Abstract: (pdf)
An online poll of scientists’ opinions shows that, while there is strong agreement on the important role of anthropogenically-caused radiative forcing of CO2 in climate change and with the largest group supporting the IPCC report, there is not a universal agreement among climate scientists about climate science as represented in the IPCC’s WG1.
Claims that the human input of CO2 is not an important climate forcing, or that ‘the science is more or less settled’, are found to be false in our survey. The IPCC WG1 perspective is the mean response, though there are interesting differences between mean responses in the USA and in the EU. There are, also, a significant number of climate scientists who disagree with the IPCC WG1 perspective.
More here (pdf) – Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Chnge;
While there have been some statistically significant minor improvements over the years the data suggests that the scientific community do not perceive the models to be the truth machine as often portrayed in the media. On the contrary, climate scientists seem all too aware of the limitations of climate models, demonstrating a minimal amount of faith in the output when if comes to making either long term or short term predictions.
page 7:
The purpose of this report has been to point out some of the controversy surrounding the survey of climate scientists and to high light some of the findings that have added to the controversy (and some that have not). Figures 31 to 100 (Appendix B) allow for the exploration of some of these issues in greater detail, with figures 69 – 100 pertaining to questions asked only on the 2003 survey. As the data seems to suggest, the matter is far from being settled in the scientific arena.
Now, the fact that “institutions/organizations/committees/groups, etc. that endorse the AGW thesis” doesn’t mean that the AGW thesis has any validity.
That is true. That many knowledgeable people endorse a theory is neither necessary nor sufficient to prove that theory valid.
But that wasn’t my point. My point was specifically to rebut your argument that the IPCC’s position is driven by the UN’s “anti-western agenda.” This argument is flawed because the position you dismiss as being driven by an anti-western agenda is also shared by many “institutions/organizations/committees/groups” that cannot reasonably be labeled as having such an agenda. So, if you want to dismiss the position that has been adopted by the IPCC (and others), you’ll have to find a smoking gun that applies to all these allied groups (i.e., something other than an anti-western politico-economic agenda).
I’m curious, ET, how do you explain the fact that, like the IPCC, the White House (among many others) is now endorsing the position that climate change is real and that the time to act is now?
“But here we have two surveys of climate scientists from across the believer-skeptic spectrum, assessing their fact-based opinions and subjective beliefs. While they are presented by Kate as demonstrating the lack of universal consensus, they nevertheless reveal that among these scientists, the majority holds the view that AGW is a genuine problem requiring immediate policy solutions.
Do you deny this, WLMR?”
What I deny is that there is conclusive factual data to warrant any consensus on AGW….the fact that a gaggle of faith based AGW believers are scrapping between themselves as the the robustness of even the data they use to make leaps of logic, proves to me the science is NOT settled, NOT conclusive, NOR beyond debate… and thus climate science, as a discipline, is at this point imprecise and long on conjecture and short on irrefutable proof.
Now here’s a prediction I will make that does not need any soft science to validate it….when we pass the theoretical point of no return the AGW hysterics are predicting….nothing will happen!….just as we didn’t freeze up when the same imprecise science predicted global cooling and as the same prone-to-apocalyptic-conjecture UN scientists said we’d all fry within the decade because of Ozone loss (which we later found to have fluctuating levels driven by solar winds).
Sorry but my scepticism is based in the facts and established record of the errors made by imprecise scientific inquiry and flawed scientific method.
ET: No, A, you can’t blame your opinions on kate. You accepted the data base of the survey. If you actually believed ‘highly questionable’ methods, then, you would ‘strongly question’ the results.
No I didn’t. Here’s what I wrote at 10:21 AM as preface to commenting on the survey results: “Even with highly questionable sampling methods, one finds the following results across the two survey…”
Also, at 12:42 PM, I reiterated my awareness of the surveys’ limited validity: “According to the second survey, which I acknowledge has dubious methodology but which Kate feels is sufficiently valid to post on her blog…”
What’s funny for me is that I’m quite certain that if I hadn’t pointed out that the survey findings actually went against Kate’s intentions for this post, nobody here would have bothered questioning the surveys’ methodologies. They would have given them both a pass, and proceeded to use the opportunity (as did the 4 commenters who posted prior to my first post at 10:21 AM) to rant about how the IPCC, the UN, AGW supporters, Al Gore, and lefties in general are all a bunch of bullshitting idiots.
That’s what’s so hilarious about this post, ET. I knew right away that the methods invalidated the results. But nobody else though that was particularly relevant until I pointed out that the (invalid) results actually contradicted rather than supported their anti-AGW views. As soon as I did, lo and behold, the methodological scrutiny began.
Canadian Sentinel: I promise all that it IS a Big Lie that we’re being told to believe in. Believe me, you will all see.
For somebody who takes pride in “preferring to demand real proof,” don’t you think it’s a bit contradictory to be telling everyone to just believe you because you promise you’re right?
“In other words, 4 of 5 scientists surveyed endorse the precautionary principle, that in spite of incomplete scientific knowledge, given the potential costs to current and future generations of inaction, it is our responsibility to act today.”
We had that, and more, for the Great BC Flood of 2007 … the one that never happened despite the MSM marketing.
Literally millions of dollars for bags of sand. I can’t find out the exact dollars … everyone seems to want to hide it. Next time someone is looking for a handout we can give them a couple of bags of sand and say “Your welcome mate”.
The “climate science” consensus uberscientists should consider giving a hand to the Fisheries scientists … you know, the guys that model the number of returning salmon. Those guys can’t get the salmon to cooperate with their models. Ever wonder why there are crash test dummies when they have computer models of vehicles? Why the safety guys only look at the real crash results instead of a computer simulation? Why is reality more valued than a computer model?
Can you imagine what a car built on the precautionary principle would look like? A plane would never get off the ground.
john cross – I long ago decided that your posts lacked logic and facts. Therefore, your adamant defense of AGW is, in my view, without foundation.
A recent example was your rejection of the Essex and Kitrick book, Taken By Storm, now in its second edition. You attempted to denigrate the content of this book by suggesting that the second edition was not produced because of the popularity of the first edition, but because of factual errors.
You provided SDA readers with an IF-THEN causal statement:
“I can easily see why a second edition is necessary. There were several substantial errors in the first edition”.
The above claim that you made is, as I noted, an IF-THEN statement. The second sentence provides the Reasons; the first sentence provides the Result.
Reason: several substantial errors
Result: second edition is necessary.
When I pointed out to you that, since you admitted that you had not even read the book, that you could not make this claim of Reason and Result – and when the author (Kittrick) wrote in that the so-called ‘errors’ were not only not in the book but were no errors – you attempted to slither out of your biased statement to readers of SDA.
You now informed we SDA readers that you weren’t privy to the publisher’s decisions and therefore, hadn’t made any claim of ‘reasons for a second edition’. But you did. Your IF-THEN sentence was very clear.
So-that’s just one example of your unreliability as a ‘witness for pro-AGW’. The fact that you are pro-AGW – is your business. But, you are not a scientific source of validity or reliability for AGW.
No, A, the ‘methodological scrutiny did not begin when YOU, The Great One, pointed out the errors. Some of us can do this on our own.
Kate posted them with the heading, ‘The Sound of Settled Science’. Period. Not a word of comment. My view was that the posts showed that the AGW apocalyptic types (Al Gore etc), who promote AGW as ‘settled’ go against even the moderate AGW, who are starting to draw back.
BUT, your posts didn’t say a word about this. Your posts, just like the authors of the survey, chose to jump over the methodological problems, and went immediately into validating the results. You didn’t say a word about the critical problems with the survey questions, or the sample population. Nothing. You specifically promoted the (invalid) results and told us that these results were counter to SDA viewpoints.
[You sound, frankly, like the egoist Andrew. He too, always informs us of how great and wise he, and that he’s The First One Who Did X].
Again – your slick mention of method problems, also voiced by the survey authors, said nothing further, and you accepted the results.
Here is a recent survey of the consensus scientists.
http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20071108.html
SDA-regulars (“deniers”) have a varied opinion of climate change / global warming / AGW. They range from:
– I don’t know, but I don’t believe the science is settled; to
– I doubt that anthropogenic CO2 production is causing the warming we’ve experienced for the following reasons…; to
– I don’t believe that there is any warming at all and it is a natural variation.
Then some pro-AGW-ers (“chicken littles”) burst in and mash all of these varied opinions together and claim that SDA-ers are horribly confused.
A and JC, in the surveys (if I have summarized it correctly), a small minority of climate scientists polled (10% +/-) responded to the poll. Of this small minority, a majority agrees or somewhat agrees with the concept of AGW (presumably, since it is a flawed poll).
So, what we can reasonably conclude is:
– despite claims to the contrary, there is NOT a concensus in the scientific world.
This is the BASIC thrust of EVERYTHING that Kate and the SDA-ers have been saying. The majority of us are not geologists or climate scientists or even chemists, so we could not claim any special expertise in this field (neither can you) and we could not provide proof for or against AGW. Many if not most of us SDA-ers are university-educated (many with an engineering degree…as you claim to have JC), so we are not complete fools.
For the umpteenth time, let me summarize what I see as being the SDA-ers position:
– the science is NOT settled, despite claims to the contrary;
– a consensus is meaningless in science;
– anyone who attempts to stifle scientific debate (with shouts of “denier” and “the science is settled”) is not to be trusted because this is 180 degrees counter to what science is supposed to be about;
– the UN has proved itself to be untrustworthy in the past;
– the Kyoto Protocol WOULD NOT REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING (even if it were possible for mankind to influence it), it simply transfers money from one country to another and transfers carbon emissions from one country to another;
– there are factors influencing climate other than just CO2…water vapour and solar radiation, to name just two, so why focus on just the one issue;
– there have been similar or warmer periods in the not-too-distant past (grapes growing in England and Newfoundland);
– there have been colder periods in the past (and our climate has been warming since the last ice age without man’s help);
– with evidence of cyclical climates (warm and cold), it is very reasonable to assume that whatever current trend there is (we’re not sure, because the data gathering is suspect) could be natural;
– I don’t have independent verification of this (am relying on other SDA-ers) but apparently we have just left a period of high solar activity that could potentially account for any warming that may have happened;
– the global temperature has not increased since 1998 despite the CO2 levels steadily increasing;
– although the arctic appears to be warming, the antarctic is cooling;
– there has been evidence unearthed of inappropriate data gathering techniques, inappropriate data manipulation and data analysis errors that have tainted the validity of a lot of the data; and
– historically, warming has preceded CO2 increases by several hundred years (though there may be some dispute of this, it is presumably generally agreed).
I think the preceding is a fair summary of SDA-ers general thoughts on climate change. Every one of them is rational and defensible…and together, it strongly indicates that the reasonable course of action would be to NOT destroy our economy in some hair-brained (hare-brained?) scheme to transfer guilt money to the Third World.
I think most of us agree that swift and significant action should be taken to reduce our reliance on carbon-based fuels and reduce pollution. But that’s about all.
I will NEVER willingly pay one cent to reduce my carbon footprint and I will never agree to sending my taxes to another country as a sin payment. I will happily agree to spending some of my taxes on alternate energy sources and pollution reduction.
Spin on that, if you wish.
eeyore – excellent. Your post ‘says it all’. Many thanks.
@A, etc.
Do you understand the source and nature of the controversy engendered by the AGW issue? From your comments, I don’t think you do. This is not so much a matter about data and observation, as it is one of transparency of process, coercion and consequence. Let me make some brief comments that I hope shed some light on why a sizable minority of thoughtful people resist the consensus indoctrination.
***It is a matter of fact, both observational and logical, that man affects his environment.***
***Any rational being acknowledges this to be true.***
***These effects vary as to their nature, spatial and temporal location, impact on various individual and/or societies (animal and/or human).***
***Mitigating these negative externalities has by definition associated costs.***
***Costs are not merely financial, they may also be (and in practice, almost always are) social, cultural and political.***
***The human tendency to want quick and easy solutions to hard problems is known to be destructive.***
***The human tendency to exploit one another for personal gain is also well known.***
***The scale of the consensus/majority global warming solutions do not match the scale of the consensus/majority global warming problem.***
***Most reasonably intelligent people will assess the validity of an issue by attempting to reconcile the problem/solution disharmony.***
***Making the problem match the solution denies the problem, hence there must be an agenda that advances under cover of this issue.***
***Making the solution match the problem:
The obvious solution:
A global population at sub-10% present levels;
The suppression of global free-market economies and democracies;
A stratified class-based society.***
My conclusion: most people find this end result of their thinking unpalatable, are looking for an alternate solution, and are very upset when they get told to shut up, do what they are told, and just believe.
A sayeth: “But what say you about all the other institutions/organizations/committees/groups, etc. that endorse the AGW thesis? Are all these groups corrupt as well?”
No idea. We aren’t talking about them, we’re talking about the IPCC. But I would think if they had anything more convincing than the current AGW bilge washing out of the IPCC they’d have said so.
As in, they have nothing to say on the order of Koch’s postulates for global warming. That’s what I call evidence. A computer model isn’t. Models are where you start looking for evidence, not where you stop.
And speaking of evidence, you’re no doubt aware that the “precautionary principle” is not an evidenced based concept. You can’t prove a negative, A. Pure politics. Dare I say, propaganda.
Tenebris, you ROCK dude! ~:D Smokin’!
Mr A
I will not go into the “consenses” thing, as several have already addressed this
I will not expand on the “data” accruing, as that has also be mentioned by others, and I my opinion is garbage
I will however ask you were the “scientists” got the program to model the climate, as I was never aware that one exisited. This has been admited by some of the scientisats that support AGW. You see, the programs they use are modified statistical analysis programs, and these are far to limited to be any more than “study” programs that will give scientists a “POSSIBLE” out come, not even probable out come.
Also upon entering the questionable data they take averages as these programs can not accomodate the vast amount of data that would be required to model said climate. Then they put infixed parameters and alter only one set of data, this method bypasses one of the most crucial elements of climate study, which is “FEEDBACK LOOPS”. As there are no programs that can adaquatly handle a true climate model there is no reason as to yet address the problem of the fact that there is no computer that could handle such a program even if such a program was in existance!!!!!!
Now for a added bonus of info for you, there have been two, (that I’v read) in the last year, articles that propose that as many as 50-60% of studies are flawed because those doing the studies are biased to prove a postion already held at the onset of the study. So I suggest that these items be attended to BEFORE anyone jumps to ANY conclusions about climate studies!!!!
et: we live in a happy relationship since my opinion of you is quite similar to yours of me. My favourite example is where on one day I ask you for clarification in regards to a statement you made – you accused me of trying to change the topic. The next day I did not ask for clarification but assumed that you meant what you wrote and you huffily informed me that I should have known what you meant.
In regards to the Taken by Storm post, I am happy to let the record stand. If anyone in interested, the post can be found here and my reply to you can be found at 12:30.
However I will note it was an extremely enjoyable discussion with Dr. McKitrick. He kept to the topic and made his points in a calm and polite way.
Eeyore: In fact I can agree with a large number of your statements (some are pretty obviously not true). However let me say that I have made the following statements many times and many here have disagreed with them.
1) Adding CO2 will cause an increase in the downward IR radiation.
2) We are responsible for the recent increase in CO2.
These are also rational and defensible yet even now, on this thread there is resistance. As an aside, these form one of the strongest statements to come out of the first survey (the second is indeed flawed). To quote from it: 4. Almost all respondents (at least 97%) conclude that the human addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is an important component of the climate system and has contributed to some extent in recent observed global average warming.
Regards,
John
Gym: Could you provide a reference to the articles you refer to regarding the 50 – 60% flawed studies?
Thanks
John
Any Canadian not supporting global warming needs to spend a winter at the south pole, or I mean ‘summer’ at the south pole. Anywho, that should fix ya. We’ll have you spend the following winter in the north pole to declimatize you, so your integration back into reality isn’t too warm. Don’t forget to pack your swimsuit.
Know why there is no longer a sheet of ice a mile thick on top of Edmonton? Climate change. Know why there *was* a sheet of ice a mile thick on top of Edmonton? Climate change.
The climate changes, constantly, as it has since the Earth cooled into a solid. Even before we monstrous, evil humans came along. It is amazing that this needs to be pointed out.
The real tragedy is that, as frivolous accusations of racism annoy the listener to the point that they reflexively dismiss real ones, hysterical claims of imminent environmental catastrophe diminish the impact of the genuinely important message, which is that we need to occupy the Earth responsibly and with an eye to the future.
A……all we hear from you is backing up “views” and “opinions”.When you get some “solid,proven facts”,come talk to me.Scientists are allowed views and opinions,but only the paid-off ones or piss poor ones allow them to influence the outcome of their studies.
At one time I may have thought that AGW was happening,but as soon as the U.N. became invloved,poof,no further proof needed it was a scam.As someone once said,if the U.N. is for it,it is bad for everyone else.
Tenebris,
Your point
***Most reasonably intelligent people will assess the validity of an issue by attempting to reconcile the problem/solution disharmony.*** is the essence of the disagreement between people that think that thing will go on more or less as ususal and people that feel that human might is such that they can stop the world from spinning and make some extra cash doing it.
It indicates the problem that the proponents of the AWG have.
John Cross,
For the purposes of this thread’s debate, I will accept your 2 main points:
1) Adding CO2 will cause an increase in the downward IR radiation.
2) We are responsible for the recent increase in CO2.
So…..
1) How much, do you you figure, the average global temperature will increase when the the atmospheric CO2 concentration has doubled from the pre-industrial measure of 280 ppm to 560 ppm (presumably within the next 50 years)?
2) Do you think the think the human race will be completely unable to adapt to this global temperature rise?
Regards,
dave c
Yikes,
“you you” should “you”
“think” will do for “think the think”
Justthinkin: When you get some “solid,proven facts”,come talk to me…as soon as the U.N. became invloved,poof,no further proof needed it was a scam.
[sigh] Like Canadian Sentinel, you demand that others come up with irrefutable proof, but in terms of defending your own opinions, proof is neither needed nor forthcoming. What the point in continuing this discussion, Justthinkin? Yours is a double standard that can never be satisfied–you hold others to an impossible burden of proof, and yourself to none.
A said ‘you hold others to an impossible burden of proof, and yourself to none’. That is exactly what you do A! EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO!
It really is pointless to engage in a discussion with someone who does what you do.
Adding CO2 will cause an increase in the downward IR radiation.
Kind of a handy theory you have there. The earth heats the CO2, which heats the earth, which heats the CO2, which heats the earth…perpetual motion.
For somebody who takes pride in “preferring to demand real proof,” don’t you think it’s a bit contradictory to be telling everyone to just believe you because you promise you’re right? -“A”
–That’s an ironic statement coming from one of the Chicken Littlists.
And let’s not forget, the IPCC hasn’t provided irrefutable proof. It’s, in fact, being refuted every day by credible scientists!
John Cross, have CO2 levels ever been as high as today? If so, what did mankind do to bring those CO2 levels down…maybe we could do it again? 😉
Ya but, this time its different, right?
John, does an increase in water vapour increase downward IR radiation? Is anyone monitoring water vapour production?
John, does an increase in solar radiation cause an increase in IR radiation? Does an increase in solar radiation cause temperature increases? If not, how do things get warm in the summer?
Again, most of us are not qualified to discuss the science of climate change (nor, do I suspect, are you…you’re a retired electrical engineer?), but CO2 ABSOLUTELY CERTAINLY is not the only variable in this climate system…and the other variables have not been adequately explored/analyzed to determine if they could be causing part or all of the problem.
So, why focus on CO2 only?
Hence, SDA-ers are suspicious. As should any other rational human.
John Cross:
How’s your prediction of “2007…warmest year ever…you heard it here first…” going?
BRK
(Note to Tenebris, et al., excellent summaries)
To the ‘thinking’ SDA’ers, I humbly present an additional thought. One thing I learned long before retiring from the science game: If your time is of importance to you, never waste it by debating a scientist (or scientist-in-the-making) who claims to be absolutely certain of their stand or claim, or who argues from the shelter of a claimed *concensus*. The exchange will only annoy you, and will not advance the knowledge base.
Debating those who either willingly ignore history, or attempt to rewrite aspects of it, will not enhance future accuracy. Their minds are made up, and you will not change that aspect of the dialog.
Dave Christie:
I can provide answers in much the same way that you say: “For the purposes of this thread’s debate, I will accept your 2 main points”. Keeping that in mind:
1) I can supply you with a “GUESS” about the temperature rise, but I will emphasize it as a guess and not a prediction (I see that Mr. Klappstein below wishes to take me apart for making a guess). First, I doubt that we will reach 560 in 50 years, but if we do I would guess 2C with another 1 or 2 in the pipeline.
2) Do I think the think the human race will be completely unable to adapt to this global temperature rise? – No, of course not (since you use the term completely). However I suspect that there will be some adaptation required.
Regards,
John
Eeyore: You asked a lot of questions so let me get right to it.
have CO2 levels ever been as high as today?Yes
If so, what did mankind do to bring those CO2 levels down We didn’t do anything since they were last this high several million years in the past.
Ya but, this time its different, right? Are the circumstances different?
John, does an increase in water vapour increase downward IR radiation? Yes
Is anyone monitoring water vapour production? Production, I don’t know, but they do monitor atmospheric water levels. The key thing is that the atmospheric residency time for water vapour is less than 2 weeks so any excess produced gets removed quickly.
John, does an increase in solar radiation cause an increase in IR radiation? Yes
Does an increase in solar radiation cause temperature increases? Yes
If not, how do things get warm in the summer? Unless you are talking about the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, the solar radiation does not increase over the year, but there is a change in the distribution.
Again, most of us are not qualified to discuss the science of climate change (nor, do I suspect, are you…you’re a retired electrical engineer?) I am a still practicing engineer but not electrical (mechanical with a post grad in something close to fluid mechanics). But more to the point, provided you are willing to read and learn, I think most people can become qualified to discuss the science. In my opinion, you do not need a PhD or to have published a pile of peer-reviewed papers to be able to talk about a subject.
but CO2 ABSOLUTELY CERTAINLY is not the only variable in this climate system I have never said otherwise and no climate scientist that I know of says so.
and the other variables have not been adequately explored/analyzed to determine if they could be causing part or all of the problem. That is a very large assertion that I have not seen backed up anywhere.
So, why focus on CO2 only? It is the main driver that we control.
Hence, SDA-ers are suspicious. As should any other rational human. You are quite correct, all rational people should be suspicious. But this suspicion should not blind you to what can be established (such as the physical properties of CO2 and the source of the current rise).
Regards,
John
“but CO2 ABSOLUTELY CERTAINLY is not the only variable in this climate system. I have never said otherwise and no climate scientist that I know of says so.”
“and the other variables have not been adequately explored/analyzed to determine if they could be causing part or all of the problem. That is a very large assertion that I have not seen backed up anywhere.”
I understand that there are several studies pointing to solar radiation as being a cause of all or part of the “presumed” global temperature increase and the study of water vapour / clouds on climate has not been thoroughly studied or understood or even properly modelled in the IPCC climate models. But the “pro-AGW-ers” dismiss those studies and stick to their guns about CO2…one would think that before destroying the economy of the western world you should actually, maybe, think about exploring the other variables a bit more thoroughly.
I recall the results of a “peer-reviewed” health journal article being trumpeted on the news several years back…”Coffee consumption causes lung cancer”…two weeks later, the article was pulled because they never checked to see how many of the coffee drinkers in the study also smoked.
Up to a just a decade or so ago, the prevailing “consensus” was that modern reptiles were the kin of dinosaurs…now, the consensus is that birds are the kin of dinosaurs. The moral of the stories…perhaps we should study all of the other variables in detail and model THEM before we run off half-cocked.
“So, why focus on CO2 only? It is the main driver that we control.”
An answer that further increases my suspicions.
Anthropogenic sources account for…what?…3% of the global total of CO2? And the amount of that CO2 production that we can reasonably reduce is what? Likely not very much. I am very doubtful that we can do much at all about CO2 production.
I remain, yours truly, a skeptic. Not a denier…I am not informed enough to ever deny…but I am and remain a skeptic. As do most of the SDA-ers. Before I throw any of my hard-earned money at “Honest Al”, I want more and better proof.
John Cross:
“..(I see that Mr. Klappstein below wishes to take me apart for making a guess)…”
Not true at all John. I’m just gloating and that’s not the same thing. By the way John, if it’s true that the amount of CO2 in the air now is enough to intercept all outgoing IR in the CO2 “bands”, how is it that adding more CO2 will increase downward IR? Being a “fluid dynamics” kind of guy I hope you can explain in terms us non-technical people can understand.
Regards, BRK
I understand that there are several studies pointing to solar radiation If so I would like to see them. Most studies that I have seen recently show no increase (apart from regular solar cycle). In fact many say we are headed towards a period of solar decrease.
In regards to peer-reviewed, this is something that is not well understood. If a publication is peer reviewed it is not necessarily correct, but it has been deemed worthy of being set in front of the scientific community. At that point the real checking comes in.
Anthropogenic sources account for…what?…3% of the global total of CO2? On an annual basis yes, but the important thing is that they are responsible for ALL the recent increase. That is a rock solid fact that can not be shaken. Yet people still deny it – even some here on SDA.
Regards,
John
Hi Brian: Go ahead and gloat if you must – serves me right for making an off the cuff comment. By the way, I have been looking at the differences between the GISS and HAD records and I disagree with your comment that the HAD is better. I will stick with the GISS due to its better coverage.
You asked me for an explanation of how adding CO2 could increase downward IR so here it is (cut from a previous post on SDA).
To see how the greenhouse effect takes place you have to look at how the earth radiates energy away. 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. So the first layer is at a certain temperature. Layer 2 is somewhat cooler than the bottom layer, layer 3 is cooler still, and so on. This means that the downward radiation from layer 2 is being emitted by a layer that is cooler then 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.
Now, of course the system is more complex (there are certain bands that aren’t saturated and effects from pressure broadening) but that is the main idea.
Regards,
John
John:
“…they are responsible for ALL the recent increase…”
Not true. Assuming the oceans have been warming as claimed, they have contributed to some of the increase. I would take that one step further. Recently the annual rate of increase for CO2 has dropped off. Why would this be so in light of explosive emissions growth in places like China?
Well it turns out there is some evidence the oceans are actually cooling, meaning their capacity for storing CO2 is increasing.
Regards, BRK
“Most studies that I have seen recently show no increase (apart from regular solar cycle). In fact many say we are headed towards a period of solar decrease.”
Now you’re getting it, John! The regular solar cycle was at a high and now it is decreasing. The regular solar cycle at a high may have been increasing temperatures and now that it is decreasing, temperatures may very well decrease too!
Now, I suspect that you’ll trot out the statement that the impact of the solar cycle has been investigated and proved to have no bearing and blah, blah, blah…but, of course, it was “proved to have no bearing” by people in the pay of Big Climate Change!
Hahaha…this is fun!
As Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect Why the big push to tax necessary for life CO2. With about 0.28% of the green house effect caused by humans if you discount water vapor, it seems to me the reason CO2 is named the bad bad greenhouse gas, is because it would be had to tax water vapor and the global warming promoters would not get their money.
And why is methane not up there for tax also as it is 20 times the the greenhouse gas that CO2 is? Hell the average person farts 14 times a day with some many times more. Just think of the coin a government could collect, Especially off the vegan bean eaters.
Brian: No, there is no question that we are responsible for the recent increase – all the increase!
You can prove this to yourself by the following method.
1) Take any reasonable estimate for fossil fuel usage on an annual basis. This can be estimated to within a couple of % fairly easily.
2) Basic chemistry will give you the amount of CO2 that burning this amount of fossil fuels will produce.
3) From properties of the atmosphere calculate how much CO2 is showing up in the atmosphere. CO2 concentrations are fairly well measured so this is actually quite accurate.
The above will show you that less CO2 shows up in the atmosphere then we produce (i.e. natural sinks are removing about 1/2 of what we produce).
As long as we produce more CO2 than is showing up in the atmosphere we are responsible for all the increase. Logic dictates it can’t be any other way.
Regards,
John
Now you’re getting it, John! The regular solar cycle was at a high and now it is decreasing. ….. and now that it is decreasing, temperatures may very well decrease too!
But the problem is that they aren’t. Dr. Sami Solanki has a really good lecture on this topic that I can dig out for you if you wish.
Regards,
John
Alan: I don’t think your numbers are correct. Do you have a reference for them.
Thanks,
John
John Cross,
Following up on your responses to my 2 questions yesterday: (thanks for your feedback)
1) When do you think the current CO2 atmospheric will double (280 ppm to 560 ppm)?
2) You GUESSED (your caps, not mine) that the average global temperature would increase by 2 degrees C as a result of this doubling.
Why would be that so bad?
Historically, warm climate eras have a track record for being beneficial for the development of human civilization.
Before you challenge me for links justifying my opinion in the previous sentence, can you site any period in known human history, where a warm climate, was found to be bad (i.e. death of some civilization)?
Regards,
Dave C
John Cross
Your example is just bunk. There are no “layers” of CO2. The decreasing temperature with altitude is a result of the gradation of density which itself is the result of a little phenomenon called gravity. The atmosphere is not a black body and does not radiate heat back towards the ground (which would defy thermodynamic law). With the exception of a few small windows(bandwidths), most IR radiation is ABSORBED by molecules in the atmosphere and converted to heat – the whole basis of GHG theory. IR radiation that is absorbed never “escapes” into space because it no longer exists. And the heat continuously dissipates – ie is used up by molecular motion.
It would seem quite possible to me that after 4.5 billion years our atmosphere is dense enough to absorb all of the currently available radiation which would make the addition of more CO2 of little consequence.
If the chicken little movement wants to convince us “skeptics”, then start by empirically proving your argument. Quantify how much energy is being radiated and reflected into our atmosphere and then quantify the energy transfer processes to each of the constituent components. You don’t even have to bother with the thermal dispersion process. Just prove to us that there is still excess energy left to be absorbed and quantify it.
All of this nonsense about average temperatures and tipping points is just background noise.
Dave C: Thank your for your polite discussion. In response to your questions:
1) I can’t say for sure, I would guess in about 90 years.
2) I will accept there are records showing warm periods to be beneficial. However increasing temperatures may bring other changes in climate. A good example is given in a paper called Long-Term Aridity Changes in the Western United States by Cook. The abstract is below:
The western United States is experiencing a severe multiyear drought that is
unprecedented in some hydroclimatic records. Using gridded drought
reconstructions that cover most of the western United States over the past
1200 years, we show that this drought pales in comparison to an earlier
period of elevated aridity and epic drought in AD 900 to 1300, an interval
broadly consistent with the Medieval Warm Period. If elevated aridity in the
western United States is a natural response to climate warming, then any
trend toward warmer temperatures in the future could lead to a serious longterm
increase in aridity over western North America.
There is another paper by someone called Petersen in 1993 (IIRC) and he shows how certain groups of people (I don’t know if you would call them civilizations) grew or shrank.
Regards,
John
Pd: You said “The atmosphere is not a black body and does not radiate heat back towards the ground (which would defy thermodynamic law)”
In fact re-radiation of IR is the basic way the regular greenhouse effect works.
Regards,
John
This thread seems a recreational debate, with no concrete outcome. That*s OK, yet,
An effort in concert to focus retro-fit of tens of thousands of dirty Coal-gen plants world wide with clean coal tech or any variety of carbon limiting tech seems priority one.
Aside from the massive Coal Liquifaction plant in Africa, coal-gen is the world*s worst and most ignored pollution.
52% of US energy is coal-gen. China and India.. more so.
Any arguments?… That means, any better target? = TG
John Cross:
“…Logic dictates it can’t be any other way…”
Huh? Your assumption is clearly that the CO2 sinks/sources are stable EXCEPT for anthropogenic emissions. But why would you assume that? Nothing is stable in climate, at least not for long. The most simple counterpoint to your argument is this potential scenario: cool non-saturated oceans and a vigorous biosphere can adsorb some number MORE than the 50% of CO2 we produce. So if you are back calculating the 50% sink factor, and that factor is wrong, then the current rate of increase must be coming from some state change in one of the other sources (or sinks).
In actual fact we know not all the CO2 increase is from fossil fuel burning from watching the isotopic signature of the C over time. Obviously the most likely culprit is the warming oceans. Now of course we can argue about why the oceans are warming, but their certainly seems to be at least some component of solar influence in the warming of the last 100 years.
Regards, BRK
John:
By the way I checked the R2 between the MSU TLT and both the surface records (HADCRUv3 and GISS). Take a guess at which is better?
Regards, BRK