Myth #1 – Temperatures are warmer today than ever in history.
The truth is we’re certain that temperatures were hotter than today in the past but how long ago we really don’t really know. The most popular temperature reconstructions are full of flawed math and data. Others don’t have enough verification to rely on them. Several show global temperatures 1000 years ago which are much higher than today and 3000 year old plants and trees have been found under retreating glaciers.
Myth #2 – There is a consensus among climatologists about global warming.
Most climatologists probably agree, but climatology is a small field funded by government organizations. Those who disagree openly, receive little funding but they do still exist. Weathermen, chemists, physicysts, foresters, solar experts, engineers and thousands of informed people recognize the issue isn’t settled.
Myth #3 – We will cross a tipping point and be unable to recover
This theory has little evidence to support it. To believe in this, you have to believe several things: we are warmer than ever, CO2 reserves will be released from massive ground melting and CO2 will heat the earth so much the process will spiral and melt all the ice. There is substantial evidence that the earth was warmer several times as recently as 3000 years ago yet there was no mass flooding. There was no massive release of CO2 recorded.
Myth #4 – Global warming will be universally destructive.
Global warming has presided over some of the best times in human history. Instead of mass famine we get massive food surplus. Instead of horrible drought and extinctions we get lush forests, increased plant growth and more inhabitable space for all creatures.
Myth #5 – CO2 is a pollutant
Carbon dioxide is plant food. Plants grow faster and more food is available to the critters of earth. Excessive carbon dioxide would be a bad thing for sure but in the last 100 years it is said that CO2 increased from 270 to 388 parts per million. This is an increase of 0.000118 or 0.0118%. But there is some substantial question about the accuracy of this number, numerous CO2 results were scrapped from 1900 to 1940 on the basis that something was wrong with them. In one report, every test scrapped showed higher historic levels than are comfortable for Global Warming scientists.
Myth #6 – CO2 rise was created by man.
While this makes sense at first, the jury is still out on this conclusion as well. The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce. The reality is we just don’t know.
Myth #7 – CO2 will continue to rise indefinitely.
Feedback mechanisms in absorption will hold CO2 to a maximum level at some point. I would cite some numbers but I don’t believe science understands this any more than they understand historic temperature.
Myth #8 – The UN IPCC is trying to save the planet from global warming
The UN IPCC was formed before global warming was identified for the purpose of discovering if man made climate change was true, what are the damages that will occur as a result of this change and what can we do about it. The IPCC would cease to exist if any of the three questions were answered in the negative i.e no global warming, no damage from global warming and nothing we can do about it. They would loose their jobs.
Another important point about the IPCC is that if either of the last two questions had simple answers they would also be defunded. For example in the second question, if global warming was primarily a good thing (which it appears to be) there would be no money spent. For the third question, if the answer to solve global warming was simple and easy there would be no money spent on the IPCC. Governments always need more money and power so it should be no surprise that the IPCC concluded, global warming is man made, there will be huge planet crushing disaster and it is very expensive to fix. The IPCC is in this for other reasons.
Myth #9 – The science supports the IPCC conclusions
The IPCC is a political body which employs scientist to make a report. The politicians get final say on what goes into the report. Scientists who actually believe in global warming regularly warn the IPCC that their conclusions are the most extreme of the possibilities and to tone down their language. These scientists are regularly dismissed by the politicians.
Myth #10 – The IPCC is an unbiased source which doesn’t direct funding to research
This is false, while the IPCC doesn’t direct funding, it has subsidiary partners as part of the UN who direct funding according to IPCC recommendations. This funding is administered through an unbelievably complex network of organizations which penetrate national boundaries across the world. I tried to map it once, after 8 hours research I had hundreds of organizations all interconnected for the same goal. — Prove global warming is true or cease to have jobs.
Scientists who don’t support the government are naturally weeded out by subcommittees looking for specific evidence i.e, new directives for understanding tree ring temperature curves will always go to scientists who believe trees can actually reproduce temp and not to reasonable scientists who study trees but know otherwise.
The scientists who have reached the top of the IPCC are typically far left socialists who support much more than high taxation for global warming. These are the same people who declared consensus, and doom. The real purpose of the IPCC is government control and more money, that is why the worst science with the most extreme positions such as Mann08 rise to the top. Peer scientists accept these papers because the ends justify the means and they also like to have jobs.
———–
I just hope the world wakes up in time. The tipping point we are reaching is a political one. Once these guys have the power, they won’t let it go.
the Air Vent 
Jeff,
I’d like to make a suggestion. The UK Met Office has a facts and myths page about climate change at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/. Why don’t you email them (the contact us email address is given), pointing out the errors in their facts and myths and suggesting that they replace them with yours. I think they have to reply to you. It will be interesting to see their answers.
Phillip
“The tipping point we are reaching is a political one.”
How true this is!
I’m agree with the 10 myths. But I have a question about myth#5 and 6.
see the plots above from this document http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ghg/documents/ghg-bulletin-4-final-english.pdf page 3 above :how can be the curve of the total amount of CO2 so “regular” (even with the seasonal variation) while the growth per year is so irregular ? Idem for CH4….
The Y scale on the growth per year graph is very small amplifying the curve. Nice article.
Phillip, it might be fun. I’ll consider it.
Hello,
first time for me to be here, from a link on WUWT.
I am interested in knowing more about your last myth in particular:
“This funding is administered through an unbelievably complex network of organizations which penetrate national boundaries across the world. I tried to map it once, after 8 hours research I had hundreds of organizations all interconnected for the same goal.”
Could you expend more on what and how you did this and some results? (perhaps there an entry about it I didn’t read yet)
This is type of puzzle I could enjoy doing, just need to know some basics…
thx in advance for any details
Titi,
I’m sorry. To learn the basics, you need to do the legwork yourself. It is a sad truth about this subject, there are so many bogus claims in this highly politicized science. You can’t trust anyone. I will tell you my opinion openly and give you my promise that I will not intentionally deceive you but there are many who are actually famous who will. This means my words, like the others should not be trusted, only your own understanding matters. I also should say that I don’t disbelieve in AGW I just understand the science well enough to not automatically believe either.
I will give you a start point and I have one other article. Spend some time, I am quite good at finding things on the internet and quite determined to find the truth so I look hard. The place to start is http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm. This is the IPCC’s own web page. Check out the other acronyms, look at their relationship to other organizations. Ask yourself, how was this group formed and would they have jobs without global warming. If you work hard you will find a huge multi-national network of interconnections with everyone washing everyone else’s back.
Follow the money.
This link barely scratches the surface of global warming funds but it it very tedious work to fid who spent what where.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/climate-change-a-manufactured-consensus-follow-the-money-baby/
Good Luck.
I send again the comment because i didn’t know if it have been sended.
Thats the key: “Follow the money”.
Totally agree with you Jeff, I think exactly the same… And, for example guys, do you know that the water is 100 times “worst” than CO2 for the greenhouse effect and for the global warming? But all of us need water for life, and nobody can see it like something evil. For example, scientific community say that water fall in rain form and nothing happen, but this is itsn’t true. Water in the atmosphere act like a termal regulator, didn’t you notice that in rainy days, in citys with continental climate, the temperature is higgher in winter and lower in summer? This is due to the effect of water as termal regulator, on the one hand thanks to his capacity to absorb energy thanks to his chemical structure (see normal modes of vibration of water and their specify to IR wavenumber), and on the other hand, thanks to his capacity of get back to the surface that energy.
This is for me a clear example of how manipulate the truth in the interest of a few one. No one hates water, no one think that something that make him live could be something bad, but all in excess or uncontrolated could produce damages instead benefits.
Regards,
Bien, varias preguntas:
¿Cuanta agua hay y cuanto retiene el calor?
¿Cual es el calentamiento por el CO2 y por el H2O?
Creo que estas preguntas podrían arrojar luz.
La actividad humana aporta un 0,83 % del CO2 atmosférico, pero si el 90 % (por ejemplo, no lo sé) del calentamiento depende del agua, nuestro aporte representaría solo un 0.083 %.
Partiendo de la hipótesis de que el 90 % del calor retenido por el H2O está bien, igual seguiríamos aportando el 0.083 % al efecto (en realidad, se supne que la mitad se reabsorbe, por lo que en realidad sería 0,0416 %)
THIS POST WAS DELETED AS I BELIEVE THE BLOG LINK IT GUIDED ME TO WAS INFECTED.
HERNADI-KEY, AS THE POPUPS SPRUNG UP ON MY COMPUTER AND I WASTED SOME HOURS CLEANING IT I HAD TIME TO THINK OF HOW TO REPLY.
YOU ARE A 19 YEAR OLD PROGRAMMER WHO HAS APPARENTLY BOUGHT INTO GLOBAL WARMING COMPLETELY. I HAVE BEEN PROGRAMMING COMPUTERS FOR TEN MORE YEARS THAN YOU HAVE BEEN ALIVE. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO CHANGE THE WORLD WITH YOUR BLOG AS YOU SAY, SPEND SOME TIME LEARNING WHAT THE WORLD IS. YOU ARE TOO YOUNG TO PREACH CHANGE.
I HAVE DELETED YOUR LINKS, YOU ARE WELCOME TO POST HERE BUT ONLY IN YOUR OWN WORDS. NO MORE LINKS UNTIL YOU GUARANTEE THEY ARE CLEAN .
=========================================================
I APOLOGIZE TO MY READERS WHO MAY HAVE CLICKED ON THESE LINKS.
As for #1, it’s almost certainly FALSE:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7580294.stm
Click to access ad_2004_06_12.pdf
It might be argued that 3300 BC Europe was pre-historic, but the Roman period is by definition historic.
Alan,
I read some of this before but instead of one person they found firewood and apparent communities where glaciers are. So these guys conclude that because it was cold enough the leather didn’t rot away that the glaciers weren’t there. Maybe they’re right but the glacier isn’t there now and the leather isn’t rotten cause it’s still cold!
The ones that really make a difference were somewhere in Canada when they found 3000 year old tree stumps under glaciers. How do trees grow under glaciers???
“How do trees grow under glaciers???”
There’s a Monty Python skit in here somewhere, but I can’t quite find it.
“Follow the money.”
I think it all winds up in the United Nations Adaptation Fund. Pretty soon the US will be bailing out the world in the name of climate change.
Question on Myth 6
Humans contribute 6 GT of additional load. Annually? In total since the industrial revolution? If annual, after 100 years we would almost double the atmospheric load, but this cannot be correct. I assume most of what we put in is taken out by by unspecified processes.
To say that the human load is small would not you have to compare it not to the stored amount but to the released/absorbed amount. After all a lot of Carbon is stored as oil and coal underground, but we don’t care about this unless we mine it and release it.
Norm, we cycle an estimated 120 GT of co2 in and out of the oceans each year. This is an estimate also. My point is that with so much CO2 in the system actively the 6GT is pretty darn small.
Also, you can’t look at the 6GT number and say since the industrial revolution because the emissions have gone up dramatically in the last 40 years to reach today’s level. The average of a linear rise from industrial times would be 1/3 of 6 – centroid of a triangle or 2 GT average/yr. This is also high because the industrial production of CO2 wasn’t linear.
What it all means though is a small (very small) change in plant and ocean absorption rate can create a much bigger change than all of our CO2 production. Therefore maybe, just maybe we didn’t do it. I have read the data and reports on the data and problems with the reports on the data and arguments about said problems. The bottom line is, we can’t be too sure from the CO2 data we have collected even on this seemingly small point.
What if there was some argument that historic CO2 was actually higher than today? Ice bubbles are pretty convincing but there is question in its accuracy due to diffusion properties. I used to think these things were settled and we could move on to more interesting facts like what will happen with more human CO2 but we don’t even know what part we contributed.
—
Here’s a good point.
There are interesting reports on the CO2 isotope ratios which claim the CO2 in the air has isotope ratios of oil. This report claimed that CO2 in the air was definitely of human origin. (giving credit to my point above that there is STILL some question) The data showed some concentration of human based co2 production so the question is settled right.
Well you have to ask yourself did you expect to find no human CO2 in the atmosphere? Then the question becomes, assuming plant and oceans absorb more at higher atmospheric concentration, how much CO2 would you expect to be absorbed or remain in the atmosphere? What altitude (and location) was the CO2 isotope ratio checked at. Pretty soon you are back where you started, a bunch of questions and no solid answers.
Long winded but unfortunately real.
I don’t deny the possibility of humans making the CO2 or warming, we just haven’t proven it yet. IMO claims that we have are usually political in origin.
Jeff, as to #1. I think you should at least say: “unlikely” or “highly unlikely”. I’m not aware of *any* physical evidence that we are at the warmest point in the history of the earth, although I would be happy to be corrected on that front. Any “modeling” that suggests this to be the case is based on hot air. In contrast, there are several lines of actual physical evidence that suggest it may have been warmer at certain points in the past.
I think the ultimate answer is that we don’t know for sure, as no-one was there with a thermometer to record it, but I think simply saying “we don’t know” gives way too much weight to the idea that our current situation may be the warmest ever. Perhaps you could say: “We don’t know for sure, but it is [highly] unlikely.”
Eric, you are absolutely right.
We know that the earth has been warmer than today, there really isn’t any question, how far back is a question. Also reasonable people know that if humans disappeared from the earth tomorrow we will be warmer in the future. I could go on for another entire post on this but instead I will change the wording.
Dan rather says the global warming debate is over, so it’s over.
A number of high-school age childern have been completely sold, emotionally, on the idea of man induced global warming. There are a large number of adults who also are unable to “think” just “feel” and therefore have become completely propagandized into total belief in Gl. Wng. I am a 72 yr. old retired, bomber/airline pilot who has flown into 151 different countries in my carreer. I can assure you that you DON’T want to live in the dark age conditions that will be thrust upon you by a socialist government (which most will become). We presently have aprox. 380 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. By living like surfs lived in 1200 ad for more than a century (probably several centuries) we might be able to reduce mankind’s output of CO2 by 25%. If we get real lucky and some natural reaction takes place in the atmosphere that “helps us” and the amount of CO2 drops to half what it is today that would be 380/2=190ppm atmospheric CO2. BINGO, we lose: FACT 70% of terrestrial plant life DIES at 200ppm CO2 (CO2 science. com)look it up!
#1 – no one with any real knowledge of the subject claims this.
#2 – AGW is now accepted by every reputable scientific organization and national government on earth. There are deniers, but no workable comprehensive arguments for their side. Each denialist claim is eventually disproven.
#3 – Ignores rate of change. Previous warmings of any consequence took from several thousand to hundreds of thousands of years. It’s impossible to claim no flooding or no massive releases of CO2 over these periods. Current change is occurring much faster than at any point in history, human or geologic. Mass flodding, and mass CO2 release, are very real possibilites at these rates.
#4 – ignores feedbacks and research that shows additional CO2 impedes plant growth and respiration. Also, doubt exists as to the globality of the warming discussed. The MWP in particular is seen as a regional event by some investigators.
#5 is simply false. Atmospheric CO2 has increased on the close order of 35%, with almost all that growth coming from human activity.
#6 – Human-generated CO2 levels are easily discernable through isotopic studies and these studies are performed routinely. No real uncertainty regarding those levels exists. Well over 1/3 of the CO2 you are breathing in came from human activity, there is simply no doubt of that.
#7 – Another simple falsehood. Negative feedbacks are easily overwhelmed at these scales and are currently being stressed. The southern oceans have almost ceased to absorb new human-generated CO2. In the meantime, the chemical changes caused are rapidly destroying sea life that relies on the formation of carbonate shells, including coral reefs, some 20% of which have died in recent years.
#8 is political bullhockey. The scientific basis for global warming theory is over a century old and developments have kept coming ever since. The IPCC personnel would certainly have no trouble finding other work, any more than climate scientists would have trouble finding other research subjects. Any money in GW research is dwarfed a thousand times over by the money in oil, coal, and gas.
#9 – also a series of falsehoods. The IPCC’s conclusions are not only scientifically valid, but also their more middle-of-the-road scenarios mirror actual developments in global CO2 rise in recent years. They have less-impactful scenarios which are falling by the wayside with the recent additions of China and India to the global carbon club.
#10 is simply crazy and bears little or no relation to reality. I could write five or six paragraphs taking it apart, but I’ll satisfy myself by asking for evidence for the following statements:
“Prove global warming is true or cease to have jobs.” (Isn’t denial needed more by coal companies?)
“Scientists who don’t support the government are naturally weeded out by subcommittees” (What government? It’s science!)
“new directives for understanding tree ring temperature curves will always go to scientists who believe trees can actually reproduce temp and not to reasonable scientists who study trees but know otherwise.” (Since tree rings DO record temperature related data, isn’t this only natural?)
“The scientists who have reached the top of the IPCC are typically far left socialists who support much more than high taxation for global warming.” (Love to see the evidence for this one!)
Have a good day and a better website – cmb
CMB —nice reply, you seem to have the talking points down. IMO:Nothing in this science is as clear as you say.
Let me demonstrate some weaknesses in your response:
#1 – Thousands of scientists agree with this. The reconstructions of historic temperature in the last thousand years are based on bad science. Read my site and you’ll find some math demo’s on this (calculations provided).
#2 – Pretty close, you just need a slight wording change, You should have said — AGW is now accepted by every government funded scientific organization and national government on earth. You are also missing the effect of the funding mechanism which drives IPCC science.
#3 – Rate of change of historic temp is an unknown, reconstructions are weak and there were no thermometers. Those who say different are not honest or mis-informed. Since we don’t know history you can’t claim this is the fastest change ever.
#4 – Doesn’t ignore anything about CO2, it simply points out that plants and animals grow better in warm weather.
#5 – The total percent in the atmosphere I have stated is completely true. The questions about the accuracy of historic CO2 numbers are also true. You have misunderstood the number I gave.
#6 – Human CO2 is present in the atmosphere and can be measured. But if you consider that CO2 is continually absorbed and released you must realize that the detection of human CO2 in the atmosphere is independent of the fact that the total concentration change could be natural. Studies which show otherwise are dependent on poorly understood and quantified CO2 cycle. Without accurate quantification of the cycle there can be no determination of what causes a change concentration.
Whether you agree or not, a great deal of uncertainty exists on this subject or you wouldn’t need those studies right?
#7 – Your claim that negative feedbacks are overwhelmed cannot be supported by science.
#8 – You made my argument for me — any more than climate scientists would have trouble finding other research subjects. So they simply need to drop their careers and change.
#9 – Do some research. Look at the replies of the scientists themselves to IPCC report #4.
#10 – Much of it really isn’t science, I have spent quite a bit of time taking apart Mann 08 here. I learned that bad math, combined with bad data was used to intentionally make a hockey stick which is claimed to represent temp. Pretty interesting reading, you should check it out. I think you need to spend some time studying the literature on tree rings. My blog here vacillates between math, statistics and politics so you can see some of the results I found. Tree rings are a combination of overlapped signals of which temp is one.
Last thing for me
you said
“Any money in GW research is dwarfed a thousand times over by the money in oil, coal, and gas. — ”
This is rubbish, if coal, oil and natural gas spent all their profits on global warming research you would have a point. But today, the oil research on this subject is likely dwarfed by tens of thousands or millions to 1 in funding. I dug into the funding for about 8 hours and estimate 100 billion on research in the global warming industry. No way oil spends anywhere near that much.
Honestly, you have done a nice job with your talking points but you need to study the data more deeply. It isn’t as clean as they want you to think.
BTW: This site is operated by a skeptic, not an evil denialist. Although I believe everything I wrote, none of it proves man made global warming is false.
CMB #7 needs a bit more explanation, such as coral formation when CO2 was estimated at 4500+ppm. “Rapidly” and “southern ocean close to being overwhelemed” studies that I am aware of included the assumption that the present carbon sinks (such as 46% of ACO2 was absorbed in 1970 decade up to 64% in last few years the data was tabulated) are about saturated and a computer model was used based on this assumption. Also, it was assumed that the CO2 is increasing faster in the present than was believed to have occurred in the past epochs, such that calciforms MAY not be able to adapt. The papers I am familiar, have enough caveats and assumptions that such a simple declaration as #7 is unsupportable (without the mays, assumed, caveats, circular reasoning, etc.)
Some quick responses:
#1 – Thousands of scientists agree with this.
I doubt it. If you can find a reputable scientist who will claim outright that “Temperatures are warmer today than ever in history”, I’d like to see a cite. The most current non tree ring reconstruction shows the MWP at 0.3C warmer than 20th century temps.
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
The reconstructions of historic temperature in the last thousand years are based on bad science. Read my site and you’ll find some math demo’s on this (calculations provided).
– You dealt with one of many such reconstructions. Backing such a claim about all such reconstructions is beyond your knowledge, or anyone else’s. In any case, they’re not an overly important piece of the case for AGW.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/
#2 – Pretty close, you just need a slight wording change, You should have said — AGW is now accepted by every government funded scientific organization and national government on earth.
– Making things up is not normally an accepted tactic in scientific debate. The way to prove me wrong is with examples which disprove my statement. I’d be interested in any you have, but beware of non-research front groups:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Industry-funded_organizations
You are also missing the effect of the funding mechanism which drives IPCC science.
– You have not conclusively shown such an effect on the science, nor has anyone else. It’s a conspiracy theory that simply does not stand up to close inspection – a handy dodge made up off the cuff for which there is no empirical evidence of malfeasance.
#3 – Rate of change of historic temp is an unknown, reconstructions are weak and there were no thermometers. Those who say different are not honest or mis-informed. Since we don’t know history you can’t claim this is the fastest change ever.
– Making things up is, once again, not an accepted tactic in serious discussion. Can you prove me wrong? If so, please do. As you might guess, I have plenty of sources to draw from.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=global+warming+rate+of&btnG=Search
#4 – Doesn’t ignore anything about CO2, it simply points out that plants and animals grow better in warm weather.
– No. You didn’t say warmer weather, you said ‘global warming’. Since that’s not the only effect of global warming, #4 is still a red herring.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=200202047371
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/sCO2plants.asp
#5 – The total percent in the atmosphere I have stated is completely true.
– It would be, if you had stated a total percent in the atmosphere. See below.
The questions about the accuracy of historic CO2 numbers are also true. You have misunderstood the number I gave.
– You said, “in the last 100 years it is said that CO2 increased from 270 to 388 parts per million. This is an increase of 0.000118 or 0.0118%.” You may want to rewrite your item, since it says exactly what I understood it to say – that an increase of 270 to 380 is .0118%. I would suggest adding the words “of total atmospheric gases.” In any case, discussing the percentage of total gases is irrelevant to GW theory because the non-anthro gases aren’t changing, and is most likely an attempt at Reductio Ad Absurdum.
#6 – Human CO2 is present in the atmosphere and can be measured. But if you consider that CO2 is continually absorbed and released you must realize that the detection of human CO2 in the atmosphere is independent of the fact that the total concentration change could be natural.
– There is no such fact. Studies have proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that well over 30% of current atmospheric C02 is from fossil carbon. Any claim otherwise is insupportable in the literature and has been for a very long time.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
http://instaar.colorado.edu/sil/research/research_detail.php?research_project_ID=1
Studies which show otherwise are dependent on poorly understood and quantified CO2 cycle. Without accurate quantification of the cycle there can be no determination of what causes a change concentration.
– Again, making things up is not an accepted technique in science.
Whether you agree or not, a great deal of uncertainty exists on this subject or you wouldn’t need those studies right?
– I’m afraid science doesn’t work that way. To make any claim whatsoever, you need proof. That’s why we do studies. Until some study is done, anything is uncertain, including the sun rising in the East.
#7 – Your claim that negative feedbacks are overwhelmed cannot be supported by science.
– Reread – I made no such blanket claim. But you can find the work on reduction of southern ocean CO2 uptake, specifically, for yourself:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=southern+oceans+CO2&btnG=Search
#8 – You made my argument for me — any more than climate scientists would have trouble finding other research subjects. So they simply need to drop their careers and change.
– Can’t even decipher this one. Again, there is no proof offered of bad science being produced because of funding. It’s a made-up objection that ignores the many trillions of dollars at stake on the denialist side.
#9 – Do some research. Look at the replies of the scientists themselves to IPCC report #4.
– I have, and with the exception of a very small number of objectors they do not support your statement. As with everything else I say here, please feel free to prove me wrong. Here you go:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
#10 – Much of it really isn’t science, I have spent quite a bit of time taking apart Mann 08 here. I learned that bad math, combined with bad data was used to intentionally make a hockey stick which is claimed to represent temp.
– The National Academy of Science disagrees. I suggest you publish immediately, particularly in view of your mind-reading skills (see ‘intentionally’, adv.) 😉
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html
Pretty interesting reading, you should check it out.
– You continually impugn my research skills without evidence. Why?
I think you need to spend some time studying the literature on tree rings. My blog here vacillates between math, statistics and politics so you can see some of the results I found. Tree rings are a combination of overlapped signals of which temp is one.
– As you will have seen above, tree rings are only one of many proxies in many reconstructions. What will you do about debunking all the others? Here’s one system using fossil foraminifera:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/forams.htm#N_15_
Last thing for me
you said
“Any money in GW research is dwarfed a thousand times over by the money in oil, coal, and gas. — ”
This is rubbish, if coal, oil and natural gas spent all their profits on global warming research you would have a point. But today, the oil research on this subject is likely dwarfed by tens of thousands or millions to 1 in funding. I dug into the funding for about 8 hours and estimate 100 billion on research in the global warming industry. No way oil spends anywhere near that much.
Since we are discussing the money at stake in each case, your objection doesn’t make any sense. if GW is false, the funding for GW research eventually goes away (and the small number of scientists involved simply go back to long range weather study for the military.) If GW is true, not just the funding, but the oil, coal, and gas industries themselves eventually go away – or are changed radically over time.
Currently I have no faith in your $100 billion figure – the highest estimate I’ve seen so far is six billion. But I reckon more than 100 billion is spent on preventing terrorism from middle eastern oil states. Keyword – oil. 😉
BTW, I’m still waiting to see any evidence of “The scientists who have reached the top of the IPCC are typically far left socialists who support much more than high taxation for global warming.” That’s a good one! =)
CMB wrote a book. I will get to this later if someone doesn’t do it for me, I have to run my company now.
I’ll handle the first one now.
– You dealt with one of many such reconstructions. Backing such a claim about all such reconstructions is beyond your knowledge, or anyone else’s. In any case, they’re not an overly important piece of the case for AGW.
Your are correct. There are several reasonable reconstructions which as far as I can tell are based on weak data. Several conclude warmer temps than today in recent history Your point about it not being an important piece of the AGW case is confusing, Real Climate references have little meaning on this blog you should be very careful when reading there. In the opinion of the Air Vent, they are a political front for bad science such as Mann08 and GISS temperature data.
The counter would be a couple of simple thoughts.
If temps are regularly warmer than today, how can global warming be so disasterous?
If temps are naturally warmer than today we can be sure there is no tipping point.
If we cannot reasonably determine even the temps in the last 2000 years, how do we know that our situation is unprecedented?
I think even you will agree that a substantial amount of AGW dogma revolves around these specific points.
I will consider spending some time looking for references to answer your questions. In the meantime, if someone else wouldn’t mind taking out a few it would be helpful.
John F. Pittman Says:
December 11, 2008 at 11:48 pm
CMB #7 needs a bit more explanation, such as coral formation when CO2 was estimated at 4500+ppm.
I am unable to find any documentation for that claim.
“Rapidly” and “southern ocean close to being overwhelemed” studies that I am aware of included the assumption that the present carbon sinks (such as 46% of ACO2 was absorbed in 1970 decade up to 64% in last few years the data was tabulated) are about saturated and a computer model was used based on this assumption. Also, it was assumed that the CO2 is increasing faster in the present than was believed to have occurred in the past epochs, such that calciforms MAY not be able to adapt.
Those factors don’t seem to be in evidence here:
Click to access 1136188v1.pdf
The papers I am familiar, have enough caveats and assumptions that such a simple declaration as #7 is unsupportable (without the mays, assumed, caveats, circular reasoning, etc.)
Doesn’t look that way from where I sit. I’d certainly be interested in studies that disprove my statement. Some reading in the meantime:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;318/5857/1737
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5716/1725
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14295-corals-join-frogs-and-toads-as-worlds-most-endangered.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100?cookieSet=1
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050124&ct=1
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5820/1811
CMB come on, the links are all titles, abstracts or news articles.
Here’s one which technical people will find more interesting from a link I received this mornign. It’s a bit technical.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html#more
It addresses #7 and #6 as well as your reply above. The issue is more technical than your simple statement –“Studies have proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that well over 30% of current atmospheric C02 is from fossil carbon.” doesn’t have meaning without considering my original point. Without accurate quantification of the cycle there can be no determination of what causes a change concentration. The paper addresses the fallacy of the carbon cycle models and explains the result clearly.
A few quickies:
” There are several reasonable reconstructions which as far as I can tell are based on weak data.”
Easy to say, harder to prove. =)
“Real Climate references have little meaning on this blog you should be very careful when reading there.”
Assumes there’s a problem with RealClimate. There’s not, it’s well sourced.
“If temps are regularly warmer than today, how can global warming be so disasterous?”
Assumes previous warmings were identical to GW.
“If temps are naturally warmer than today we can be sure there is no tipping point.”
Assumes “temps are naturally warmer than today”. After that, Non Sequitur.
“If we cannot reasonably determine even the temps in the last 2000 years, how do we know that our situation is unprecedented?”
Appeal To Ignorance (and ignorance which does not exist, at that.)
http://philosophy.lander.edu/scireas/ignorance.html
Can we be a little more precise here? Again, making things up does not fly.
Jeff Id Says:
“CMB come on, the links are all titles, abstracts or news articles.”
You are not paying attention. They go to peer-reviewed journals, or they reference the results from them.
“Here’s one which technical people will find more interesting from a link I received this mornign. It’s a bit technical.”
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html#more
It’s a k00ky denialist lie blog. However, I must congratulate the author on the number of sources and graphs he uses to bolster his already-debunked points.
“It addresses #7 and #6 as well as your reply above. The issue is more technical than your simple statement –”Studies have proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that well over 30% of current atmospheric C02 is from fossil carbon.” doesn’t have meaning without considering my original point. Without accurate quantification of the cycle there can be no determination of what causes a change concentration. The paper addresses the fallacy of the carbon cycle models and explains the result clearly.”
In fact, it simply lies. But let me quickly ask you – where in the normal carbon cycle will fossil CO2 arise?
The ignorance does exist. You couldn’t have checked the link I gave you it would have taken longer.
Real Climate- Really come on. They are political hacks with the same left wing bias I stated in #10. Sourcing their friends with the same goals has little meaning. Many climatology temp recon papers sort proxy data by correlation, this is clearly and deliberately false. The Real climate group supports these methods (IMO which they know to be false) therefore we are being lied to in this one instance. If they lie once, why would you trust the rest. My conclusion to this is that you don’t have a math background so you don’t understand how far they went with this math and just how certain it is that they know what they did.
If you cannot address my points better than that we won’t get far. i.e. appeal to ignorance. The ignorance is the point of the comment. You appear to have missed that.
Again, making things up does not fly. Is intentionally irritating, if the paper I provided was too mathmatically complex I can find another for you but this isn’t about news articles (links you provided). It is about science and the AGW equations proposed have some serious problems.
Areas with substantial irrecoverable problems include but are not limited to
– CO2 cycle quantification
– Temperature measurement
– Temperature reconstruction
– Climate Modelling – the biggest and most difficult to demo to the public
– Other climatological factors, planetary cycles, magnetics, solar influences, moisture influences (nucleation), CO2 uptake feedbacks …..on and on.
Again, thousands of scientists like myself have reviewed this info and found big holes. The tree reconstructions look deliberate to me. There really isn’t any question in my opinion. This is your Real Climate hacks in action. Until they reject that work or any correlation based proxy sorting they have no credibility here.
Ignorance not only exists, it abounds. Funny that it doesn’t follow supply-demand as it is clearly our most expensive commodity.
CMB
“They go to peer-reviewed journals”
Some links go to the front page of a site which contains articles. It is pretty hard to see your point by a title.
Here’s one of your links – “Subscribe/Join AAAS or Buy Access to This Article to View Full Text. ”
It’s hard to make an argument from that statement. Have you read the article? Perhaps a synopsis of the result would give us something to work with.
I agree that there’s not a lot of point continuing if you are simply going to make up every point out of whole cloth with no forethought or corroboration whatsoever.
Enjoy operating within the gaps while you can, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory goes up in a few months. =)
Jeff Id Says:
December 12, 2008 at 8:02 pm
CMB
“They go to peer-reviewed journals”
Some links go to the front page of a site which contains articles. It is pretty hard to see your point by a title.
Here’s one of your links – “Subscribe/Join AAAS or Buy Access to This Article to View Full Text. ”
– If your institution does not have access, all you have to do is say so.
Your arguments are breaking down.
– It’s a k00ky denialist lie blog. – Disagreement is not an argument
– In fact, it simply lies. But let me quickly ask you – where in the normal carbon cycle will fossil CO2 arise? – Normal or not normal (which I think you mean 100% non-human) is not the argument. The argument is at what rate is Earth’s natural feedback is collecting this CO2, whether this CO2 will lead to global warming and what degree of warming do we expect.
Also lie implies intent to deceive, you need to meet a much higher standard than disagreement to state “lied”. I would appreciate that reasonable terminology be used for the situation. If you believe that Mann08 intentionally distorted the data “lied” is appropriate. I would recommend some disqualifies to prevent libel suits.
BTW, I thought we weren’t making things up.
You should open your mind to the possibility that some of us skeptics are not crazy hacks with no understanding of science. We actually understand the data and methods. As I said before, there are serious problems.
Enjoy operating within the gaps while you can, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory goes up in a few months.
Again, you misunderstand me. I am hopeful that more questions will be answered and don’t deny anywhere that AGW may exist. I do deny that we know how much exists and what the future holds.
I don’t have time right now to look up articles for you. Perhaps this evening I will get time.
Jeff Id Says:
Again, you misunderstand me. I am hopeful that more questions will be answered and don’t deny anywhere that AGW may exist. I do deny that we know how much exists and what the future holds.
– OK, I’ll bite. I looked over your myths page, and your Mann treatment, and the page titles for the rest of your blog. It all appears uniformly dismissive of AGW. Yet, you claim not to be a denialist. Just out of curiosity, where on your blog do you post information that backs up AGW theory instead – and say so?
This blog started at the end of august. I have covered a few subjects, energy, temp reconstructions, news articles, and IPCC politics. Throuought the comment threads I have uniformly stated that debunking one item or another doesn’t disprove AGW. I would be surprised if AGW didn’t exist at some level, perhaps even worse than papers state but it doesn’t make sense from the data standpoint. So far every and I mean every single piece of evidence for extremist AGW has been so full of ASW@# that I haven’t been able to lay a better foothold on what is really happening in weather.
The models I have looked at are oversimplified bunk, the reconstructions are weak, the scientists are on occasion dishonest, the politicians have their hands in the science, temp measurements are unworkably bad and yet there are no calls for improvement, sea level rise estimates are exaggerated, acidity effects are exaggerated, CO2 feedback isn’t rationally considered. Every mistake is in a single uniform direction — AGW and one uniform source behind the trend the UN.
I started studying this science before my blog looking for answers. I still haven’t found them. I have found what I believe is a great deal of corruption in this science.
OK, well, I’m out. If you ever feel like dropping in to alt.global-warming, see you there.
From “”Thermal Stress and Coral Cover as Drivers of Coral Disease Outbreaks “”
Little is known about the etiology of white syndrome, although it is presumably infectious and the characteristics are similar to Caribbean white diseases such as white band and white plague [36].
From the one with more than a title. The paper purports to make a claim about temperature increasing the liklihood of disease, but authors do not reliably know what caused the disease. CMB thinks this adresses my concerns about reliability of alarmist claims?
John F. Pittman Says:
December 13, 2008 at 1:40 pm
From “”Thermal Stress and Coral Cover as Drivers of Coral Disease Outbreaks “”
Little is known about the etiology of white syndrome, although it is presumably infectious and the characteristics are similar to Caribbean white diseases such as white band and white plague [36].
From the one with more than a title.
– I didn’t post any links that only go to titles for me. They go to relevant scientific papers. If you do not have access to articles, how is it you claim to have knowledge of the field?
The paper purports to make a claim about temperature increasing the liklihood of disease, but authors do not reliably know what caused the disease. CMB thinks this adresses my concerns about reliability of alarmist claims?
– You haven’t said why that is a problem. The same was true for the invention of the Smallpox vaccine. Given that they found a strong relationship, why is it a problem? Do you suspect leprechauns instead?
Myth 11,
Global ice is melting.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/glolbal-sea-ice-increased-over-28-years/
CMB I claimed the knowledge of what I had read, not what you linked. They can be different.
Of the article quoted, the article and some of the referenced articles went into detail of what was known and unknown. Although I appreciate the honesty of the authors, don’t know means don’t know. Also, correlation is not causation. Your leprechaun comment was uncalled for. Some potential items listed were predation by other species (possibility was assumed for more temperature tolerant species), pollution, and other factors. So, looking at potential reasons, claiming it is only or even mainly temperature is not supported. That it may be temperature is supportable. It may be something else. As the authors stated and I quoted “Little is known about the etiology of white syndrome”. The smallpox vaccine was shown to work and cause determined. The article states “etiology” has not been determined.
OK I read through the whole thread with interest. I am not a scientist but I pay a lot of attention to this subject. I am naturally a skeptic, principally as a result of the 70’s global cooling scare (which essentially the same group of scients got wrong as well), and the financial interest of those such as Gore who stand to gain a ton of money by promoting AGW doesn’t help their case, in my mind. Add to that the projections of the IPCC that have not come to pass, their outright exaggerations (sea level rises measured over the next 100 years in meters, now downgraded to less than 2 feet), the fact that temperatures have fallen since 2001 despite increasing levels of CO2 etc…
Again, not being a scientist I was intrigued by CWB’s question “where in the normal carbon cycle will fossil CO2 arise”. My question to that is, what difference does it make, where the CO2 came from? By definition CO2 is two atoms of Oxygen bonded to one of Carbon. Its half life should be the same regardless of from where it came…
BillR Says:
December 16, 2008 at 4:10 am
OK I read through the whole thread with interest. I am not a scientist but I pay a lot of attention to this subject. I am naturally a skeptic, principally as a result of the 70’s global cooling scare (which essentially the same group of scients got wrong as well),
– I’m afraid not. It was a small story, amplified by bad press coverage, most notably in in Newsweek.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/global-cooling-again/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
and the financial interest of those such as Gore who stand to gain a ton of money by promoting AGW doesn’t help their case, in my mind.
– In fact, it is irrelevant when compared to the amount of money driving the fossil fuel denialist industry.
Add to that the projections of the IPCC that have not come to pass,
– Ah, but they have come to pass and then some.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.html
their outright exaggerations (sea level rises measured over the next 100 years in meters, now downgraded to less than 2 feet),
– How is refining the scenarios an indication of exaggeration? Exaggeration is deliberate misstatement.
the fact that temperatures have fallen since 2001 despite increasing levels of CO2 etc…
– In fact, they haven’t, except for the last two years’ PDO/La Nina.
Again, not being a scientist I was intrigued by CWB’s question “where in the normal carbon cycle will fossil CO2 arise”. My question to that is, what difference does it make, where the CO2 came from? By definition CO2 is two atoms of Oxygen bonded to one of Carbon. Its half life should be the same regardless of from where it came…
– The difference it makes where the CO2 came from is simple – non-fossil CO2 does not add to the total amount in circulation. For instance, burning wood simply releases CO2 the wood took up a few years or decades ago. My point was that isotopic studies have proven conclusively and repeatedly that well over 30% of our current atmospheric CO2 is from fossil fuel sources, but our author still wants to talk about 100% natural CO2. =)
ok
well after watching (politician)Al Gore’s film, I was quite convinced we were all going to Hell in the handbasket but after watching the following films free on Utube: Alex Jone’s EndGame Film, The Ring of Power Film by AmenStop Productions, The Obama Deception, The Zeitgeist Addendum Film, The Zeitgeiest Movement Orientation Film it seems to me that believing in global warming the way it is being advocated might be similar to believing in the solid science behind something as asinine as Eugenics.
I still want an electric car -now.
Your responses to these so-called “myths” are full of fallacies
Myth #1 –
Strawman. What is being said is that the INCREASE in temp due to CO2 increase is unprecedented over this short period of time
Myth #2 –
Just because the majority of orgs are governmental doesn’t make that biased. NASA and National Academies of Sciences are renown orgs with much reputation to lose if they’re wrong. What reputation do YOU have?.
Myth #3 –
You too have very little evidence to support the opposite.
Myth #4 –
So we should pollute more, burn even more fossil fuels to have more vegetation? Please. It is the EXCESS of CO2 coming from industrial waste that is the problem.
Myth #5 –
Another strawman. See above
Myth #6 –
There si a strong correlation between increase in human activity and increase in CO2. Correlation is not causation
Myth #7 –
Strawman again. The point is critical levels of CO2 and their effects, not whether it could rise “indefinitely”.
Myth #8 –
Bashing the IPCC doesn’t address its arguments. I could by the same token accuse you of being bought by Big Oil and not bother addressing your post.
Myth #9 –
If scientists are being dismissed, why on earth do they bother signing international petitions warning against man-made GW?
Why did the National academies of Sciences of 27 countries sign the 2007 petition? Are the NASA articles written by politicians?
Myth #10 –
Much of the same useless bashing than myth 8. “Far left socialists”? LOL.
GW skeptics like to picture themselves as “Galileo Galileis” persecuted by the almighty Church of GW.
However that skeptic minority is divided between No GW/ Natural GW/ beneficial GW etc..No consistency whatsoever.
#1, What I being pointed out here is that the temperatures had to be higher in recent times by historical evidence and no tipping point was crossed. We all know the rate of change argument which is different but nobody really knows.
#2 This simply points out the consensus doesn’t exist.
#3 There is a ton of evidence that no massive CO2 release was recorded and additional evidence that the glaciers melted in this timeframe. You are incorrect.
#4 You actually nailed my opinion down perfectly. If the we burn fossil fuel, the one certainty is that we WILL get more vegetation and food. If the warming by CO2 is actually significant, it will probably be beneficial to our society. This is something I’ve not written before but I fully believe. There is evidence of this in the historical records as compared to temp proxies.
#5 You could be right and I expected some disagreement but there are wide variations in the recent (50 years ago) measured historic CO2 values.
#6 This is confusing as you appear to be arguing with yourself. I don’t get it.
#7 It’s just conjecture on my part. It makes you wonder though.
#8 The IPCC was formed with 3 premises, find if man is changing climate, find if it is dangerous, and find what we can do. If they did not find man changing climate- they cease to exist. If they did not find it dangerous, no money for them and they cease to exist. If we can’t fix the problem there’s no money and they cease to exist. If the fix is cheap and easy, the change would be made and they cease to exist.
When the 3 premises of this now multi-billion dollar organization with a budget larger than some countries was formed, it was a clear self feeding mechanism to grow a massive government. Naturally and quite predictably they found climate change Real, Severe and Expensive.
#9 Why do they bother signing petitions either way. My own name is on a list of 30,000. Many Scientists argued with the exaggerated characterization of the IPCC on their own papers. Several to the point of resigning when they realized the IPCC wasn’t listening.
My opinion is that they didn’t understand point 8
10 The IPCC is headed by what can only be described as far left socialists. All solutions are government based and all solutions require massive regulation and taxation. Cap and trade is included in that but only a leftist would miss that cap and trade is a government run money and power based scam.
I’m basically a lukewarmer but am even skeptical about that, warming could be more or less. My opinion is we just don’t know and have no control either way.
i learned in biology class about 6 years ago that CO2 comprises 0.03 of the air we breath in. Nitrogen 78%, Oxygen 21% and the remainder trace gases. If so much CO2 is being emitted/accumulating in the atmosphere each year, then surely it makes up more now than a measly 0.03%? I’m confused!
380 parts per million today from a claimed yet still questionable number of 280. It’s building very slowly.
I came here to track down the origins of something that someone had copy/paste posting elsewhere … wow! How depressing.
Thankyou Cmb! Your patience and skillful explanations was nice to read. I am distressed that seemingly normal, literate and intelligent people would still argue something like Myth#6. That these people have never heard of – or just dont believe in – isotopic analysis, leaves me truly confused, and terrified. These people vote!
Most of these points are classic climate crocks – they could be convincing to the science illiterate, or those that desperately must believe in a Grand Conspiracy. A good chance they will be religious right, or hard-core commie-hating nationalists – both impervious to reason.
Anthony,
I have read several critiques of the CO2 isotope analyses. Like many things in climate, it isn’t as clean as it seems.
Do you have a source for the 6GT figure? I am trying to do a project on CO2 changes in the atmosphere.
Sorry Sarah, It was years ago when I wrote this. I think you can find a number of references – though they will vary.
The usual source is this figure from IPCC AR4 WG1. It is important to distinguish between Gt of carbon (as this figure uses) and Gt of CO2 which is used elsewhere. 1GtC = 3.67 GtCO2.
I understand that the oceans and biomass hold a considerable amount of CO2, however they hold it, they don’t release large amounts of it into the atmosphere. How can you be confidant that the oceans and biomass are absorbing all of the 6 gigatons that are put into the 720 gigaton atmosphere? If the CO2 concentration does increase slightly, how can you be sure that won’t have any effect? Lastly, you seem to have strong political opinions about the largest political party that seems to disagree with your thoughts. How do we know that your conformation bias isn’t affecting the way you interpret the information you’ve found. Nice job on the facts, however I feel like you are misleading people by injecting bits of your personal bias into the list.
The CO2 rise is primarily human driven. I figured it out after this post but the isotope data is pretty clear. I wish I could correct it but one thing I’ve been consistent on is not changing the record of what I have written.
Regarding the politics, being a liberal or conservative certainly wouldn’t improve anyone’s ability to interpret facts. They are separate from science. From your comments, I would ask you what about the information promulgated by the overwhelmingly liberal IPCC, a division of a large socialist political organization, would give you comfort?
Oh, and on the other question. What makes me sure that CO2 won’t have any effect? It absolutely will have an effect and it seems pretty clear that CO2 has had an effect. We have experienced minor warming to date and some of that is absolutely CO2 based. The effect could be very small (smaller than the temp rise measured) or it could larger and be being suppressed by some other factor.
Nobody really knows. Several recent papers have been quite clear on that point.
What is also clear:
Climate models are warming about 2-4X faster than observations.
Warming has produced no detectable trends in hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, or other weather extremes. Many “scientists” from a certain political spectrum have been quite thoroughly dishonest about this known FACT.
Beneficial effects on plant growth have been detected.
Sea ice is not “vanishing” at the expected rates.
The Antarctic ice is not melting at the expected rates.
The Antarctic is not warming at modeled rates.
Basically the historic temperatures prior to thermometers are unknown to the accuracy required to make claims that we are experiencing unprecedented warming. Hockey stick papers of historic temp are not scientifically viable for a number of reasons. In addition, the warming we have experienced is minor and well off of climate model predictions.
Not one bit of it looks in any way dangerous or even concerning to an objective observer but that kind of story doesn’t pay the bills at the IPCC.
Notice Jeff sites information from .com websites rather than .gov or .org in his arguments with CMB. You also say that you “don’t have time to look up articles,” when you clearly have time to write all of this. I can pull shit out of my ass all day long from .com websites, but please show me ONE SINGLE peer reviewed journal that supports your bogus claims.
You’re just like this lady I just dealt with who sincerely believed that since CNN.com says electromagnetic fields from your wireless router are carcinogenic, then wireless routers must cause cancer. You represent the very opposite of science and should be ashamed to call yourself a scientist.
I can’t even figure out what you are saying. Because someone listened to CNN, I did something wrong?
There are plenty of journal articles which support what I have written, I will do the research for YOU on any ONE you pick out. I will cite journal articles though and they may or may not have your particularly amusing preference for .gov on them.
The fun part of all of this is that the claims I make above are part of the conclusions of a great number of papers. By the time it passes through the IPCC and media to the public, the message gets so twisted that people who don’t read the papers think these are the unreasonable claims and the claims that we are going to drown in ocean water are the reasonable ones.
There are some newer studies by the same authors as those published before 2008 and cited here circa 2008. Those newer studies seem to reflect conclusions different than the ones you assert here. I recommend that people who are interested do their own searches on the subjects discussed on this forum.
Can you be more specific as to which study is so revealing?
“Myth #6 – CO2 rise was created by man.
While this makes sense at first, the jury is still out on this conclusion as well. The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere…”
Atmosphere, Sir 😉
Great synopsis.
Crazy spelling aside, I’m convinced that the CO2 rise is pretty well determined to be caused by man. I type fast, and didn’t spell check well despite the big red lines which show under the words.
The isotopic ratios as well as the monotonic increase have this particular fact fully nailed down. The stuff humans release is collecting – very slowly — in the atmosphere.
Quick answer. It’s risen by almost half. It is now over 0.04%. That is enough to keep the heat in.
In the morning, put your face directly in the sun – it’s cool. At noon put your face directly in the sun – it’s hot. The difference is that in the morning the sunlight passes through a longer column of air than at noon. The CO2 in the path absorbs the warmth. Same effect with heat getting out of the earth. CO2 absorbs the warmth and keeps the heat in. The more CO2 – the more the heat is kept in. That’s why we’re warming.
Full answer:
download the graph:
Above is the short term record of CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s where the CO2 does the warming. The annual up and downs are summer – when a lot of CO2 is taken in by growing plants in Northern hemisphere. And in winter where the litter continues to decay, putting CO2 back into the atmosphere. Note that these annual excursions are larger than the net annual rise – that may be where the guy gets his fraction.
These are actual measurements made in Hawaii on top of their highest volcano (Mauna Loa). It’s way in the middle of the Pacific ocean, so not disturbed by nearby cities. I can send you records taken by different organizations at North Pole, South Pole – many other places. They all look the same.
==============
download the graph:
Above is the long term record from CO2 measured in atmosphere and from air bubbles preserved in Antarctic ice cores. Rise starts at industrial revolution (late 1700s) when coal burning starts. It continues with coal and oil. Also a serious contribution from deforestation from agriculture to feed the exploding population. We are putting so much extra into the atmosphere that the CO2 level has increased from about 275 to 405. about a 50% rise.
It’s the amount of CO2 in atmosphere that sets earth’s temperature. We are massively screwing that up.
Although the Australian doesn’t give a source for his numbers, he is probably confusing gross emissions with net.
When a leaf or a branch or a tree falls down and decays – it gives back all the CO2 that was in its wood, leafs, etc. This is a big amount. But when another tree grows to take its place, that CO2 is taken back in. Over the long term, the amount of CO2 held in plants is constant.
A forest will absorb CO2 during the day to make sugar and cellulose. But it gives it back at night as its cells keep burning sugar and using that energy. Also when its leaves, branches fall off (or the whole tree dies and falls) decomposition gives back ALL the CO2 that was incorporated while it was growing. If a forest is not growing, (increasing biomass), then it does it does NOT produce or absorb any net CO2, also NO net O2.
The exception is when humans cut down a forest to graze cattle or grow food. Then all the CO2 that was in the trees goes into the atmosphere.
For many millennia, the earth’s CO2 was in balance. Humans are now dumping extra CO2 into the atmosphere and, unlike a forest, are not capturing any of it back.
In the morning, put your face directly in the sun – it’s cool. At noon put your face directly in the sun – it’s hot. The difference is that in the morning the sunlight passes through a longer column of air than at noon. The CO2 in the path absorbs the warmth. Same effect with heat getting out of the earth. CO2 absorbs the warmth and keeps the heat in. That’s why we’re warming.
The deniers are either totally ignorant and confused themselves – or political hacks purposely putting out disinformation.
Bob
======================================================
Don’t mistake us for deniers. I’m tired of the absolutes by those who are certain that CO2 is a control knob. It’s partly why I don’t write much anymore.
The oceans energy capacity overwhelms any energy calculation anyone has produced. A thousand years of global warming DOOM! will warm the oceans 1 C – to about 4C, just above freezing.
Yes CO2 is increasing due to evil humans. Yes it is a very very small amount of CO2, and yes it does cause warming.
But NO it is not dangerous, it is quite a mild effect and actually highly beneficial. Those who buy the hype of planetary doom from the very basic physics are the ignorant.
Okay, several questions:
How much water is there and how much does it retain heat?
What is the warming by CO2 and H2O?
I think these questions might shed some light.
Human activity contributes 0.83% of atmospheric CO2, but if 90% (for example, I don’t know) of the warming depends on water, our contribution would represent only 0.083%. Starting from the hypothesis that 90% of the heat retained by H2O is fine, we would still contribute 0.083% to the effect (in reality, it is assumed that half is reabsorbed, so in reality it would be 0.0416%)