By Andy May
Steve Koonin is still undefeated!
The Steamboat Institute hosted a Campus Liberty Tour Oxford style debate at Cornell University on Mar 15, 2023. Drs. Steven Koonin and Robert Socolow debated the resolution:
“Climate science compels us to make large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”
The debate was moderated by Steamboat Institute Blankley Fellow Sarah Westwood. Koonin argued the negative, of course. Koonin’s opponent, Princeton Professor (emeritus) of engineering Robert Socolow, argued the affirmative.
In the pre-debate poll, 37% of the audience agreed with the proposition vs. 47% who opposed it. In the post-debate poll, 28% of the audience agreed vs. 66% who opposed. A 19% increase in the opposed.
The actual debate begins about 16 minutes into the video:
See the debate at the Steamboat Institute here.
I’m not sure that the climate alarmists have ever won a debate, if they have, I don’t have a link to it. This is unsurprising when one considers that 60% of likely U.S. voters, including 47% who strongly agree, believe that “climate change” is a religion that isn’t about the climate at all. They believe that it is all about power and control of the public.
I’m not sure that the climate alarmists have ever won a debate
If they had, it would be on every breathless newscast, every panic laden tweet, every doom laden front page headline.
The mass media would declare a big debate victory for the Climate Howler, no matter what actually happened. Even if he sounded like this:
Homina Homina – YouTube
Question for WUWT team. Have the warmists ever said what proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to catastrophe? If we are at, say, 415ppm now or thereabouts at what figure do the oceans boil and the frogs rain down from the sky? Will it happen at 420? Is 450 the tipping point? Heaven forfend, what happens at 500ppm? The reason I ask is that 200 million years ago, apparently, it was 1,000ppm – and after that it went to an Ice Age and the eventual appearance of Homo sapiens. Have they ever put a figure on it? If not, why don’t we ask them?
The well established and accepted direct temperature effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere is logarithmic:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8659d4e29093176f25fb20bb2f3a06f5
The alarmist and IPCC view is that direct effect is enhanced by positive feedbacks.
For what it is worth so far global temperature data plotted against CO2 does show a roughly logarithmic response.
No, it does not. Only the manipulated and unfit for the purpose of measuring changes to the “climate” instrument record non-data show such a “fit.”
No CO2 rise was needed to cause any of the previous, and warmer than today, climate “OPTIMUM” periods during the Holocene.
AGW is Not Science:
You are correct that CO2 was not the cause of the warming periods during the Holocene.
The Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period were all eras where there were very few volcanic eruptions, so that the atmosphere was totally free of volcanic SO2 aerosol emissions most of the time and temperatures soared, simply because of the clean air.
However, their temperatures were so high that heat waves, droughts, famines, torrential flooding and storms troubled those eras and led to the demise of earlier cultures around the world..
I mention this because warmer is better, ONLY up to a certain level, and we are now beyond that level, due to the the removal of SO2 aerosols from our atmosphere due to Net-Zero’s attempts to ban the burning of fossil fuels (which also produce SO2 aerosols), and “Clean Air” efforts to eliminate industrial SO2 emissions.
This can be seen in the areas of drought around the world (e.g., 20 years for our West and South West), and the Atmospheric Rivers now assailing California, and adjacent areas. There will be disastrous heat waves and storms, this summer, and we will probably exceed the 1.5 deg. C.threshold.
If so, we only have ourselves to blame.
Enjoy the ride!
You are wrong. The Roman Republic and Empire lasted as long as they did during the Warming Period precisely because they were so many fewer famines and wars over shrinking resources; it was when the climate cooled that crops decreased and famines increased.
“I mention this because warmer is better, ONLY up to a certain level, and we are now beyond that level”
As had been asked: what is the level? Is it 400ppm-ish? I’ll take an answer +/- 20% no problem.
KevinM.
A very interesting question.
The ideal warming is completely unrelated to the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, which causes zero warming, and depends to a large extent upon where one lives.
However, I would suggest that the average anomalous global temperature of the year 2000 (0.3 deg. C).might be close, but such a temperature cannot be maintained, because of the random effect of volcanic eruptions..
The answer is nobody knows how much warmth a given amount of CO2 adds to the Earth’s atmosphere.
Some people pretend they know.
Judging by the past temperature record of the United States (the best one in the world), CO2 has had no discernable effect on our temperatures. CO2 levels have increased since the 1930’s, yet the temperatures in the United States are cooler than they were in the 1930’s.
So where’s the CO2 temperature effect in the United States?
And this applies to the whole world, as unmodified regional surface temperature charts from all around the world show the same temperature profile as the unmodified U.S. temperature chart, where is was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.
So where’s the CO2 temperature effect around the world?
Alarmist climate science is a bunch of hogwash. The written, historic temperature record repudiates the CO2 claims of the climate change alarmists.
The alarmists solution to this dilemma for them was to bastadize the global temperature record into something that never existed. “Hotter and hotter and hotter is a Big Lie. The Big Lie that fuels this CAGW climate change hoax.
Below is the true temperatue profile of the Earth. It’s not scary at all. That was the problem for the climate change alarmists so they changed the temperature profile into a scary one using their computers to mannipulate the data.
The chart below on the left is the “unmodified” U.S. temperature chart. All the other unmodified regional charts from around the world have a similar temperature profile to the U.S. chart, where it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. So, this is the REAL temperature profile of the Earth.
The chart on the right is the computer-generatired, bastardized, bogus Hockey Stick global temperature chart which looks nothing like the regional charts with its “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile.
The alarmist data mannipulators only had the data available to them from the written, historic temperature record, so how do they get a completely different, hotter and hotter, temperature profile out of a bunch of charts that don’t have that temperature profile? Answer: Scientific Fraud.
I don’t know where you get your data from, because everything I have ever seen showed that civilizations flourished during the warm periods.
As to volcanoes, I haven’t seen any evidence that there is any correlation regarding volcanic activity and warm or cold periods.
MarkW.
Yes, civilizations flourish during warm periods, but they also die during long periods of extended droughts. For example, the demise of the early Minoan civilization has been attributed to a long drought, and .cultures in our South West and Central America failed due to drought conditions during the MWP.
The book “El Nino in History”, by Cesar Caviedes details the devastation
caused by the higher temperatures during El Ninos.
Regarding volcanoes, I pointed out that Holocene warm periods were hot because there were very few volcanic eruptions during those eras, and temperatures soared simply because there was no volcanic SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere…
And our LIA temperatures were caused by extensive volcanic eruptions
See: “The Definitive Cause of Little Ice Age Temperatures”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.2.0170
Burl, Volcanic activity was maximal during the Holocene Climatic Optimum when it was much warmer than today.
Andy May:
Here are the facts about volcanic eruptions during the Holocene Warm Periods, obtained from a count of VEI4 and higher eruptions from Volcanoes of the World, Third edition (2010).
Minoan Warm Period (3500-1100 BC) : 114 eruptions over a period of 2,400 years, about 5 per century)
Roman Warm Period (250 BC-450 AD) 77 eruptions over a period of 700 years, about 9 per century
Medieval Warm Period (950-1250 AD) 31 eruptions over a period of 300 years, about 10 per century.
By way of comparison, there were 48 eruptions during the 19th century, and 78 during the 20th century.
Rather than volcanic activity being maximal during the Holocene Warm Periods, as you state, it was minimal, causing temperatures to rise because of the near absence of volcanic SO2 aerosols in their atmospheres.
BurlHenry==> The demise of the Minoans has been attributed to the massive eruption of Mt. Thera (Santorini) in about 1425 bc followed by invasion of Myceneans and Greeks taking advantage of the Minoans’ misfortune. The eruption was accompanied by a massive tsunami and probably sufficient ash fall to wipe out crops. Civilizations rise and fall for all kinds of reasons. Climate may be a factor, but it’s not the only one.
Rick C:
I rather doubt that the Minoan civilization was wiped out by the VEI7 Santorini eruption of 1580 BCE, no mention of any ash, or tsunami destruction that I have been able to find, but it could be a possibility
.
However, the demise of cultures due to extended droughts is more likely the major reason, as happened in our South West, and Central America during the MWP..
The Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period
did not exist!
there is no global temp.
there wer no thermometers in the Minoan peroid
The logarithmic nature of the absorption vs concentration breaks down when concentrations become too great. The concentration here is the ratio of photons released from the surface vs CO2 molecules in the troposphere. At the current temperature of the surface and CO2 concentration that condition for saturation is achieved as shown by little observed warming as CO2 increases and by modeled results.
“For what it is worth so far global temperature data plotted against CO2 does show a roughly logarithmic response.”
Chris,
I hate to ruin your day, but I suggest you need to visit Willis Eschenbach’s post of three years ago, Cooling The Hothouse at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/15/cooling-the-hothouse/. Check out his graph of CENOGRID Temperature vs Log of Atmospheric CO2 near the bottom of the post. If you can still say that CO2 controls global temperature you need to improve your reading comprehension and analytical skills a bit.
“Figure 5. Scatterplot of temperature versus the log of carbon dioxide concentration. Blue dots are individual data points. Colored/Black lines are the million-year Loess average of both variables. Because of the long-term averaging, and because the data only go to 1950, the point marked “present” has lower temperatures and CO2 values than the actual 2020 situation.”
Thanks for posting it Theo. Guess I should figure out how to add such to my comments. – Joe
Funny, when plotted against time, I see temperatures going up, down and sideways, all while CO2 is going up.
I suspect your graph is highly cooked.
It’s not my graph and I did not make any claim about what role the measured increasing CO2 has on the measured GAT, no-one knows that.
Of course there are other factors at work like ENSO.
The graph is simply a plot of measured surface temperature data such as it is against the assumed and measured increasing CO2 concentration.
Why that should excite so many readers is a puzzle.
“Funny, when plotted against time, I see temperatures going up, down and sideways, all while CO2 is going up.”
That’s what I see, too. That’s all there is to see.
“For what it is worth so far global temperature data plotted against CO2 does show a roughly logarithmic response.”
Yes, that was the whole point in the Climategate temperature data mannipulators bastardizing the global temperature record. They wanted to change the temperature profile so that it corresponded with CO2 increases, and they did, and now that is the only argument they can point to. Without the bastardized temperature record, the climate change alarmists would have nothing that points to CO2 as being anything significant..
The climate change alarmist data mannipulators needed to get rid of the “1940’s blip” in order to sell this Science Fiction to the gullible public. If they didn’t eliminate the 1940’s (temperature) blip, then they could not declare that today is the warmest in human history, as they do because it is not true, something an honest temperature profile would show.
The truth is it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, so all the additonal CO2 added to the atmosphere between then and now has had very little effect on the temperatures. In the United States, the CO2 additions have had no effect on the temperatures as it was warmer in the 1930’s, in the United States than it is today. CO2 is a minor player in determining the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. So minor, that humanity does not need to try to control it.
They never say what the perfect global temperature is either.
But as we all know, this isn’t about the climate.
The perfect global average temperature was on June 6, 1850 at 3:06pm.
Any change, in either direction, is a climate emergency
This is well established climate science because that’s what scientists say, and they are never wrong.
If you had to feed 8 billion humans in 1850, 1850’s climate WAS a “catastrophe.”
It pretty much was with less than 1 billion people to feed.
Biggest lie they’re selling is “warmer climate = worse climate.”
Is that GMT?
Actually, it’s CPT, which has been renamed by leftists as People of Color Time, because Colored People Time is now considered to be racist. You might think that Colored People and People of Color mean the same thing … because they do. But leftists have language rules that we must follow to avoid cancellation. Of course all humans have a color, even albinos, so People of Color really doesn’t mean anything.
Color is important to me, however, because I judge people by their hair, and their shoe color.
Curly Hair people
Straight Hair People
No Hair People
Those are the three races in my book.
Shoe color must complement hair color:
— A black-haired person wearing brown shoes is no fashion plate — maybe a Blue Plate Special. How could you take such a person seriously?
Your approach to races is seriously flawed Richard.
Any of your hair / shoe color – identified races can re-identify as any of your other identified races at any time merely by self-acclaim.
Back to the coloring-in board for you.
(Pro tip – “transparent” is the best color any of us can identify as.)
Are you referring to RhondaSantis?
It was either the Judean People’s Front or the People’s Front of Judea that decided that. I can’t for the life of Brian remember which one.
Famously, they claim 350ppm is the ‘safe’ level
As I’ve pointed out before though, the number 350 was arrived at by a robust consensus don’t ya know …..
….. of the voices in Bill McKibben’s head.
Is there a link, quote or publication?
No need. Just believe, pilgrim.
There is still a 350 org.
The people behind this website thought it was necessary to keep CO2 amounts below 350ppm, in order to save humanity from Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), so I imagine they have an argument for that somewhere on their website.
https://350.org/
They should probably change their name to 415+ org, considering that the 350ppm level was crossed long ago.
They only claim +1.5 degrees C. is a tipping point, and after that is reached the new tipping point will be +2.0 degrees C.
If the +50% increase of CO2 from 1850 to 2023 from 280ppm to 420ppm) caused all of the +1.1 degree C. claimed waring (very unlikely) then the next +50% increase of CO2 would cause the average temperature exceed the +1.5 degrees C. and then everyone would die … laughing.
We can “stave off the worst effects” of “climatechange(TM)” if we keep the amount of warming [aka the completely beneficial warming since the period of misery and suffering known as the “Little Ice Age”] to 1.5 degrees Celsius or less.
Once we hit 1.5 degrees warmer than that “pre-industrial” temperature [aka the period of misery and suffering known as the “Little Ice Age”], we will, as if by magic, STILL be able to “stave off the worst effects” of “climate change” if we keep the amount of warming within some higher, but close enough to seem “threatening,” amount of increase in temperature.
Rinse and repeat.
It’s “The Boogeyman For Adults.”
“He’s gonna get you he’s gonna GET you he’s gonna GET YOU!
Careful, ANS. Steve Mosher will come on soon to demand you prove there was a Little Ice Age, with thermometers.
Nor will they ever state what the optimum CO2 level is. Stone-cold silence each and every time I’ve asked this question.
it is also important to remember that the vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is naturally occurring & there isn’t much we can do about that – so the amount being removed is so tiny it couldn’t possibly affect anything to do with the climate
And, I have demonstrated that changes in anthropogenic CO2 have no measurable impact on the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at the monthly or seasonal level:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/
Is natural synonymous with better?
I would go for around 2000ppm. Plants love it and it would have an unmeasurasble effect on temperature.
If saturation happens before doom, them more = better. So long as we keep enough O2.
Have the warmists ever said what proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to catastrophe? I
Have theskeptics ever said what proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is safe? I
Here’s the latest hitech idea…
“”It’s been a struggle to clean up the shipping industry but one solution is to use wind-powered ships.””
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/23/cargo-ships-powered-by-wind-could-help-tackle-climate-crisis
The Cutty Sark to make a comeback?
A Sarkastic comment 😄 (they couldn’t make it up)
Only an unchained brain could.
Cutty Sark ll, built of Carbon Fibre and with Dacron sails.
Well, it worked for St. Greta. (Apart from the crew change problem.)
The crew probably had to drink a lot of it to put up with the scold, St. Greta.
Rwo crews of six to get one little girl across the Atlantic.
Is this another example of how fighting CO2 creates jobs?
The Thermopylae was a better looking and as good if not better performing, but mostly forgotten, tea clipper. Although once that trade had gone to steam ships she lost out to the Cutty Sark (named after a Witch in Tam O’Shanter by Burns) in the Australian wool trade
Absolutely right about Thermopylae. I have a superb ship-in-a-bottle model of her.
BIG bottle!
– The “latest thing’ everybody wants will be delayed by the length of its wind powered sea passage beyond the point where anyone still wants it;
– Those who want it REALLY BAD will pay the air freight to get it before their avarice subsides;
/emission reduction
/climate change “tackling”
Same steady-state delivery rate, more floating inventory.
A modern cargo ship can carry over 20,000 containers. There is a limit to the size of a wind powered sailing ship. Still if we shut down virtually all world trade I suppose the Grauniad would call that a success 🙂
More ships. Higher crew-to-product ratio. More expensive?
Cutty Sark has not gone out of style at any time since it began being produced during the U.S. Prohibition period.
The surprise is that any leftist would debate a conservative, to promote his leftist belief. That is rare. The best way for a leftist to avoid losing a debate, is to not debate.
It would be possible for a poor Climate Realist communicator to lose a debate to a great Climate Howler communicator but leftists have a big handicap:
There have been leftist predictions of climate doom, either global cooling doom, or global warming doom, for the past 50 years. But the actual climate has improved in the past 50 years.
Here in SE Michigan, we now shovel snow off our 100 foot driveway ONCE a month in the winter rather than ONCE a week. We also get a lot more freezing rain in the winter. A few weeks ago, such freezing rain caused one million people to lose electric power. Another freezing rain a week or two later caused a small number of blackouts. Freezing rain during the winter replaced a lot more snow in the 1970s and 1980s.winters. We are not skiers, so we like a lot less snow.
***********************************************************************************
“This is unsurprising when one considers that 60% of likely U.S. voters, including 47% who strongly agree, believe that “climate change” is a religion that isn’t about the climate at all. They believe that it is all about power and control of the public.”
I believe that statistic is BS. It caused my internal BS meter to explode.
If I answered the actual question (below) honestly, I would not be in the 60%.
Because I believe climate change is 90% power and control, and 10% climate science, not 100% power and control. The poorly worded question said all power and control, not mainly power and control.
The results are such good news, from a conservative point of view, that I do not believe them. The biased wording ought to reduce the percentage in agreement that climate change is 100% power and control,
it’s very hard to believe that 60% agree.
I don’t believe it.
Too good to be true.
60% would mean Climate Realists are winning the climate change debate
But that is very far from being true.
The actual question:
“Do you agree or disagree with this statement:
Climate change has become a religion that actually has nothing to do with the climate and is really about power and control?”
Note that the question says “nothing to do with the climate”
That means climate change is 100% about power and control.
There is no way 60% of a good sample of people believe climate change is 100% about power and control.
“climate change is 100% about power and control.” (and money)
What do you think ideas like 15 minute cities are about?
A street nearby was made a LTN (low traffic neighbourhood) with access limited to certain times. No warnings or announcements. And the council raked in the fines for the first few days until people realised….
I got one. £65 (£130 if you don’t cough up in the first 14 days).
Sorry I can only go to 90% power and control
There is 10% actual science
Humans do effect the climate in many ways
So far no harm, and all net benefits:
— Mild warming and better plant growth
One harm: Air pollution, especially in Asia
But environmentalists don’t care about that
Because they can’t tell those pesky Chinese and Indians what to do
I used to say climate change 99% politics, for several decades, but that was an exaggeration.
It’s all about control (and money). You’ll see.
LTNs and ULEZs (Ultra Low Emissions Zones) are all about raising money for the Local Authorities and nothing else
Through implementing controls…
We live in an innumerate society. We need to stop talking about CO2 as 415 parts per million, because the average person lacks the context to understand the number. The number 415 sounds like a relatively big number to most people who mentally compare it to $415, or 415 lbs, or 415 automobiles.
Instead, we should always refer to CO2 as .0415% of the atmosphere. 4/100ths of 1% for emphasis. This compares to about 20% oxygen, and around 80% Nitrogen. As Dr. Lindzen says, it is a trace increase in a trace gas.
We are spending trillions of dollars to reduce the concentration of CO2 by .01%. This is the numerical equivalent of one less fan at a Duke basketball game.
Science, like Elvis, has left the building. The climate debate is today is about politics and power.
Our arguments will better resonate by framing the debate in terms in which average people realize that their energy costs are doubling and tripling in exchange for the metaphorical equivalent of 1 less person at a basketball game.
How about telling someone to imagine a box of ca. 1850 air that holds only 10,000 molecules of atmosphere. Only about 3 of them would be CO2. Today that number is 4 and what were being told is that if it gets to 6 we are all doomed.
Earthquake geeks found that the logarithmic scales of intensity (eg Richter) were too hard for the plebs to appreciate, so they made simpler presentation scales.
Maybe what’s required for CO2 concentration effects on climate(s)?
It wasn’t just a matter of making things easier to understand. They serve two different purposes. The Richter scale provides information on the amount of energy released, which is of interest to geophysicists and seismologists. However, people living on the surface of the Earth are interested in knowing how that energy is dissipated. Because a low-energy event near the surface can do as much damage as a deep high-energy event, just knowing the Richter Magnitude isn’t enough to anticipate the damage. Thus, the Mercalli scale was created to allow people to better appreciate the damage to buildings and property, and the potential loss of life.
You just answered an earlier question as doom = 600ppm. Source?
Wow. Google does not autocomplete my “composition of earth atmosphere”. I know I’ve searched it before…
What’s in the Air? By volume, the dry air in Earth’s atmosphere is about 78.08 percent nitrogen, 20.95 percent oxygen, and 0.93 percent argon. A brew of trace gases accounts for the other approximately 0.04 percent, including the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone.
I’ve never been to a Duke basketball game.
Now if only ALL of the apparently sensible voters would simply vote against the Climate Fascists in every election until we’ve moved on from this mass idiocy.
Preferably before too much more damage is done.
Too many Republicans are afraid to “rock the climate boat”
How can you vote against the Climate Fascists when they are the only ones standing for election?
Yeah, show me a Republican that questions the basic premise that CO2 is a dangerous greenhouse gas.
U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who retired this year, is the only Republican I know that actually challenges the alarmist premise.
Some Republicans do push back but only on economic grounds, not on challenging the claims of the climate change alarmists about the effects of CO2 on the Earth’s atmosphere.
I know most Republicans are not climate scientists but it’s really simple if you think about it: In order to challenge the alamrist’s basic premise all you have to do is ask them to supply you with evidence for these claims. They can’t supply any evidence, so you win the argument. Simple. You don’t have to be a scientist to request that evidence be supplied before you accept a claim.
Don’t assume the climate change alarmists have evidence, because they don’t. All they have is speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions, none of which is evidence of anything other than their lack of certainty.
“60% of likely U.S. voters, including 47% who strongly agree, believe that “climate change” is a religion that isn’t about the climate at all”
I hope they all get out to vote.
And their votes aren’t cancelled.
Koonin makes much more sense than the touchy-feely Socolow. However, he is WRONG about the costs of wind and solar. Intermittent energy is never cheap, considering needed backup, connections and materials and subsidies.
Socolow is wrong about almost everything… solar panels cost almost nothing? Too much smoke and mirrors and distractions. Not much science.
power & control yes but the former head of the UNIPCC gave away the real goal which she said was the destruction of capitalism – since the UN can’t bring up lesser developed countries to the level of the US it must be brought down via socialism/communism – a race to the bottom
Now ask who learned something in the process. Then ask who feels they have been subjected to too much global warming propaganda in the press.
We need to widely promote these debates — the numbers show, that with an educated audience it SOME of the pro-Climate alarm audience members change their minds (about 24% of them). But for the undecided: 68% of the undecided shifted to the Skeptical side.
People need to know that they will not be alone if they are a bit (or a lot) skeptical of the UN reports.
The only problem with that suggestion is the only way to promote widely is via the MSM and they won’t do it.
Most of our current problems are because of the “density” of the MSM, (using that word in the sense of its two main definitions)
If debate results were not gameable (set first vote opposite predetermined last vote), I’d be impressed.
“In the pre-debate poll, 37% of the audience agreed with the proposition”
That number, 37%, looked like a setup for the opposite side to win big. If it were indeed honest then it is surprising – close to 2/3 of a modern educate audience open to rejecting climate alarmism at Cornell doesn’t match my expectations.
Kudos to Steve Koonin, what a guy. But we need more than just Steve, we need to get our message out to everyone. Once people hear the truth and realize how much they have been lied to and cheated they will know what to do.
Key word there, is “realize”, because the majority won’t.