Models trump measurements (Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post);
We are doomed, say climate change scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that is organizing most of the climate change research occurring in the world today. Carbon dioxide from man-made sources rises to the atmosphere and then stays there for 50, 100, or even 200 years. This unprecedented buildup of CO2 then traps heat that would otherwise escape our atmosphere, threatening us all.
“This is nonsense,” says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC. He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists — a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.
“The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes,” he says. “Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible.”
Catastrophic theories of climate change depend on carbon dioxide staying in the atmosphere for long periods of time — otherwise, the CO2 enveloping the globe wouldn’t be dense enough to keep the heat in. Until recently, the world of science was near-unanimous that CO2 couldn’t stay in the atmosphere for more than about five to 10 years because of the oceans’ near-limitless ability to absorb CO2.
“This time period has been established by measurements based on natural carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing, it has been established by radon-222 measurements, it has been established by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans, it has been established by comparing the isotope mass balance, it has been established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades, and by many scientists in many disciplines,” says Prof. Segalstad, whose work has often relied upon such measurements.
Then, with the advent of IPCC-influenced science, the length of time that carbon stays in the atmosphere became controversial. Climate change scientists began creating carbon cycle models to explain what they thought must be an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These computer models calculated a long life for carbon dioxide.
Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide’s longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims.
Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous.
“They don’t even try,” says Prof. Segalstad. “They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process.”
In the real world, as measurable by science, CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. “The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium,” explains Prof. Segalstad. “This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon– it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world.”
Also in the real world, Prof. Segalstad’s isotope mass balance calculations — a standard technique in science — show that if CO2 in the atmosphere had a lifetime of 50 to 200 years, as claimed by IPCC scientists, the atmosphere would necessarily have half of its current CO2 mass. Because this is a nonsensical outcome, the IPCC model postulates that half of the CO2 must be hiding somewhere, in “a missing sink.” Many studies have sought this missing sink — a Holy Grail of climate science research– without success.
“It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere,” Prof. Segalstad concludes.
“It is all a fiction.”
I work with complicated 3D computer models every day (albeit not climate ones). As an old fart draftsman trained with pencils, paper, straightedges and primitive, do-your-own math, I have many problems with computer modeling (actually, I’m quite good at it, I just don’t like the way it is often used – I ain’t no luddite by any means).
The first problem is with presentation. Yes, computer models look great (maybe even good enough to sell an idea which is just an empty shell), but there is no easy way to tell if they’re just a good-looking re-hash of a previous design or the real thing.
That’s where the problems start, because people point to the pretty model on the screen and say, “See?” regardless of the reality behind the image.
We seem to be now at the stage where easy visualization of complicated concepts has actually dumbed-down the population but made them *feel* smarter.
And just for the record, I ain’t no genius – on a good day my IQ is only 30 points or so above room temperature.
Leave it to Lawrence Solomon, the National Post columnist who has already authored mutually contradictory columns denying the science of climate change, to get the facts wrong once again.
The IPCC has addressed in detail the very question Solomon says they don’t understand–and in doing so has shown that Solomon and those like him are the ones lacking knowledge and understanding.
Carbon dioxide cycles between the atmosphere, oceans and land biosphere. Its removal from the atmosphere involves a range of processes with different time scales. About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.
Chapter 7 of the IPCC’s report on the physical basis for climate change, from which this explanation comes, is well supported by evidence and peer-reviewed scholarship, despite Solomon’s attempts to discredit those findings by imitating the methods of those fringe figures who think Dick Cheney planned the attacks of 9/11.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch07-v2.pdf
been saying that the geologic record is being for some time now.
I think that Dr. Segalstad may be thinking along geological times when he says “because of the oceans’ near-limitless ability to absorb CO2.” While oceans will absorb CO2 and biological organisms will produce CaCO3 from it, the process takes place over fairly long periods of time due to limits of mixing areas and other chemical components such as Ca, Si and Fe. In terms of the next 100 or so years, the removal will be much more limited than limitless.
ipcc reports=the new harry potter series for greenbots
We will all do better by abiding with what the UN wants!
Just look at theire exemplier record with the Mid East.
Stephen,
What does this debate about CO2, IPCC vs. Segalstad have to due with 911 truthers? You attempt to discredit Solomon using the 911 analogy and in the same breath accuse him of attempting to discredit the IPCC.
Solomon is indeed a journalist and as such, most likely, does have little comprehension of the science. However, you go after him instead of going after Segalstad whom Solomon relies upon in his report. Shouldn’t you be criticizing Segalstad’s argument instead?
Now my $0.02.
I’ve also done some modelling in a past life. I modelled the orbital debris field of the earth and some of the inputs included solar activity and its effect on the atmosphere changing drag coefficients. It was maddening how virtually every tweak in inputs or coefficients in the equations would lead to “the same result” every time. Not unlike the famous “hockey stick”.
Models are a tool. Relying on them to make policy on something of this magnitude is foolish.
“It is all a fiction.”
We are all in the midst of someone’s apocalyptic scifi fantasy. At some point the person playing Al Gore will rip off the obvious latex mask — have you looked closely, lately? — and say, “gotcha”! Then, all the principals will come forward and admit that it was all an experiment in social control, and the ultimate in reality TV programming, since it involved the whole world.
The credits will roll — brought to you by the CBC, the New York Times, various UN panels and organizations.
And they’ll end by saying, “OK, maybe it was only a half-baked idea, but it was all in good fun”.
There’s an interesting article by Martin Durkin (The Great Global Warming Swindle) on the reaction in Australia to his anti-AGW documentary. It seems the defenders of the faith went a little overboard on their attacks of his film and the Australian general population are beginning to smell the rat. Link here: http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22105154-7582,00.html
Paul: Are you actually comparing the deficiencies of a 3D CAD model to the deficiencies of a generic computer process or dynamics model? They are not the same and cannot be compared in any way other than rhetorically, which is to say not at all.
Nore lies from the IPCC and more reasons why we dont need then power mongers running our nation
MOdels have to predict and not one of the IPCC models have yet successfully predicted anytthing. They have all been revised downward.
Not until the IPCC models, based on AGW theory, successfully predict anything will they be worth the millions spent on them.
Stephen, the IPCC estimates are estimates. It is a hypothesis still. There is some theory to give it structure and there is less evidence, which is what they are looking for.
There are alternative hypotheses that are in the smae state. As Kate rightly points out, this is hardly settled.
Richard Ball ,
Forget the UN , there’s a new Sherrif in town .
“This unprecedented buildup of CO2 then traps heat that would otherwise escape our atmosphere, threatening us all.”
How much heat escapes from earth in the frequencies that CO2 absorbs? The assumption seems to be that there is a lot of energy available. If all the energy is absorbed how much will it increase the temperature of the atmosphere? Why is it that we don’t hear about the amount of energy available? I believe it is because most or all of the energy is already absorbed and to say so destroys the concept of AGW. There is no need to go into all these studies if there is no more warming that CO2 can do.
truthsayer,
My understanding is that the CO2 is mostly saturated in the IR bands although I have seen some disagreement recently. If it is nearly saturated then the argument that a doubling of the CO2 will raise the temperature falls apart because the rise will be close to logarithmic and there is no need to worry.
If true, this is yet one more example of the science not being settled.
The point Paul made is that any type of computer models (climate, physical 3D CAD, even Excel spreadsheets) give the ILLUSION of correctness just because “that’s what the computer says”.
I’ve worked in building electronics for a while, and can’t count the number of time that tolerances and properties of physical materials (ie. the stuff in the real world) make it either very difficult or impossible to build something that looked beautiful in the computer.
“They are not the same and cannot be compared in any way other than rhetorically, which is to say not at all.”
Paul never said there were the same, and rhetorically they can be compared. Open your mind.
How many times must the science be proven wrong before they admit they were wrong is what I would like to know.
Lets assume that man made global warming is real, which I don’t believe it is, I would just as soon die a free man than live in a world wide communist state, which is pretty much what the enviroweenies are trying to foist onto the world. To drag up some old slogans from the past, “better dead than red”, and “I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
If we’re all going to boil alive, bring it on. Its preferable to living in a world run by Al Gore and David Suzuki.
Climate science is an imprecise science…much like psychology or any other discipline that acts on theory.
As such it attracts more “believers” and theory peddlers than it does scientist trained in precise disciplines.
After watchin the climate change swindle a second time last night I realized that the largest part of the climate science community runs on grants and the grants are usually a matter of prioratizing climate change in the public or foundation budgets….the higher the angst over climate change the more funding to the study groups and periphery industries.
No one has a greater stake in climate hysteria than the media…we would see massive unemployment if a whole litany of media promoted boogey men evaporated in the light of critical thinking.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas BUT – quoting Borrello who worked on developing IR instruments to measure the gas –
“From the absorption model (Beer’s Law) and the measured value of the normalized absorption length (nal) (from standard spectroscopy data) one can calculate the absorption by CO2 as a function of path length through the atmosphere. The value of nal for CO2 is approximately 1E5 cm ppm in both the 4.2 micron band and the 13.5 to 15.5 micron band. It is a strong absorber in these bands and transparent elsewhere. But one can go directly to the published Yates and Taylor data for absorption by CO2 and gauge its effects as a greenhouse gas.
According to the atmospheric transmission data (H.W. Yates and J. H. Taylor, “Infrared Transmission of the Atmosphere,” U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, NRL Report 5453, 1960) carbon dioxide has a very strong absorption band between 13.5 and 15.5 microns wavelength. Earth radiates as a blackbody with a mean surface temperature near 300K and has a peak energy wavelength at 10 microns. Earth’s radiation energy in the 13.5 to 15.5 band is 8.4% of Earth’s total blackbody radiation. Since CO2 absorbs all radiation in this band it absorbs and reradiates 8.4% of the total energy within 200 meters of the surface. Adding more CO2 does not increase this effect because it is at its maximum. Using the absorptivity function (Beer’s Law) for a gas, CO2 would only begin to lose this impact if CO2 concentration dropped below a few parts per million. It has been above 200 ppm for over a million years according to geophysicists.
Thus I claim the heat retention as a percentage of Earth’s total radiation by CO2 is constant”.
To which I add: The Earth’s atmosphere evolved from ~20% CO2 + nitrogen and an assortment of minor gasses to the oxygen-rich (~21%) we now enjoy. Until about 2,000,000,000 years ago when algae began to consume CO2 and exhale oxygen there was little oxygen in the atmosphere – not enough to oxidize iron-bearing minerals – so red rocks from pre 2 billion years ago are rare. At the beginning of the Palaeozoic the CO2 content of the atmosphere was just under 1% and it has decreased through time to present day levels.
During the time of ‘high CO2’ there were ice ages about once each Solar System Orbit through the Milky Way Galaxy. If CO2 were such a danger – and one would have to ignore Borrello’s observation above – even those concentrations [1% – (10,000ppmv) to 20%] did not protect the planet from being ‘Snowball Earth’ for several million years each orbit.
If the ‘CO2 science’ given above is valid – it seems to be acceptable when designing instruments to measure CO2 – we must also accept that the IR absorption of CO2 ‘maxes-out’ at several tens of ppmv because CO2 quite efficiently ‘traps’ ALL the available IR in the13.5 to 15.5 micron band. It has done all it can do; therefore additional CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be a significant driver of the greenhouse effect.
But without the myth (lie) what would become of carbon taxes, carbon trading, carbon off-sets, and the livelihood of tens of thousands of bureaucrats and other opportunists?
“Leave it to Lawrence Solomon, the National Post columnist who has already authored mutually contradictory columns denying the science of climate change, to get the facts wrong once again.”
He isn’t making the statements scientists are…guess you belief system filter missed that.
“”It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere,” Prof. Segalstad concludes.
“It is all a fiction.”
As many have stated, GW has now completely been removed from the circle of science. It is now a competition between politics and business. We will all have front row seats to the biggest Battle Royale of all time – Big Government vs Big Business. Two well moneyed machines in the ultimate tug-of-war to decide who holds power. I have this uncomfortable feeling that the ultimate loser will be, as usual, us lowly citizens of the world.
Stephen said:
“Chapter 7 of the IPCC’s report on the physical basis for climate change, from which this explanation comes, is well supported by evidence and peer-reviewed scholarship,”
I wish I had your confidence in the IPCC’s peer review process. After all, they also claimed the hockey stick graph was peer reviewed, until it was debunked by a mining businessman in his spare time. Further, the IPCC’s report on the spreading of infectious disease by insects was written by two physicians without a research paper between them, leading them to come up with nonsensical claims that malaria can’t spread in temperate climes. Well, even I know that George Washington once had malaria, and that it once affected half of Europe.
When science is subverted by ideology, I get wary. And so should a lot of people.
Love what Tim Ball said on CKNW – if science is settled, then there is no more need for grants and research funds. Even if one accepts, without reservation, that AGW science is settled, the Gore hysteria is misplaced for two reasons: first, it is scientifically unsupportable; second, it give license to status quo. Right now, either approach allows China to release far more CO2 than even full Kyoto compliance could achieve. That’s why I believe this stuff is fundamentally political rather than solid science.
“It is all fiction”
It is bad enogh that the United Nations (IPCC) wrote a piece of fiction (Kyoto). It is bad enough that Mann wrote fiction (Hockey Stick).
And yes, give any “imagination” (model, thought) the benefit of the doubt — that is how mankind progresses. Subsequent review, intellectual process, ect will determine if it is a fraud, useless, dangerous, ground-breaking or whatever. And we move on in the real world.
IMO, the real crime here is that the Media, Academia, Hollywood, the UN, the public school system and Prophets pushed fiction to further their well being. Not the worlds. (Under a disguise of greater good)
Similiar to what is happening this weekend also.
Albert Gore is a ‘World Class Wizard’. (or Buzzard) 🙂
Ya know; just once I would like to see an actual physical experiment that proves CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas. I’ve seen the math and the theory but has anyone actually measured the stuff in real life. The theory says a bumble bee can’t fly. The math says the bumble bee can’t fly. The bumble bee never went to school and flys from flower to flower. Where’s the proof not the theory or math.
mbaron: amen, brother. Give me liberty or give me death.
Joe,
“Ya know; just once I would like to see an actual physical experiment that proves CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas. I’ve seen the math and the theory but has anyone actually measured the stuff in real life. ”
Yeah, they understand the spectroscopic aspects well enough. If they didn’t we wouldn’t have CO2 lasers, for instance.
What it does isn’t really at issue. The debate is about the size of its role relative to other phenomena.
chip: if the mainstream media is 100% behind something and never even bothers to publish a dissenting view…well, then you know that something smells bad.
My pet theory is that those who initially have high expectations and don’t achieve them (for whatever reasons) become lefties. It’s just easier to point at ‘those people’ and adopt a holier-than-thou attitude.
Personally, I don’t give a sh*t if my peers or ex-classmates drive Ferraris or have a high net worth; good for them. Money isn’t everything. For people to get passive-aggressive about someone else’s perceived success is the ultimate in childish, selfish behaviour.
“Simply put, there was a discrepancy between the car’s predicted performance in the wind tunnel and its behaviour on track.”
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=40046
Hmmm … maybe Mann can throw together a computer model for them.
CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas, if you pump it into a greenhouse the plants will grow more. It’s plant food.
“While oceans will absorb CO2 and biological organisms will produce CaCO3 from it, the process takes place over fairly long periods of time due to limits of mixing areas and other chemical components such as Ca, Si and Fe. In terms of the next 100 or so years, the removal will be much more limited than limitless.”
Posted by: John Cross at July 21, 2007 7:10 AM
John,
With all due respect, that statement has the sounds of something nice and reasonable, and very *scientific*, but I would like to know the details upon which it is based. I believe it may not be factual.
Can you point out a direction of search.
Just wondering, since I have been on speaking terms with the rudiments of geochemistry (and *geologic time*), on a nearly daily basis, for about 50 years.
Have you ever actually observed just how fast calcium and magnesium carbonates and iron carbonates can precipitate in the environment? It can be much faster than some people believe, or want to believe.
What exactly are the mixing zones you are referring to, and what exactly are the limits you claim are impeding the process in those mixing zones?
What exactly are the problems created by the presence of Ca, Si and Fe ions in the system? Ever looked at the growth rates of diatoms in those zones? How about barnacles? Those critters are not slow growth. Zebra mussels- definitely not slow growth.
Ever looked at the precipitation rates of iron silicates, iron carbonates, calcium carbonates and magnesium carbonates in mixing zones as related to solubility and saturation levels that occur in-the-real-world? Please explain how these change in the mixing zones in the presence of high levels of calcium chlorides and sodium chlorides.
The daily observation of abandoned mine discharges containing exactly all of those ions can be very informative. The precip and absorb rates can be shocking, measured over very short periods of time. Before you claim that those conditions do not represent ocean waters and mixing zones let me state that the formational waters in question are connate brines that are quite similar to the conditions we would be comparing.
I suspect that most of the scientists involved in the IPCC studies, and most climatologists also, are not well versed in actual day-to-day geochemistry. My belief is that when ‘geology’ is mentioned they tend to discount ‘observations’ as irrelevant due to ‘long geologic times’. That is a mistake. Geologic things, including geochemical things, can occur at very rapid rates. Writing off observations such as those made by Segalstad appears to almost be a necessity since they represent ‘inconvienent facts’.
“I work with complicated 3D computer models every day (albeit not climate ones)…”
Could there be a more naive statement? Of course the overwhelming mass of people that come here are incredibly naive. Stop grasping at straws people, global warming is here, it isn’t going away by simple denial and it’s man made. Face the reality people, the is debate is long over.
Lancer
“Could there be a more naive statement? Of course the overwhelming mass of people that come here are incredibly naive. Stop grasping at straws people, global warming is here, it isn’t going away by simple denial and it’s man made. Face the reality people, the is debate is long over.
”
So why do you feel it necessary to convince us if you are so correct? Feeling insecure?
Yoop: My comments are based on the rate of biological CO2 uptake in the ocean as shown by iron fertilization. As has been known for a while CO2 uptake is reduced by the absence of Fe in mid ocean areas. However iron fertilization tests show that there are actual multiple limitations. If enough iron is present then silicone becomes the rate determining factor, etc. Thus the presence of additional CO2 will not increase uptake much unless there are mechanisms that introduce the other supplies necessary. These limits are already well established.
I would also point out that his idea of limitless capacity of the ocean to absorb CO2 is running counter to observations. For example here are two papers that show a decrease in the ocean uptake of CO2 in different areas. This one for the Nordic Sea and this one for the Southern Ocean.
Regards
John
H20273Kk9: You remarked earlier that “the CO2 is mostly saturated in the IR bands ”
This is correct. I would say that certain areas are saturated and otheres are not. However this is not really that relevant to AGW. Even if it is saturated, additional CO2 will still cause warming. The warming from a doubling of CO2 (other things being equal) would cause a rise in temperature of about 1C.
John
Yoop, I posted a reply but it appears to be stuck in the moderation queue.
John
Lancer: “Could there be a more naive statement?”
Try this one on for size – “Face the reality people, the is debate is long over.”
Stephan states: “findings by imitating the methods of those fringe figures who think Dick Cheney planned the attacks of 9/11.”
I have noticed that there is a tendency for those supporting AGW to dismiss their critics . . . at least in part . . . by going overboard in attempting to discredit them. I once heard Al Gore indicate that anyone who still doubted AGW was akin to the people who believe that the moon landing was staged. He may have been trying to persuade his audience, but such a statement immediately got my B.S. detector going and I felt that it made Gore simply look very unconvincing. Stephan’s statement is not quite so extreme . . . but of the same tenor.
LindaL – it was Stephen.
HOW MANY TIMES HAVE THESE MUTTONHEADS BEEN WATCHING AL GORE JUNK SCIENCE EGO-FEST?
John
“Even if it is saturated, additional CO2 will still cause warming. The warming from a doubling of CO2 (other things being equal) would cause a rise in temperature of about 1C.”
I believe this is incorrect. Assuming the bands were saturated, where would the extra energy required to increase the temperature come from?
h20273Kk9: I don’t like to think of the problem like this since the term extra energy confuses some (I wrote that once and was then accused of not understanding basic physics since there is additional energy to the system). But if you want to think about it like this then consider it a heat transfer problem. More CO2 will add insulation so the temperature will rise.
A better physical description might be as follows. Lets say that the earth’s atmosphere is separated into layers based on their CO2 content (i.e. so much CO2 per layer). As we go up through the layers we eventually reach a point where the radiation from CO2 can escape into space. Now, if we look at what is happening in the layers below we can see that the bottom one is warming the earth a fair bit. However the next layer also provides energy to warm the earth (albeit it somewhat less than the first since the first is in the way). The same for the third and so on.
Now, we need to look at properties of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is not uniform and will be warmer at the bottom with temperature decreasing as we go up. Thus layer 2 is cooler than the bottom layer and so on. This means that the downward radiation from layer 2 is being emitted by a layer that is cooler than the bottom layer. The same for layer 3 which will be cooler than 2 – and its turtles all the way up.
Now, for simplicity sake, lets say that the layers act like blackbodies (they don’t but the effect is close enough for this simple look). Thus they radiate in proportion to their temperature.
To this system we add more CO2. What this will do in effect is to add more CO2 to the layers which will now take up less vertical space (i.e. less space to get the same amount of CO2 – remember our layers are based on CO2, not elevation). In effect this moves all the layers lower. Lower layers will radiate at higher temperatures. Higher temperatures mean more IR radiation. This in turn means more IR striking the earth’s surface.
The effect is small (relative to non saturated effects) which is why a doubling of CO2 will result in only between a 1 and 2 C rise.
In fact, the argument that the CO2 is saturated in regards to IR is an old argument and represents the consensus about 100 years ago. More CO2 could not affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that water vapor, as well as CO2 itself, were already blocking entirely.(8) After these conclusions were published in the early 1900s, even scientists who had been enthusiastic about Arrhenius’s work, like Chamberlin, now considered it plainly in error. Theoretical work on the question stagnated for decades, and so did measurement of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.(9) from this excellent reference.
John,
“A better physical description might be as follows. Lets say that the earth’s atmosphere is separated into layers based on their CO2 content (i.e. so much CO2 per layer). As we go up through the layers we eventually reach a point where the radiation from CO2 can escape into space. Now, if we look at what is happening in the layers below we can see that the bottom one is warming the earth a fair bit. However the next layer also provides energy to warm the earth (albeit it somewhat less than the first since the first is in the way). The same for the third and so on.”
“(albeit it somewhat less than the first since the first is in the way). ”
Hence, my use of the word “logarithmic”.
h20273kk9: No problem with using log. These isn’t a climatologist who wouldn’t agree. I was only trying to explain why more CO2 would matter even if saturated.
Regards,
John
[If the ‘CO2 science’ given above is valid – it seems to be acceptable when designing instruments to measure CO2 – we must also accept that the IR absorption of CO2 ‘maxes-out’ at several tens of ppmv because CO2 quite efficiently ‘traps’ ALL the available IR in the13.5 to 15.5 micron band. It has done all it can do; therefore additional CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be a significant driver of the greenhouse effect.
But without the myth (lie) what would become of carbon taxes, carbon trading, carbon off-sets, and the livelihood of tens of thousands of bureaucrats and other opportunists?]
Posted by: JET at July 21, 2007 11:49 AM
That sound you heard was a small dead animal being hit by a JET — the spot is marked by a cross.
“That sound you heard was a small dead animal being hit by a JET — the spot is marked by a cross.”
Posted by: ron in kelowna at July 22, 2007 1:40 PM
Lest ye forget, the Goracle will come down from the mountain bearing tablets (CDs) and change carbon credits into bank deposits. While on the third day the small dead animal will become resurrected.
The commmerative cross will require relocation due to rising sea levels.
Did you forget that this IS a religion, after all.
John,
“h20273kk9: No problem with using log. These isn’t a climatologist who wouldn’t agree. I was only trying to explain why more CO2 would matter even if saturated.”
It’s the use of the phrase “would matter” that is at issue in the debate. Some think it does, some think it doesn’t. 0.6C rise in the last hundred years hasn’t flooded the world, crops are growing just fine, etc.
A smaller additional increase, ceterus paribus, doesn’t seem so scary. Alas, that’s the question.
Do all things remain equal? Where is the point where we cross the hysteris boundary and go into non-equilibrium. Not that there equilibrium even exists when discussing Earth’s climate.
h20273kk9: My use of the term “would matter” was in regards to the additional CO2 added after saturation. You can replace it with “would cause more warming” if you like.
The argument about what 0.6C would do can wait for another day.
Regards,
John
Its all moot, AGW, GW, CC, whatever, its all yesterday’s news. CO2 is so passe.
The new threat is Coronal Mass Ejection, CME’s will destroy of ability to generate and transmit power, Just saw it on Discovery Channel last night, way scarier than GW. All it needs is a suitable mouth piece, er, prophet, to spread the dire warning.