would only allow for an increase of 1.5 – 1.8c
BTW if CO2 fell by half in 1900 (Arrhenius’ era) it would have declined from 280ppm – 140ppm and ALL life on earth would perish and temperatures would fall to a point we would enter Snowball Earth
“BUT if they increase from 360ppm to 720ppm (+360ppm) the logarithmic progression would only allow for an increase of 1.5 – 1.8c”
That makes no sense. But the quote from Arrhenius 1908 is explicit
“any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°.“
‘That makes no sense.’ No, you don’t understand it, or don’t want to.
It is supposed to be an interpretation of what Arrhenius said. But Arrhenius laid out very explicitly his relation, and it isn’t that.
It would be terrific if you could actually try to explain what it means, instead of being churlish. It makes no sense to me either.
Nick claims articles on WUWT false. Then Nick links to WUWT as proof of his comment on Arrhenius.
Both can’e be right. I wish Nick was interested in serious discussion but instead just wants to be a troll.
I linked to a comment of mine at WUWT. I did so because it has more details and links.
How droll! Please provide any proof you have of that conjecture. I’m sure everyone will be delighted. How on earth could the ” future consequences” be known? Do you have a crystal ball?
Of course he has such—the IPCC and the Holy Models.
Arrhenius could figure it out without a GCM.
It isn’t a question of “figuring” something out. You claimed to know the future. Provide the proof of having a time machine, at the very least.
Hell, you people have yet to make a single accurate projection, let alone prediction. No one “knows” the consequences of adding CO2 to our atmosphere … regardless of quantity.
Surely he can’t actually believe that nonsense, can he? I thought he has some pretensions of expertise in the field.
It is apparent to me that he does, he relentlessly defends the models even though not a single prediction that has made by their use has come to pass.
Yesterday I questioned the validity of the ECS numbers produced using the models, that the distribution of both the IPCC #5 and #6 values are non-normal, and he jumped all over this, claiming this doesn’t mean anything because there are multiple entries from the same model. But this is exactly the point, these numbers aren’t natural.
Without large ECS numbers, there is no emergency and they have nothing. I believe this is why they attack Christopher Monckton so relentlessly, he keeps showing the numbers are vacuous.
That they are non-normal also strongly supports the conclusion that averaging the outputs of multiple models (the Holy Ensemble) isn’t valid.
As others have pointed out, if the models are so good, why does the dispersion among them increase with time, rather than decrease?
Averaging the averages of interpolated averages, then applying the result to a bare minimum of variables, then producing an array of possible outcomes is just game playing. No useful information can come from it. You get no more information than averaging telephone numbers.
Someone needs to take the computers away from these clowns so they can start basing their science on empirical evidence again. They;re following a political process, not a scientific one.
Carlo, you understand that Nick is smart and well informed.
For example, Nick will know that this statement of yours, at least in what it implies is wrong and false:
“That they are non-normal also strongly supports the conclusion that averaging the outputs of multiple models (the Holy Ensemble) isn’t valid.”
The “averaging” you claim, is not of the end result outputs.
I do not know anyone doing anymore averaging of GCM simulations end result outputs.
The Gavin’s averaging is not of output results,
it is averaging of results during progress of simulations.
just saying… 🙂
So today you are a Nitpick Nick groupie? What will tomorrow bring?
But Nick, if we are headed for a new glaciation at some point (we are), and given the risk of CO2 falling below the threshold for which all life will terminate, shouldn’t we raise CO2 levels as much as possible to mitigate against this catastrophe? I mean, which is worse? Some warming and possible loss of some coastal areas or the end of life on Earth?
Arrhenius was wrong. Einstein proved this. Why are you still flogging your dead horse?
Arrhenius himself new a decade later that he was wrong by at least a factor 4. He wrote it down in German. But you don’t read German, do you?
Wearily, again, just not true. Here is his 1906 German text. He didn’t say that at all.
But I’ve quoted his 1908 English text above, which is even more explicit.
For clarity for all followers this is a correct translation:
similarly, I calculate that a decrease in carbonic acid content by half or an increase in it to twice the amount would correspond to temperature changes of -1.5 C or +1.6 C, respectively.
His original estimates were 5C to 6C. His revised 1.5C is 1/4 to 1/3 of that original estimate. What Happer says is that this 1.5C is still an overestimate. Happer is an expert on radiative heat transfer. That is he has all development of that branch of science since Arrhenius, by Eddington, Milne and others, under his belt. Why go back to Arrhenius all the time?
His 1906 estimate was 4°C. But even Happer’s estimate was 2.3°C.
The usual carefully truncated version. What he actually said was
“In a similar way, I calculate that a reduction in the amount of CO2 by half, or a gain to twice the amount, would cause a temperature change of – 1.5 degrees C, or + 1.6 degrees C, respectively.
In these calculations, I completely neglected the presence of water vapour emitted into the atmosphere. This acts in two ways: In part, the water vapour reduces the radiation…”
He then goes on to calculate the effect of water vapour, concluding
“For this disclosure, one could calculate that the corresponding secondary temperature change, on a 50% fluctuation of CO2 in the air, is approximately 1.8 degrees C, such that the total temperature change induced by a decrease in CO2 in the air by 50% is 3.9 degrees (rounded to 4 degrees C). “
Nick,
Thank you!
You have finally acknowledged what I have said on this thread and an earlier thread you linked to.
Arrhenius said a doubling of CO2 gave 1.6C increase in global temperature plus an uncertain 2.4C for water vapour.
A maximum of 4C!
And possibly 1.7 C as Rud has pointed out.
“Arrhenius said a doubling of CO2 gave 1.6C increase in global temperature plus an uncertain 2.4C for water vapour.”
Arrhenius gave a two stage calculation. He did not say the second stage was in any way uncertain. You say that only because you would like to leave it out, to try to re-establish the false narrative that has been circulating for about ten years.
But again, in 1908, two years later, he spelt out:
“any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°.“
No ifs, buts or maybes there.
Arrhenius was wrong, as repeatedly shown by actual observations of reality.
The no feedback effect of doubling is 1.1-1.2 degrees C. Whether the net feedbacks are positive or negative is controversial. But at most a positive feedback based upon observation, rather than GIGO models, is around 2.0 C, but negative feedback is more likely.
Prof. Errornius
Nick,
Read pages 6,7 and 8 in full at the 1906 Paper in English (on translation from the German) at friendsofscience.org.
The 4 degrees C (rounded up from 3.9C)there referred to is the 4C you keep referring to in the1908 book.
You wish to ignore the water vapour impact in your 4C reference, as though Arrhenius was stating CO2 doubling alone causes 4C temperature rise.
The 4C clearly includes the impact of water vapour as he explains in the final few pages of his 1906 paper.
Look at his discussion of the Ruben and Lindberg formula, and the calculations there set out.
(In passing,he nominates 2.1C as the doubling figure for CO2 if CO2 and Water vapour are considered together in the manner there set out.)
This has caused confusion at one blog site (climatescience.org.nz)as to whether Arrhenius was nominating 1.6C, 2.1C or 4C for the doubling of CO2 in the 1906 paper.
I think we both know the answer.
Nick finally spelled it out.
Arrhenius figured a 1.5C and 1.6C temperatue figure for CO2 alone.
Nick is claiming Arrhenius didn’t say this in some of his posts for some reason, claiming Arrhenius was quoting a 4.0C figure.
To get to Nick’s figure of 4.0C, Nick and Arrhenius have to include water vapor in the mix.
How much water vapor does CO2 create, Nick?
Does that water vapor increase the warmth or does it turn into clouds that reflect the Sun’s warmth back into space?
Moeller thinks increased CO2 in the atmosphere will result in net cooling. Got any thoughts on that?
Arrhenius thought the warming would be beneficial, not B-movie level of doomsday hysteria. Temperatures have been essentially flat since 1998 in spite of the world wide carbon binge since then, also essentially flat since 1200, or 2000 or 3500 years ago, (well actually we’re probably cooler since they had an easier time growing things back then at higher elevations and latitudes) in spite of nearly plant-extinction levels of co2 back then and roughly double the co2 now.
Really, did you even read the article or do any research beyond finding out that the co2 molecules like to absorb and re-emit IR in some tiny bands, in all directions, including mostly back into space?
Nick, how did this happen?
They found the Entwives? 😎
Nick, your camp has been predicting thermaggedon for the past 50 years and none of the predictions have come true (West Side Highway underwater? North polar ice cap gone by 2013? Glaciers all gone by 2020? 50 million climate refugees? etc, etc)
When are you going to get it right?
Hansen speculated about a submerged Highway (in an informal briefing with a writer) after CO2 had doubled, which would be around 560ppm, which is a way off yet.
Bull Shit! In 1989 he said it would happen in :20 or 30 years:. No CO2 level qualifier was mentioned.
Nope.
The writer was Bob Reiss. He interviewed Hansen in 1988 in the course of research for a book during which he invited Dr Hansen to speculate about how the view from the window might change if his predictions came true, and it was then that Hansen indicated that the Hudson river would have overflowed the Western Highway.
Confusion has arisen because Reiss made an error in an interview with Salon a decade later when he wrongly attributed a timescale of 20 years to the prediction. Hansen has written:
“Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount.”
And Reiss confirmed this is a message to Hansen
“I went back to my book and re-read the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. ”
Sources http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf (Footnote 1)
Reiss further added
“When I interviewed James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I’d been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn’t asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn’t an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the description in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm.”
He makes a good point, a magazine article recalling an ad hoc conversation ten years earlier hardly counts as a primary source,
Well, let’s wait until CO2 levels have doubled, and we can all have a good laugh when the highway is still there to be seen. Just like every other thermaggedonist prediction, it’s guaranteed it’ll be hopelessly wrong.
Hanson had predicted that doubling to occur within those 20 to 30 years with 99% confidence before that interview.
But in the text of the interview according to the Salon article there is not a single mention of atmospheric CO2 levels. Stormy weather – Salon.com (wordpress.com)
I don’t accept this back peddling and after the fact qualifying for a minute. And as for waiting? LOL! Not a single prediction of disaster that obviously less than honest man has made about the climate has come to pass or even appears imminent in any way,
“Hanson had predicted that doubling to occur within those 20 to 30 years with 99% confidence before that interview.”
My turn to call BS. That would have required emissions to spontaneously increase by around 500%.
So, to summarise, all of climate science is wrong because a writer mistakenly said in a phone interview that James Hansen had a decade earlier, made a 20 year prediction, and that prediction did not come true. And even though the writer himself, when he checked his notes, admitted he had misspoken and the 20 year timescale was wrong, and that the prediction was based on two conditions, including a doubling of CO2, neither of which has yet occurred.
Thanks, got that.
Alarmists go to extraordinary lengths to try to cover up their failures.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some collusion going on here between writer and object.
Is Reiss an alarmist? Would he be sypathetic to a plea from Hansen? “Just tell them I said 40 years, instead of 20 years, and that’ll fix it.”
And how close to the Highway is the water now? Oh, I’ve just checked, it’s nowhere near. Poor old Hansen.
Moving on: what’s your comment on the ice cap still being there, the glaciers refusing to disappear, and those climate refugees failing to pitch up? It’s all rather embarrassing for you thermageddonists, isn’t it John?
The Highway that is there now dates from 2001, besides, it was an off the cuff speculation in a media interview. It would be rather more impressive if you could find something significant from mainstream published climate science that has been falsified, rather than a piece of poor journalism on a conditional forecast that has yet to have the conditions met.
Of the other ‘forecasts’, no sources given, but the Arctic Ice and glacier examples are a long way from anything published, say, by the IPCC. The problem with counting ‘climate refugees’ is that legally, there is no such status and the decision to move is often multi-factored. I suspect the quote derives from a UNEP 0fficial, Janos Bogardi who apparently predicted that the 10 million ‘environmental refugees’ could rise to ‘up to 50 million’. As I say there’s a definitional issue, however the number had risen to 20 million by 2010 and last year the 30 million displacements due to climate disasters was higher than those caused by warfare.
Wow, that’s a lot of waffle to explain away hopelessly wrong predictions.
You quoting from the Graun is hilarious after you’d been demanding I can only quote from scientific papers. The Graun were the ones who screwed up with the “50 million refugees” number.
As for the claim that ” Intense storms and flooding triggered three times more displacements than violent conflicts did last year,”, well this is just standard procedure throughout history, or do you think the earth never had floods and storms before people started driving SUVs?
You need to try a lot harder John.
You must have got your examples from somewhere; I am just asking for your sources. Why is that so hard?
The Guardian’s data is from the respected IDMC’s Global Report on Internal Displacement.
Knut Ångström, in 1900, made Mr. Arrhenius very angry by disproving his theory with an experiment.
Ångström did no experiment. He speculated about the effect of saturation. And he was wrong.
Nick, is this statement incorrect?
“Ångström’s careful series of experiments in 1900 did just that—they put Arrhenius’s greenhouse warming theory to the test by clearly demonstrating that an increase in the carbon dioxide content of air in a specially constructed glass cylinder didn’t result in increased temperature when exposed to a source of infrared radiation of a frequency that is absorbed by the carbon dioxide. This relation held equally at sea level and at the summit of a 10,000 foot mountain. Despite Arrhenius’s stature, and his loud protestations, Ångström’s careful experiments were considered conclusive by the climate community of the day, a fact that reflects his equal stature to Arrhenius as an atmospheric scientist. As a result, the theory of greenhouse warming was put to rest for thirty-eight years.”
Laing, David Bennett. In Praise of Carbon: How We’ve Been Misled Into Believing that Carbon Dioxide Causes Climate Change.
Arrhenius used data from transmission through the real atmosphere (from the moon). There is no way you can emulate the effect of a multi-km pathway through sparse CO2 by looking at a bottle in a laboratory.
So you were wrong when you said Angstrom did no experiment.
Why did you say that?
“the reason for expecting future warming is the known consequence of putting large amounts of CO₂ in the air.”
The consequence seems rather fickle.
Nick,
On the 1896 Arrhenius Paper, see Dr.John Abbott and Dr.John Nicol- “The Contribution of Carbon Dioxide to Global Warming” in “Climate Change: The Facts 2017”-
”The rudimentary calculations by Arrhenius in 1896 are NOT based on a detailed experimental understanding of the spectroscopy of CO2 but rather on a theoretical extrapolation of work by American Professor Samuel Langley.
Specifically Langley had attempted to determine the surface temperature of the Moon by measuring the infrared radiation leaving the Moon and reaching the Earth.
Arrhenius’ much quoted 1896 paper, with its calculations subsequently incorporated into the IPCC’s General Circulation Models,is unashamedly an extension of this work.”
….Arrhenius states-
“In order to get an idea how strongly the radiation of the Earth (or any other body of the temperature +15C) is absorbed by quantities of water vapour or carbonic acid in the proportions in which these gases are present in our atmosphere, one should, strictly speaking,arrange experiments on the absorption of heat from a body at 15 degrees by means of appropriate quantities of both gases.
But such experiments have not been made as yet and as they would require very expensive apparatus beyond that at my disposal, I have not been in a position to execute them.
Fortunately there are other researches by Langley in this work on “The Temperature of the Moon” with the aid of which it seems not impossible to determine the absorption of heat by aqueous vapour and by carbonic acid in precisely the conditions which occur in our atmosphere.”
The authors continue-“It was not until 1988 that this speculative theory captured significant political attention…when James Hansen (in his Congressional evidence) claimed a 4.2C global temperature increase would result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
He was quoting from computer models which from the 1960s had incorporated a version of Arrhenius original calculation”.
(As you know,Arrhenius reduced in his 1906 paper his 5-6C for doubling to 1.6C plus a speculative 2.4C for water vapour impact giving a possible maximum of 4.0C).
”Since Hansen’s 1988 testimony the doubling figure has been continuously adjusted down”….
1995 Report- doubling predicted to cause temperature increase of 3.8C
In 2001- increase of 3.5C.
In 2007- increase of 3.26 C.
Finally in 2008, Hansen issued a statement requiring a further reduction of climate sensitivity estimate to 2.5C.for a doubling of CO2.
The paper concludes that since the 1950s,with modern spectroscopy works by Barrett, Laubereau,Iglev,Lightfoot and Mamer, an experimental system needs to be developed to test in controlled experiments the untried calculations of Arrhenius.
You’re confused; reasoning is not the same as “known consequences”
Arrhenius was interested in possible mechanisms for preventing the Earth from entering another ice age. The evidence for the past ice ages had just become available in the 19th century and people of Sweden could be expected to be concerned about a re-occurrence. By hand Arrhenius computed the effects of various changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the air, from a 33 percent decrease to a two hundred percent increase. He did this for 13 latitude bands and four seasons of the year. The case that gets attention is the one for a hundred percent increase, a doubling of the concentration of CO2. In his 1896 publication Arrhenius asserted that a doubling of the CO2 level would increase the world’s average temperature by 5 to 6°C, with the high latitudes increasing more and the tropics less. Other scientists, such as the Swedish scientist Knut Angstrom, objected to the value that Arrhenius had used as the absorption coefficient for CO2. At the time Angstrom made his objection of the quantitative accuracy of the absorption coefficient (1900) Arrhenius rejected it, but by 1906 Arrhenius gave a revised estimate of the effect of a doubling of CO2 being 1.2°C directly and 2.1°C with the water vapor feedback effect included. Thus Arrhenius had acknowledged that he had overestimated the impact of a doubling of CO2 by about two hundred and fifty to three hundred percent. This overestimate had to have come largely, if not exclusively, from an overestimate of the absorption coefficient for carbon dioxide.
The Errors of Arrhenius
“but by 1906 Arrhenius gave a revised estimate of the effect of a doubling of CO2 being 1.2°C directly and 2.1°C with the water vapor feedback effect included.”
Complete nonsense. It bears no resemblance to anything that he wrote, or even any of the twisted versions that people circulate. I have quoted above what he actually said.
“The long term prediction of future climate states is not possible” – quote taken from IPCC.
So you can – expect future warming – all you like. Just don’t get into predicting it.
While I’m at this (I’m in a bad mood today) – can everyone just drop the whole “it’s a Leftist conspiracy thing and, on the other side, the whole “Trump is great, and was robbed thing” – it’s polarising crap like that which is shafting an otherwise decent skeptical site.
Based on bogus prognostications of ECS values?
Without big ECS numbers, there is no emergency and the climastrology house of cards collapses.
Nick,
I read many of your comments at Climate Audit when Steve was still active, and I appreciated much of the information you provided. I learned MUCH from you and especially Steve. But somehow you have lost your way from somewhat reasoned discussion, i.e. science.
So in your religion, Gaia is your god and Athenius your prophet like Jesus or Mohammad? And since he is your prophet, he is infallible!
I have seen, for years, the reference to his experiments. But as is often referenced, the quote of Einstein re falsification is pertinent. The multiple articles posted here re water vapor transporting HEAT from the oceans to outer space, acting as a natural thermostat, would seem to me to be the one simple disproof of the “belief” that all the rise in temperature by a doubling of CO2 must be wrong. If increased CO2 increases water vapor, and more water vapor leads to more cloud formation, and more cloud formation transfers more heat to the upper atmosphere, and more heat at the upper atmosphere leads to more radiation of heat to outer space, than how can a laboratory experiment PROVE a doubling of CO2 will lead to 4 degrees increase in a system as vast and chaotic as Earth’s atmosphere.
And don’t just show me the modified temperature data sets where Hansen et.al., have lowered past temperatures to show a curve that follows CO2 increase. Still to this day, while we are told “it was the hottest year evah” time and again, the all time highest temperatures for more that half of the contiguous states in the US are from the 30s, when CO2 was much lower.
As Ricky often said: “Nickey, you got some splannin to do!”
“If increased CO2 increases water vapor, and more water vapor leads to more cloud formation, and more cloud formation transfers more heat to the upper atmosphere, and more heat at the upper atmosphere leads to more radiation of heat to outer space, than how can a laboratory experiment PROVE a doubling of CO2 will lead to 4 degrees increase in a system as vast and chaotic as Earth’s atmosphere.”
Good question. I bet Nick doesn’t have an answer.
If doubling of CO2 is supposed to cause a 5 to 6C increase in temperature, how on earth did life survive CO2 levels of 5000 to 7000ppm?
There’s another good question. Maybe, like Happer says, CO2 has an upper limit to how much warmth it can add to the atmosphere, and additonal CO2 increases add very little more. Happer also says the Earth’s atmosphere is currently at that point, with 420ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
If that’s the case, then the alarmists are going to have to come up with another reason for the historical temperature changes. Something other than CO2 is causing the warming above a certain amount, and it looks like that limit is our current global temperature. Above today’s current temperatures, something else, other than CO2, is required to raise the temperatues further.
Arrhenius? 1896?
Predicted massive atmospheric warming because of CO₂?
Show us those words by Arrhenius where he predicted excessive warming or runaway warming as caused by CO₂?
Then actually read the article above, and note the detailed information about CO₂ atmospheric concentrations across time.
Take especial note that at no time did high atmospheric CO₂ levels cause excessive warmth or ‘runaway warming’…
“Show us those words by Arrhenius where he predicted excessive warming or runaway warming as caused by CO₂?”
Well, I’ve already quoted them four times. But here we go again:
“On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°.”
That was his initial theory.
Which is proven erroneous.
Again, 19th century theoretical science.
Show us other 19th century science that has not been repeatedly revised?
Another failure of the trillions spent on climate fraud. An utter failure to fully investigate and prove every atom/molecule’s explicit infrared interactivity.
And his reasoning has been proven, time & again to be incorrect. Why do you socialicommimarxifascists continue to cling to false gods?
We’re still waiting for you to explain the decline in temperatures from 1940 to 1980, and the Vostok ice-core data, which show CO2 always LAGS temperature changes.
Grade D click bait, as opposed to grifter’s Grade F-.
As I and many others have said, our present level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is critically close to the minimum below which no life on Earth can survive. What we urgently need is MORE CO2, not less. At least a doubling, or preferably a trebling would give us an adequate margin. Those alarmists who blame CO2 for every unfortunate thing which happens – floods, drought, heating, cooling, etc. – are either ignorant or wilfully wishing life of Earth to die. With the strange beliefs of some supposedly Green adherents, that is not surprising. Unfortunate that their beliefs could be the very thing to cause their grandchildren to expire!
Yes! Nothing wrong with 1200ppm of co2 – the Sahara will bloom again!
Where is the evidence for this claim? The Earth has experienced several ‘Ice House’ events throughout its history, and none of them have extinguished life. None have been associated with a major extinction event such as “End Permian!” This seems to me to be as irresponsible as claiming some “Tipping Point” will convert Earth into a twin of Venus.
There are extreme views on both sides of the AGW fence.
Alexy
Extreme views I can handle, if they are supported by facts and a reasonable explanation. All I asked for was a citation or logical explanation of why we can expect some future glaciation to “finally extinguish all Life on Earth,” when none of the past glaciations achieved that result.
I just have trouble accepting dogmatic statements that appear to come from someone who apparently has a perfect crystal ball.
CO2 levels were 10 to 20 times higher entering into those cold events compared to the present.
Clyde,
Look at the decrease in CO2 over the last 500 Myas! During the Karoo Ice Age the CO2 level was about 500ppm and it did not experience the steady decline that has occurred during the Pleistocene! The theory is that natural processes, in particular the mineralization of shells for the protection of foraminifera and coccolithophores, is sequestering the carbonates as sedimentary rocks over geologic time. If you know of another reason why CO2 WAS decreasing that is now no longer occurring I would love to hear it; but the evidence seem to indicate that the steady decrease has not been stopped except by the inadvertent meddling of Mankind!
Should have said 150 Myas! Sorry, my bad!
It is not based on actual evidence of real climate,
It is based on the evidence of, one extreme, how deep we searching the oceans for the “missing cold”.
Same as for the other extreme opposite, of how deep we searching for the “missing heat”.
🙂
You see, in one extreme, there is the “missing heat”.
( “Anthropocene”, catastrophic) lot.
and in the other one, (Holocene benign)
You see the extreme of the “missing cold” lot.
At least one of these lot are fools… at the very least.
cheers
Fully agree. Climate action has to be global. It’s global or nothing.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/02/23/renewable-energy-statistics/
There is no need for any “climate action” at all, The concept is utterly preposterous nonsense. No one with any understanding of climate and knowledge of history believes in a climate crisis. It’s all Marxist, political showmanship to keep the masses compliant.
Just glad we didn’t have to live through the Eemian, we would surely have gone extinct … oh … hang on …
Former UNFCCC boss, Christiana Figueres, let the cat out of the bag when she revealed its not about the climate but about getting rid of the economic system of the last 150 years (i.e. capitalism). And the only system that can enable climate policy to be implemented is the system in China (i.e. communism).
I am afraid there is a Sagan-straw man in this article!
As Harper “Effect on Earth Surface..” only shows, that humid air with 380ppm CO2 has a short free path length for radiation in this partial spectrum or “is quite saturated” and more CO2 has little effect there.
Of course most alarmists will concur to this, they do that for a long time and point to the Stratosphere, where additional CO2 has and will have a strong effect.
I am not sure how this old hat can possibly bring the debate forward?
(The CO2-discussion should IMHO focus on the impossible feedback to CO2 forcing the models use, unrealistic time CO2 remains in the atmosphere and the resulting overblown warming, the radiative behavior of CO2 alone seems quite well understood by all parties)
The effect of CO2 in the stratosphere is zilch as anybody who really understands radiative transfer of heat can tell you. The upper atmosphere is effectively optically thin. That means that there is little if any interaction between the outgoing radiation and the atmospheric gasses. This is demonstrated by the Stratospheric temperature inversion of the gas; it means that the gas temperature at those levels is determined by completely different processes than at the bottom of the atmosphere. In particular by absorption of hard incoming radiation during the day and non-linear dissipation of low-frequency sound waves generated by the underlaying convective atmosphere. None of such effects are to be found in climate models.
Your last remark is a common misunderstanding. Very few of the parties do quite well understand the radiative behaviour of CO2. In particular climate modellers fail that test.
The catastrophic man-made global warming deception must finally be called out. Politicians say they follow the science (presumably) the IPCC reports. Fine. So when will any political anywhere in the world ask the IPCC to produce a single citation in any of its reports to a peer reviewed study that backs its fundamental supposition that CO2 emitted from human activities is causing catastrophic man-made global warming and is the key drive of climate change?
As far as the history or earth. I have not seen a convincing argument that we know what the true atmosphere pressure has been over time.
I am looking for some thing in the nitrogen cycle that would control the atmosphere pressure to what it is.
If we are not sure of this how can anything really be understood.
Comments please….
That pretty much closes the book on all variations of AGW. The nearly 50 year long goat rodeo called “climate science” has been one excruciatingly protracted waste of time, energy resources and vast sums of money that might have been used for other purposes than featherbedding the lifestyles of UN bureaucrats and larcenous politicians of all stripes.
The vast transfer of funds to the undeserving is criminal.
You got it in one.
I believe the Holocene is 20,000 years in duration, not 10,000 as stated in the article. I know it was punctuated by the Younger Dryas 10,000 years ago, but the fact remains that it began 20,000 ybp and whatever mechanism is responisbile for ending glaciations is now 20,000 years in operation.
It is a tragedy – literally a crime – that all the data here is not being presented to the world or considered by government funded scientists. The fact is that all the institutions are broken – comprimised or captured by a revolving door of big money gaming the system. If you control the media as well, then its game, set and match.
This article seems to miss the geological evidence that the current ice age is the fifth known, not the second.
We can already see this is untrue.
We have drought, wildfires, heatwaves, increased storms and flooding, effects on ocean life and animal, bird and plant populations.
It isn’t just going to get beneficially warmer by a few degrees in colder regions. There isn’t going to be any magic increase across the globe in plant growth and crop productivity.
Nothing is happening that hasn’t happened before during the preindustrial era. Wildfires are in fact declining in incidence and scope despite the fact that there are more people in the wilderness to accidently set them off.
In May and June of 1890 huge wildfires raged from Wisconsin and Minnesota down to both sides of the Rio Grande in New Mexico and vast areas of Colorado.
Please tell us of what drought that is occurring now that has never happened before?
When has there NOT been “drought, wildfires, heatwaves, increased storms and flooding, effects on ocean life and animal, bird and plant populations”? The Garden of Eden?
All that’s changed is some are using weather events as a means to gain power and profit.
The only things ruining bird populations are the windmills you’re so in thrall to.
Droughts? Always had them.
Wildfires? Always had them.
Heatwaves? Always had them.,
Storms and flooding? Always had them.
All the things you screech about have happened countless times before we were on the planet.
The thermaggedonists have taken naturally occurring events and sensationalised them to frighten the populace. It’s a scam, plain and simple.
The Anasazi and Mayan cultures were destroyed by a 150 year drought! Please get some remedial classes so you can stop putting forth garbage for your arguments! Pathetic
Quite the reverse
We have ALWAYS had drought, fires, heat and cold, but there have been DECREASED storms and flooding. the oceans are as healthy as they ever were.
It already is beneficially warmer. The world is already greening from the increased CO2, and plants don’t “magically” produce more productive crops. That is a result of superior cultivation in better growing conditions.
Overall, you get zero out of 10. You failed.
“the oceans are as healthy as they ever were.”
I take issue with this because the scientific evidence says otherwise.
The distribution and abundance of coral reefs has decreased by approximately 50% over the past 30 years
Gardner, T.A., I.M. Côté, J.A. Gill, A. Grant, and A.R. Watkinson, 2005: Hurricanes and caribbean coral reefs: Impacts, recovery patterns, and role in long-term decline. Ecology, 86(1), 174–184, doi:10.1890/04-0141.
Bruno, J.F. and E.R. Selig, 2007: Regional decline of coral cover in the IndoPacific: Timing, extent, and subregional comparisons. PLOS ONE, 2(8), e711, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000711.
De’ath, G., K.E. Fabricius, H. Sweatman, and M. Puotinen, 2012: The 27-year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(44), 17995–9, doi:10.1073/pnas.1208909109.
as a result of pollution, storms, overfishing and unsustainable coastal development.
Burke, L., K. Reytar, M. Spalding, and A. Perry, 2011: Reefs at risk: Revisited. World Resources Institute, Washington DC, USA, 115 pp.
Halpern, B.S. et al., 2015: Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the world’s ocean. Nature Communications, 6(1), 7615, doi:10.1038/ncomms8615.
Cheal, A.J., M.A. MacNeil, M.J. Emslie, and H. Sweatman, 2017: The threat to coral reefs from more intense cyclones under climate change. Global Change Biology, 23(4), 1511–1524, doi:10.1111/gcb.13593
More recently, climate change (i.e., heat stress) has emerged as the greatest threat to coral reefs, with temperatures of just 1°C above the long-term summer maximum for an area (reference period 1985–1993) over 4–6 weeks being enough to cause mass coral bleaching (loss of the symbionts) and mortality (very high confidence).
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., 1999: Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world’s coral reefs. Marine and Freshwater Research, 50(8), 839–866, doi:10.1071/mf99078.
Baker, A.C., P.W. Glynn, and B. Riegl, 2008: Climate change and coral reef bleaching: An ecological assessment of long-term impacts, recovery trends and future outlook. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 80(4), 435–471, doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2008.09.003.
Spalding, M.D. and B.E. Brown, 2015: Warm-water coral reefs and climate change. Science, 350(6262), 769–771, doi:10.1126/science.aad0349.
Hughes, T.P. et al., 2017b: Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature, 543(7645), 373–377, doi:10.1038/nature21707.
Cramer, W. et al., 2014: Detection and Attribution of Observed Impacts. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, and M.D. Mastrandrea (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 979–1037.
Ocean warming and acidification can also slow growth and calcification, making corals less competitive compared to other benthic organisms such as macroalgae or seaweeds.
Dove, S.G. et al., 2013: Future reef decalcification under a business-as-usual CO2 emission scenario. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(38), 15342–15347, doi:10.1073/pnas.1302701110.
Reyes-Nivia, C., G. Diaz-Pulido, D. Kline, O.H. Guldberg, and S. Dove, 2013: Ocean acidification and warming scenarios increase microbioerosion of coral skeletons. Global Change Biology, 19(6), 1919–1929, doi:10.1111/gcb.12158.
Reyes-Nivia, C., G. Diaz-Pulido, and S. Dove, 2014: Relative roles of endolithic algae and carbonate chemistry variability in the skeletal dissolution of crustose coralline algae. Biogeosciences, 11(17), 4615–4626, doi:10.5194/bg-11-4615-2014.
As corals disappear, so do fish and many other reef-dependent species, which directly impacts industries such as tourism and fisheries, as well as the livelihoods for many, often disadvantaged, coastal people.
Wilson, S.K., N.A.J. Graham, M.S. Pratchett, G.P. Jones, and N.V.C. Polunin, 2006: Multiple disturbances and the global degradation of coral reefs: are reef fishes at risk or resilient? Global Change Biology, 12(11), 2220–2234, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01252.x
Graham, N.A.J., 2014: Habitat complexity: Coral structural loss leads to fisheries declines. Current Biology, 24(9), R359–R361, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.069.
Graham, N.A.J., S. Jennings, M.A. MacNeil, D. Mouillot, and S.K. Wilson, 2015: Predicting climate-driven regime shifts versus rebound potential in coral reefs. Nature, 518(7537), 1–17, doi:10.1038/nature14140.
Cinner, J.E. et al., 2016: A framework for understanding climate change impacts on coral reef social-ecological systems. Regional Environmental Change, 16(4), 1133–1146, doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0832-z.
Pendleton, L. et al., 2016: Coral reefs and people in a high-CO2 world: Where can science make a difference to people? PLOS ONE, 11(11), 1–21, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0164699.
YOU take issue? Where? Which of those papers is yours? That isn’t evidence. Most of it is just bad science based on other bad science. First you must start with a cause. You can’t just presume problematic “climate change” based on an unsupported conjecture like human causation.
Do you really believe the oceans are warmer now than they were during the Holocene Thermal Optimum … or any of the other warm periods since then? These organisms have survived for millions and millions of yeas with far greater variation than at present. What part of there’s no such thing as ocean acidification don’t you understand? Hell, it’s almost impossible to calculate a meaningful pH for a large area of ocean.
“Climate change” eh? Explain that. Are you suggesting there has been no “climate change” until humans started using fossil fuels? Prove it. There are all sorts of assertions … no evidence.
I’m guessing most, in not all of those studies were modeled using the output of other models derived from interpolated data from “adjusted/corrected ” raw data.
“Do you really believe the oceans are warmer now than they were during the Holocene Thermal Optimum … or any of the other warm periods since then?”
No. But how is this relevant as the organisms are different then which brings me to my next point.
“These organisms have survived for millions and millions of yeas with far greater variation than at present.”
These organisms you are talking about comprises of many different families containing many species of coral, molluscs etc. I am sure you accept evolution so you should know that organisms adapt to their environment. These organisms are adapted to this environment. This means that some of them would have a harder time surviving as temperature rises.
““Climate change” eh? Explain that. Are you suggesting there has been no “climate change” until humans started using fossil fuels?”
No! why would you say that? In fact climatologists have known for a long time that average global temperature changes a lot in the past. The question is why? The reason why we know anthropogenic CO2 causes climate change is because scientists know CO2 is a greenhouse gas which influences temperature. The solar irradiance output has also been decreasing recently despite average global temperature rising. There’s more to it than what I said but you could look up NASA’s website on evidence for climate change.
It’s relevant because the organisms must be adapted to all the changes over that period. You’ll need to demonstrate those differences and how they occurred in under 10000 years.
Clearly you’re missing the point. There has been far greater variation in temperature during the past 10000 years than the recent 60 years. The organisms are well adapted to those variations.
Wrong. “scientists know” no such thing. It’s conjecture with no empirical evidence. Knowing CO2 is a greenhouse gas tells us nothing. Water vapour (H2O) is also a GHG responsible for more than 95% of the GHE (at least). The effect of CO2 diminishes logarithmicly with increase. Besides, the organisms have already experienced far greater temperature variations in shorter time periods.
Global average temperatures have been nearly flat since the super El Nino of 1998. There is simply no evidence of any human caused warming. All arming over the past 150+ years can be explained by natural variation.
Mad magazine is more likely to provide useful information than NASA/GISS. I’ve been doing this for more than 40 years. I think you have a ways to go. Follow the comments section of this site. You’ll learn the real science. Go to Tony Heller’s site. Look at the side bar of this site for the best resources that are not politicized garbage.
“There has been far greater variation in temperature during the past 10000 years than the recent 60 years.”
A Reconstruction of Regionaland Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years states: “Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling
through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago."
And
"Current global temperatures of the past
decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."
So as you can see, the temperature variations will be greater than the past 10000 years.
"The effect of CO2 diminishes logarithmicly with increase."
Yea the climate scientists know about this and this concept has been included in the models.
"I’ve been doing this for more than 40 years."
I would like to know what research have you published.
Whats even more interesting is that you don't trust NASA. What did they do?
I recommend reading the lead essay at the top of this page. Current temperatures have not even reached those of the Medieval Warm period, let alone the HTO. Why would anyone trust a government agency that openly manipulates the data to suit its models? That’s the same with trusting the IPCC the EPA they’re all highly politicized government agencies dominated by Leftist politics.
Model projections are NOT science. They’re easily manipulated toys intended to fool the population with false narratives. Not one “prediction” based on their projections has matched reality.
According to the research paper: Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data, the average global temperature has already surpassed the medieval warming some time ago.
I assume HTO means holocene climate optimum. According to: Temperature and Surface-Ocean Water Balance of the Mid-Holocene Tropical Western Pacific, tropical areas experience around a 1 degree celsius rise in temperature. As compared to the north pole, the tropics were relatively normal.
This link shows accurate and inaccurate predictions by climate scientists.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
As shown, the first IPCC accurately predicted the rise of average global temperature.
I think the main issue here is that you don’t trust these organisations because of left wing governments influence?
This is strange to me because right wing governments like those in japan, thailand, singapore, malaysia, indonesia etc. accept climate change. So your premise is simply wrong. I don’t understand why is this a left vs right issue. Asian countries generally don’t have this problem as compared to certain western countries.
Funny thing, despite coral being reduced by 50%, there is just as much coral now as there has always been.
Err what? Could you expand more on “there is just as much coral now as there has always been.”?
Are you talking about how corals have always been as abundant compared to the past decade or are you referring to millions of years ago?
You need to climb out of your Global Average Temperature hole you are digging and see the world again. You and many so called scientists refer to global warming for the reason their data shows whatever it is they are studying. Most of these need local and/or regional temperature trends and predictions. Yet the folks who make the GAT anomaly forecasts refuse to show local and regional data. Why is that? Are they pretty much convinced that not all areas will follow GAT? Will it spoil the gravy train you and others enjoy.
Why don’t you show some long term data from some of these regions and what is going to happen to them? I’m sure the models would give you an accurate regional projection, LOL!
I see griff is still trying to convince us that any weather that is different from last year must have been caused by CO2.
It has already shown that none of the things in griff’s list were caused by CO2.
There have been worse droughts in the past, before CO2 started rising.
There have been worse wildfires in the past, before CO2 started rising.
There have been worse heatwaves in the past, before CO2 started rising.
There have been no increase in the number or strength of storms, in fact there has been a small decrease in the last few decades.
There has been no increase in flooding since CO2 started rising. Most of the flooding that has occurred was the result of incompetent management of the flood plains and drainage systems.
There has been no changes to animal, bird populations that can be attributed to CO2. There have been changes to plant populations as plants grow bigger and faster under enhanced CO2 conditions.
The majority of CO2 warming, to the small extent it exists at all, will be in colder regions and at night and during the winter. This because of the well known fact that CO2 shares most of it’s energy bands with water, so where ever the air is humid, CO2 has little to no impact.
As to plant growth, even NASA has been forced to admit that the planet has been greening.
Why are you so resistant to facts griff?
A lot of people below saying Arrhenius was ‘wrong’ or revised his figures…
Well, if he was the only scientist who worked on CO2 in the atmosphere, maybe they’d have a point.
but!
Of course there has been continues research since then… this is a sufficiently concise account of climate science history which includes detail on CO2 research and theory
History of climate change science – Wikipedia
Good grief Griffiepoo, Wikipedia? Seriously?
Ba-hahahahahahahaha!
And throughout the history of climate science the “scientists” have been hopelessly wrong every time:
The glaciers haven’t disappeared.
The polar ice caps are still there.
Global crop production levels have continued to rise.
The GBR hasn’t disappeared.
The coastal cities haven’t been engulfed by the seas.
Polar bears are still very much alive.
Children still know what snow is.
How can “climate scientists” be wrong so many times and still claim to have the science all settled?
Are these claims made by climate experts supported by peer review research paper? If not why call these experts?
You’re confused. “Climate experts” is a clumsy attempt at an appeal to authority. Peer review has no ability to validate bad science. It’s a meaningless expectation and is often just pal review or an appeal to numbers, like consensus. As long as you wrap yourself in these fallacies you’ll never hope to understand what is taking place.
Climate experts are climatologists (along with other related fields) that publish many papers in scientific journals.
I don’t know how every single journals reviews their paper but the ones I know have anonymous or random peer reviewers. Peer reviewers are there to review methodology, not conclusions. So you are wrong unless you have some evidence to back up this conspiracy.
Ever hear of climate-gate?
Yes I have heard of it. How does that disprove climate change?
The researchers were talking about some other phenomenon, not climate change. The people who promote climate gate as evidence for some global conspiracy are either ignorant for not reading the context or lying.
Climate experts are climatologists (along with other related fields) that publish many papers in scientific journals.
There are in fact very few “climatologists” in this field. A scientist is a person who studies science and who believes in the ignorance of experts (h/t Feynman). In recent times, peer review, especially on climate issues, has turned into nothing more than gate keeping and little more than a means to restrict outsiders from getting a forum.
“turned into nothing more than gate keeping and little more than a means to restrict outsiders from getting a forum.”
Why do you think scientists would do this? What is there to gain? Money? I work with scientists and the majority of them do not get much salary, not to mention lots of PhDs have trouble finding jobs.
Those who become research assisstants, fellows or professors don’t do it for the money. They do it because they are curious and want to know more about the world.
By the way, peer review is about methodology not the conclusion. So if the methodology is good and the conclusion is different from other publication, that piece of research would be published. Otherwise, why would universities and libraries along with scientific institutes pay for the subscription fees of scientific journals? If researchers just wanted to conduct research to find the same conclusion, why do research at all?
Argumentum ad ignorantium … argument from ignorance.
Except all sorts of studies running contrary to the politically correct “consensus” are being rejected and the authors both publicly and privately gas lighted.
Another appeal to ignorance.
So do you have any evidence for this “Except all sorts of studies running contrary to the politically correct “consensus” are being rejected and the authors both publicly and privately gas lighted.”?
None of what I said is an appeal to ignorance. Scientists are curious and want to know the truth unless you have some evidence to the contrary.
Of course I have evidence. Why would I lie to you?
Therefore, according to you, Michael Mann is not a scientist.
Why? Does he not want to know the truth about our world? Do you have any evidence for that?
Mike Mann doesn’t want to find the truth. He just wants to spend time in the courts suing anybody who has the temerity to question his “science”
“When Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann first threatened to sue two conservative bloggers and their publishers for DEFAMATION in 2012, they seemed to welcome the opportunity for a face-off in court.”
“in which they attacked Mann’s science and compared him to Jerry Sandusky, the disgraced Penn State assistant football coach convicted of child sexual abuse.”
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07022021/michael-mann-defamation-lawsuit-competitive-enterprise-institute-national-review/
Ok so it appears mann sued them for defamation. I still don’t see how this means he “doesn’t want to know the truth”?
If you want to challenge his findings, go publish in a respectable peer reviewed journal or are you worried that there is a conspiracy going on? If so, provide evidence for this global conspiracy.
It’s not a conspiracy. It’s just an amalgam of grant-troughing scientists such as Mike Mann, hard-left eco-zealots who use CAGW as an excuse to bring about the end of capitalism, and crony capitalists who see a chance to make a quick buck off the back of subsidies for useless green tech.
“hard-left eco-zealots who use CAGW as an excuse to bring about the end of capitalism”
Do you have any evidence that most climatologist, along with other related fields like zoologists, botanists etc. are hard left wanting to bring about the end of capitalism.
Do you not realise that some of these scientists you are referring to work in government organisations where the government is right wing like thailand, malaysia, singapore, japan etc. But somehow this is a issue involving the left????
Aah, you’re mixing up the grant-troughing scientists with the hard-left eco-zealots (although they are not always mutually exclusive)
I apologise for not reading your comment properly.
“grant-troughing scientists”
Scientists need grants to do research. If a scientist manipulates data, that person would be punished by having their PhD revoked, job resignation or research papers retracted etc.
So do you have evidence that there is a wide spread manipulation of data going on?
Your naivety is touching.
If you want manipulated data, just have a chat with Gavin Schmidt
Is Gavin Schmidt involved in data manipulation or does he have evidence for it?
I looked at his profile on NASA, wikipedia and his blog ie. RealClimate.
He accepts anthropogenic climate change. So what is this evidence?
Could you please be more specific?
Read it and weep, sweet cheeks
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/03/the-shocking-climate-graph-climateofgavin-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
The Urban Heat Island effect is well known. The link below provides various temperature data from both urban and rural areas. Despite, the urban areas having higher temperatures than rural areas, both areas have seen an increase in average temperature.
There are many studies that demonstrate this. One of them being: “Another more recent study (Parker 2006) plotted 50 year records of temperatures observed on calm nights, the other on windy nights. He concluded “temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development”.”
https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-intermediate.htm
Why did Roy Spencer not publish his research to peer reviewed scientific journals? His work would be criticised there like all other research or is he afraid of other experts commenting on his work?
I weep for those who fall for pseudoscience clap trap.
The numpties at SkS? ROFLMAO!
So it’s warmed (although not as much as Gavin claims). Good – cold kills as it brings famine and disease.
Prove the warming’s not natural. You can’t.
Right, I’m genuinely going to leave it there. Your naivety is starting to depress me.
Oh no, it is still warming as much as Gavin claims and can show.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=29
This video talks about the evidence with peer reviewed research articles linked in the video.
Go through his channel, it debunks lots of the climate myths that I see often on the internet.
Do you have evidence that michael mann is not interested in the truth?
“Why would I lie to you?”
I don’t think you are lying. I think you are mistaken.
So where is the evidence
They’re all quotes from climate prognosticators claiming to be all about “the science”.
As for peer reviewed papers, when you’ve found one that gives empirical proof of man’s emissions causing the climate to explode, get back to us.
Yea well unlike some people, I prefer to listen to the experts, like actual researchers who publish research in the relevant fields.
These “climate prognosticators” claim to be “all about the science”. So why do you listen to them when climate experts findings contradicts what they say?
Surely you do not think celebrities, politicans etc. are reliable sources of information.
I don’t listen to these people or even care less what they say. I suggest you do the same too.
Here is an early paper from 1956 about climate change.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x
Experts like his fraudulency Mike “hokey-cokey stick” Mannn or Peter “The ice will disappear this week” Wadhams? Count me out, thank you very much.
As for that paper you linked to, it’s very lovely, but isn’t empirical proof of CAGW. When you’ve found a paper with empirical proof, get back to us (and remember: models aren’t proof!)
Science does not deal with proofs because proofs are absolute thus making it a mathematical conept. Science deals with evidence. When there are enough evidence for X, then we can reasonably conclude X.
The models shown in this link have quite accurately predicted the rise of temperature when measured against observation.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
I suppose you have evidence for this fraud, “fraudulency Mike “hokey-cokey stick” Mannn or Peter “The ice will disappear this week” Wadhams”?
Comedy classic. I think we’ll leave it there.
Did you not understand why science doesn’t deal with proofs?
Griff, Coke Cola saved the polar bears.
It’s so obvious your entire belief about climate comes from Wikipedia. No wonder you NEVER get anything right.
griff,
let me lend you a hand there, on what you and Nick are trying…
You say Arrhenius… I raise you to Guy Callendar… 😛
Let see what follows….
cheers
Nick Stokes,
Please forgive me if I infer that the energy future for mankind for some decades to come is mapped out by authority of a rough experiment by Arrhenius in 1896. Does this mean that Arrhenius is a higher authority, or did better physics, than say van Wijngaarden and Happer in 2021? Arrhenius was an early user of the concept of ‘doubling” od CO2 concentration. Others of thee early authors used more customary scenarios by asking in this way “The present CO2 concentration is (300) pp, so we shall calculate the effect of adding another 50 and 2100 ppm. No doubling. Doubling is an easy out, because it gived a dimensionless number and avoids having to invoke real quantities with real units.
A big question arises. Where do you start the doubling process? My logival thought processes have led me here:
The equilibrium climate sensitivity (IPCC 1990, 1996) is defined as the change in global mean temperature, T2x, that results when the climate system, or a climate model, attains a new equilibrium with the forcing change F2x resulting from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Approximately, there are 10^40 molecules of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. If we start with 1 molecule, then double it to get 2 molecules, we have done 1 doubling. If we double that again, 2 doublings give 4 molecules, 3 doublings give 8 molecules and so on.
133 doublings give 1.09*10^40 molecules, mathematically. (This is simply 2^N, where N is number of doublings), so in concept, our atmosphere has had 133 doublings.
Roughly, the present range of ECS as offered by various authors is between some negative value and about 9 degrees C. For the sake of demonstration, let us take a ‘popular’ value of approximately 1 ⁰C. Each doubling then raises the temperature by 1 ⁰C.
Because there have been 133 doublings, we should have seen a temperature change of 133 ⁰C. We appear to have NOT seen this change. How can this be explained? Several options exist.
1. The ECS is much smaller than 1 ⁰C. To match observations, ECS would need to be 1/100 of 1 ⁰C, or 0.01 ⁰C.
2. Maybe, it is incorrect in theory to start the doubling calculations as I have done, from 1 molecule. If so, what is the ‘correct’ point to start the doubling calculations, and WHY that point?
3. The effect of doubling does not follow a simple relation that each doubling produces the same temperature change. That is, the IPCC definition is incorrect, or lacks some caveat(s). What are they?
4. Possibly, the Earth system copes with any temperature changes from variations in CO2 concentration by compensating mechanisms that produce an effective ECS that is close to zero and not as high as 1 ⁰C.
5. More explanations – welcomed. Geoff S
“than say van Wijngaarden and Happer in 2021?”:
In fact van W and Happer emphasised that their results were consistent with their predecessors, and they got an ECS of about 2.3, lower than Arrhenius, but quite a common result for people using their (primitive, 1D, fixed RH) methods. And of course they expressed their result in terms of doublings. There isn’t any real dispute about that.
The log rule is empirical and applies well over the range observed. You can’t extrapolate down to a few molecules.
Man,
“(primitive, 1D, fixed RH)”
That is mean and nasty…
LOL
Nick,
Is there a rationale for choosing the present range of CO2 concentrations that assumes a logarithmic response so that one doubling sees the same temperature change as the next?
What is wrong with starting the doubling exercise with 1 molecule. Is there a more logical start point? Is 1 molecule start just wrong, for reasons in physices like it cannot hold enough energy to be relevant to global scale? At what doubling of molecules does the math “apply well”? How do you measure how well it applies?
Are you not using circular argument in saying “The log rule is empirical and applies well over the range observed”? How well? What math numbers express this “how well”?
Your response, Nick, is rather less rigid and less credible than I am used to seeing from you. Geoff S
Obviously there’s a Z curve. And there’s also a point where doubling no longer has an effect on temperature. Thanks for making the point
Yes, I think that the implication is that ECS does not have a single value. It is instead, a variable, that currently has a value of 1 or 2 degrees per doubling. I don’t think that our current understanding is sufficient to predict what ECS might be for very low or very high concentrations of CO2.
Steve case,
No, I am not implying that there is a Z curve, nor that there is a point where doubling no longer has an effect. I did not write such things.
I am trying to turn an selective, opportunistic use of doubling into some physics that has fundamental meaning and logic.
The paper by van Wijngaarden & Happer 2021 gives a physical reason why temperaute response to CO2 might flatten.
Nic Stokes says that they derive results for sensitivity similar to others, but that is a special case, not their general one (it assumes cloud-free air, a certain lapse rate and relative humidity). In the gneral sense, they write –
“For a hypothetical, optically thin atmosphere, where there is negligible saturation of the absorption bands, or interference of one type of greenhouse gas with others, the per-molecule forcings are of order 10−22 Watts for HO, CO, O, NO and CH and of order 10−21 Watts for CF and SF. For current atmospheric concentrations, the per-molecule forcings of the abundant greenhouse gases HO and CO are suppressed by four orders of magnitude. ”
Geoff S
I know that carbon sequestration is just a solution to a non-problem, but given the insane times we live in, would it be more effective than any currently proposed co2 capturing scheme to just pipe the exhaust to the bottom of the ocean? It’s really cold down there and therefore could absorb more co2 than at the surface. The pressure is also much higher down there – would it be more effective, less expensive to pump essentially endless amounts into the ocean or to pump it into old salt mines and oil wells? Not counting the case of active old oil wells where ccs is just a clever re-branding of frac’ng.
I don
t buy this "CO2 greenhouse effect" of 0,2 degC since preindustrial times. Or I dont understand it. I would think it is closer to 1,1 degC. Perhaps it is something wrong with the saturation argument, if that is meant to explain it.Please stop buying into the bullshit. Coming with ways to reduce CO2 is counter productive. Coming up with more bullet points why sequestering CO2 is without merit would be helpful.
The earths Co2 gas tank is 1/4 full. The people that want to vacuum Co2 from the atmosphere and store is somewhere are a danger to the planet. They would be effectively punching a hole in the gas tank while being 500 miles from the nearest gas station. Geo engineering the gas contents of the atmosphere is very very risky. Nature does an excellent job of carbon sequestration.
Joe
Do you have any idea how much energy it would take to pump anything down to the sea floor?
Why?
In the context of this article, I have some concerns about an aspect of the CO2 scenario stated by Dr Koonin in his recent book Unsettled.
Having, correctly, stated the minor impact that atmospheric CO2 has on the climate and the inconsequential human contribution to increased atmospheric CO2, Dr Koonin indicates that he supports the sequestration of CO2.
Dr Koonin states, correctly, that “carbon dioxide, in and of itself, is not particularly a concern for the planet”; he then speculates that what is a concern is that, because life today has evolved to be well-suited to a low level of CO2, the rapid increases of the past century might prove disruptive.
Having correctly stated that “rising CO2 has increased vegetation over much of the planet”, the all-important fact needs to be communicated by Dr Koonin that plants that have evolved to cope with low levels of CO2 show no indications of being compromised and are, in fact, benefiting from increased atmospheric CO2. For plant-life, because the long-term trend in atmospheric CO2 is downward, a CO2 famine has begun; in reality, the conifers, which evolved at a time when the earth’s atmosphere was far richer in CO2, are now struggling to cope as the atmosphere loses its CO2 content to long-term sequestration.
As the author of this article says, the current CO2 level remains critically close to the 200 parts per million below which photosynthesis becomes severely compromised and the catastrophic destruction of life becomes likely; it is a certainty that extinction will be total and that all plant and animal life will fail when atmospheric CO2 falls below c. 150 ppm. In that context, the current CO2 level in the atmosphere looks precariously low.
Some plants have adapted to reduced concentrations of atmospheric CO2; amongst these are the grasses, the most economically important plant family. Crops of wheat, rice and corn, all members of the grass family, have been increasing under the influence of recent elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 and “will surge as CO2 concentration rises to 550 ppm by 2050, thus lending a huge hand in feeding the planet’s growing population” (Fantastic Findings: German Study Shows Added CO2 Has Led To 14% More Vegetation Over Past 100 Years, WUWT, May 9th 2021). This surge in productivity is happening at no cost to farmers and growers, and holds out the possibility that productivity may continue to increase while costs are reduced, including the cost of fertilizer. The environmental benefit of such a development has been lost on the so-called environmentalists.
The climate “experts” (if expertise in abstractions like “climate” can be deemed to correspond to any degree with a physical, short-term actuality i.e. weather), whether they take the trouble to analyze the anthropogenic CO2 case, sustain their position by claiming that the ocean’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 remains static and is in balance with oceanic absorption. The mythical balance-of-nature claim is one of the foundation stones of much environmental fiction that activists believe relieves them of the responsibility of stating what exactly the ideal amount of atmospheric CO2 is or the Earth’s perfect temperature or the correct number of humans and why these are ideal, perfect and correct.
We’ve seen how the flow of cash has corrupted so-called climate science and can expect the same effect when “carbon engineers” begin to compete for public funding for carbon-capture schemes. Should a carbon-capture device or process ever emerge that is capable of reducing atmospheric CO2 content to any measurable extent, the climate hysterics will have created a monster, a Sorcerer’s Apprentice, that will spin out of control. In that context, pleas by Dr Koonin and others for natural sequestration over the sorcery option, while worthy in its intent, tacitly supports carbon-capture and makes human-generated CO2 a problem awaiting a solution.
On 24th February last, WUWT reported on NASA’s Vegetation Index and the news that the globe has greened by 10% so far this century and that the Sahara shrank by 700,000 square kilometers. Considering the huge benefits that are being delivered by elevated CO2 levels and the lack of any evidence that CO2 is a substantial contributor to global warming/climate change (and, if it is, so what, warming is far preferable to chilling), successful removal of atmospheric CO2 by restoring levels to the hysterics’ perceived “ideal”, but unjustified and unsupported level, will also reduce crop productivity in places like the Sahel. The target states for legal action and compensation claims for economic loss will almost certainly be the US and Europe.
The fact that elevated atmosphere CO2 is proving to be such a universal benefit imposes obligations on the democratic world (the world’s unaccountable—and misnamed—democratic republics etc. exclude themselves) to justify its pursuit of carbon-neutral economies. The evidence becoming available to the Sahel states and others is piling up in support of a crime against humanity being knowingly committed by the “civilized” world. For all the nonsense about the Earth’s suffering, the imminence of widespread extinctions, masses of climate refugees and so on, Mother Nature has been working to her own agenda by tipping the balance in favor of elevated atmospheric CO2.
Clear and concis as always
Just wish I could find that elusive button marked “download into a formatted,
topped & tailedword doc ready for printing out to take to work” or that other button marked “download with embedded block chain to auto file into relevant easy to find slot in my reference files”Some take always by a poor bumbling old guy who has failed to convince his kids that, “Great Man-made Global Warming Alarm” is really a dangerous scam.
Does using 4,500 million instead of 4.5 billion years make it more understandable? If so I’ll start using it.
F ing with cutting co2 levels is dangerous “if atmospheric CO2 concentration falls below 150 ppmv, photosynthesis stops and thus Life on Earth would be extinguished”.
First parts per million is a small quantity. Enhancing processes that in the past fixed tens of % points of co2 into marine organisms or future coal supplies risks the dreaded unintended consequences of ending all life versus maybe being 3-5 F warmer. Leave co2 alone or risk the law of unintended consequences!
It’s been much warmer in the past and people flourished.
I like producing more food with co2 and my garden is doing wonderful. But apparently feeding people is less important than starving them at 1F cooler temperatures.
Co2 is a poor ghg control knob. Most of its impact has already occurred at ” staying alive” levels.
The past had times of 35% co2 and the world consumed it with natural mechanisms.
Maybe we should rerun the commercials ” it’s not nice to fool mother nature” but also mother is a prohibited word.
If we really want to impact climate lets mess with our solar orbit or put up space based umbrellas because the sun is really in control?.