Pajamas Media

137 Comments

1. BPT (Australia):

Here’s Professor Ian Plimer in an explosive new book, Heaven + Earth (Global Warming: The Missing Science): “By ad hominem attacks on those who disagree, the gains made in the Enlightenment are abandoned in pursuit of a political cause.” Or in this case, Gore’s green religion.

May 1, 2009 - 1:37 am 2. Ricky H:

Perhaps the tide is slowly beginning to turn (no sea-level pun intended).

May 1, 2009 - 3:15 am 3. Boris:

“global warming advocates are reluctant to provide any venue for their “science” to be subject to scrutiny or debate.”

It’s called the scientific literature. The “skeptics” lost that debate.

Deniers have an advantage in a public debate, because they can tell a lie in five seconds and it takes ten minutes to explain why it’s a lie.

Nobody is scared of Wagner. His presentation is a pile of crap. He thinks that 1934 is the warmest year and that warming on Neptune means there has been an increase in solar output. He thinks the CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from the oceans and not fossil fuels.

Of course, most of the posters here believe the same stupid things. Because you are smarter than actual scientists, right guys?

May 1, 2009 - 4:06 am 4. freetoken:

Is the Patrick Poole who authored this PJM article the same Patrick Poole who was promoting the efforts of the Discovery Institute in this blog:
http://www.patrickpoole.com/2005/11/pale-blue-dot-or-privileged-planet.html
?

If so, it makes sense that the same author here is so willing to denigrate scientists who work in climatology.

May 1, 2009 - 4:23 am 5. rja:

Its the usual politics, if you can’t prove it with science, make sure the other guy doesn’t get the chance to disprove you with science.

May 1, 2009 - 4:44 am 6. Paul -Indiana:

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

Go to this site and you’ll find real evidence of the sun’s influence on earth’s climate. You can use Algore’s internet to get this data.

May 1, 2009 - 5:12 am 7. Robert Wagner:

More about the presentation can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/CO2islife

Also if you would like to schedule an event you can do it through Dirk Thompson by sending him an e-mail:
dirkthompson@610wtvn.com
or
me@DirkThompson.com.

Here is his website as well as a way to download the presentation.
http://www.wtvn.com/pages/pp_dirkthompson.html

May 1, 2009 - 5:37 am 8. Bruce:

BS! Nothing will change. The rabbits on the right have abdicated any credibility by their silence. The academicians haven’t studied science since the early 60s, if then. What could they possibly understand of an opposition argument.
Too late, guys. Time to just get out.

May 1, 2009 - 5:49 am 9. Skip:

Please drop the “skeptic” label. The term is pejorative and minimizes the views of those who oppose the global warming crowd.

May 1, 2009 - 5:54 am 10. Dash RIPROCK III:

I had the good fortune to attend a Christopher Monckton presentation Tuesday night. It is easy to see why Al Gore is afraid of him. He
Monckton) is a very honsest man on a genuine mission to spread the truth.

He didn’t even tell people that he has a DVD for sale on the Science and Public Policy website. He has no connections to big oil or coal. He is
obviously isn’t doing this for the money. Lord knows that can’t be said
of Gore who stands to make a billion if cap and trade lesgislation goes through in the U.S. Monckton said during the presentation that Gore told the committee last Friday that if Monckton showed up, he wouldn’t. Gore has been running from Monckton for years. As I said, it’s with good reason.

Monckton would tear Gore apart in a one on one debate. Anyone who doubts Monckton’s abilities should view Apocalypse? No! which is a tape of a presentation he made at Cambridge.

His presentation Tuesday is still available for free online:

http://yct.tamu.edu/

You can also view Monckton’s review of
the 35 errors in Gore’s Sci-Fi Comedy Horry: An Inconvenient
Truth on my website:

http://www.hootervillegazette.com/AlGoreTheater.html

May 1, 2009 - 6:05 am 11. asdf:

Ok Boris, if co2 drives temperature and they say if we go above 1000ppm they we will turn the planet into a sauna yet ice core samples show for ie, that in the ordivician era the co2 was 4400ppm yet it durring and ice age. What say you asshat?

May 1, 2009 - 6:52 am 12. Robert Wagner:

Boris: “Nobody is scared of Wagner. His presentation is a pile of crap. He thinks that 1934 is the warmest year”

OK, Boris, please explain this:

Chart #1:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg

Chart #2:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/images/usa-temps-1895-2006b.jpg

Chart #3:
http://climateresearchnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/uah_lt_since_19791.jpg

As you can see global SURFACE temperature measures show a steep incline since 1980. Problem is that data is garbage and everyone know it, and it is well documented.
http://www.surfacestations.org/

Now, take a look at the US data. 1934 is in fact the warmest year, especially if you use the “unadjusted” temp data.
http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/adjustments.gif

Most damning however is that satellite data is by far the most accurate means of measurement, and it is CONFIRMED by balloon measurements. If you look at the satellite there has been no net warming over the past 30 years. Combine that chart with the Global surface chart, and you see that 1943 is in fact the warmest year. The only way 1934 isn’t the warmest is if you 100% ignore the most accurate measurements out there, which is purely junk science and cherry picking the faulty data set to make your point. That is like continuing to use a stopwatch and eyes, when radar is available. Science simply doesn’t exist that way, every good field of science uses the most recent, accurate and current measurement method. Continuing to use surface station data proves this is junk science. BTW, the man that controls the data for NASA, Jim Hansen, is a far left wing political activist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPCFx1fMBeI

May 1, 2009 - 6:55 am 13. Robert Wagner:

Boris, this chart shows temperature and CO2 going back 650 million years, yes, 650 million years.

http://csccc.fcpp.org/files/f13.jpg

CO2 ranges from 7000 PPM to 200 PPM, at no time does elevated CO2 lead to temperatures above 22 degrees C. Over the past 650 million years, not once can you point to CO2 causing catastrophic temperature increases, even when CO2 is 20 time higher than it is today. Problem is the IPCC charts themselves disprove the CO2 drives temp theory. Many many many times you have very high CO2 and temperatures FALL, even Al Gore’s own chart proves that.

May 1, 2009 - 7:00 am 14. G Alston:

Boris — It’s called the scientific literature. The “skeptics” lost that debate.

Ahhh, the old cite count argument from authority rears its ugly little head once again.

When publications are being run by true believers it’s a bit difficult to get skeptical stuff published. We all know this is true because McIntyre, who is not a skeptic, plays hell getting papers published because he’s *perceived* as a skeptic. He’s not the only one.

You may as well argue for Wiki cites as well. Oh, crap, I forgot that all dissenting wiki opinion is wiped out by Team Stick member William Connelly as soon as it gets added. Never mind.

May 1, 2009 - 7:14 am 15. Robert Wagner:

Another problem you “believers” have, is that new research points to cleaner air being the cause of global warming, which allows more sunlight to reach earth’s surface.

Boffins: Atlantic temperature ruled by dust, not CO2
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/27/atlantic_dust_temp_hurricane_study/

May 1, 2009 - 7:14 am 16. James:

BORIS: My best friend since childhood is a leading climatologist. He received his undergraduate degree from Yale. His doctoral work was completed at two prestigous American and Canadian Universities. He has consulted NASA and the US military. He holds a position as a professor at an Ivy League University and teaches part-time at several well known schools, such as Rutgers, West Point, and Syracuse. He has made no fewer than 12 trips to the Artic for studies. I have spent hours discussing “global warming” and climate change with him. I know a few things from these discussions: 1) there is no “concensus” among scientists that man’s behavior is causing any change in the climate; 2) There’s not even a concensus that the Earth is “warming”, 3) There have been extreme, quick changes in our weather and environment as far back as science can tell, that had nothing to do with man, including a “mini-ice age” that took place in the early half of the last century and almost devestated Europe, 4) World wide weather patterns over time are actually difficult to gauge, but that the information we have shows a general cooling over the last 10 years or so, thus the need to change the lingo from “global warming” to “climate change”, 5) That professors and scientists who openly challenge the politically correct line are almost to a man (or woman) ridiculed, ostracized, taken off career paths, or out-right fired (my friend is tenured and cannot be fired). My question for you is this: in believing the myth that man is the cause of non-existent global warming, are you just willfully ignorant or are you intentionally perpetrating a lie?

May 1, 2009 - 7:37 am 17. Boris:

“What say you asshat?”

I say GFY.

May 1, 2009 - 7:38 am 18. G Alston:

#12 — As you can see global SURFACE temperature measures show a steep incline since 1980. Problem is that data is garbage and everyone know it, and it is well documented.

What surfacestations shows is that UHI is real enough and that land use influences temps, NOT that the data is garbage. The temps *are* up where the measurements show they are. You’re better off arguing the constant back adjustments from GISS if you want to claim surface data is garbage.

#15 — Another problem you “believers” have, is that new research points to cleaner air being the cause of global warming, which allows more sunlight to reach earth’s surface.

Referring to people who accept the basics of the consensus as “believers” (including scare quotes) is silly. If you’re a credible skeptic then you have no need for revival tent histrionics.

There *is* a middle ground here. One can accept the obvious, that man affects his environment one way or another, and then argue along the lines of ROI re mitigation options. i.e. you can agree that man has an effect but it’s small enough to not be worth wrecking the economy. This is rational. The stance you appear to be taking isn’t skepticism, but denial. That’s not very clever given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. All this does is make your argument seem irrational.

May 1, 2009 - 7:45 am 19. Robert Wagner:

Here is a video of Freeman Dyson whose credentials blow away anything in the climate “science” crowd and certainly Al Gore. Liberals are simply choosing to accept junk science, it is a religion.

Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 1of2 Bogus Climate Models
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU

May 1, 2009 - 7:49 am 20. asdf:

Boris:
HAHAHAHA position so weak it can not withstand debate?

G Alston:
How are facts concerning concentrations of co2 and their relationship to temp denial?

May 1, 2009 - 8:00 am 21. Boris:

“OK, Boris, please explain this:

Chart #1:”

Chart #1 clearly shows 1934 is not even close to the warmest year.

Chart #2 shows US temperature. There’s a reason we call it global warming, you know?

Chart #3 shows satellite temps as reported by UAH. There is no 1934 on that graph. (also, who drew the line on that graph. It’s some kind of polynomial fit? What’s the justification, besides a desire to overemphasize endpoints?)

Result: 1934 was not the warmest year globally. Not even close. You are wrong.

“As you can see global SURFACE temperature measures show a steep incline since 1980. Problem is that data is garbage and everyone know it, and it is well documented.”

Where is it documented? What is the quantitative effect? What are the confidence intervals on the effect?

“Most damning however is that satellite data is by far the most accurate means of measurement, and it is CONFIRMED by balloon measurements. If you look at the satellite there has been no net warming over the past 30 years.”

This is an outright falsehood.

RSS gets a trend of 0.15C/decade
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
UAH gets a trend of 0.13C/decade
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

“Combine that chart with the Global surface chart, and you see that 1943 is in fact the warmest year.”

Completely untrue. You probably neglected to account for the different baselines for the data sets. Sloppy, sloppy.

“Continuing to use surface station data proves this is junk science.”

Nonsense. There have been far more problems and corrections with the satellite data. And you have at least four groups who analyze the same satellite data and get widely different results.

I predict you will get buried in this debate.

May 1, 2009 - 8:05 am 22. Boris:

“HAHAHAHA position so weak it can not withstand debate?”

Why debate an a**hole?

May 1, 2009 - 8:07 am 23. cirby:

G Alston:
“What surfacestations shows is that UHI is real enough and that land use influences temps, NOT that the data is garbage.”

Actually, if you look at the way temperature measuring sites have been allowed to deteriorate and change, it pretty much does show that the data is garbage. More than two-thirds of all US surface temperature measuring sites currently have either a man-made heat source close by (air conditioner, et cetera) or are above a roof or concrete/asphalt surface. Only about 11% of current surface temp stations follow guidelines on location and setup – and those stations don’t seem to show the anomalies in temperature that afflict the rest of the system…

May 1, 2009 - 8:11 am 24. DanW:

As a scientist I am not amused by those who say that climate science is resolved. The debate rages on. Only this week we have learned that the historic variation of the Arctic ice sheet is much greater than previously thought.

I am particularly disturbed that any scientific objection to global warming is blasted as not peer reviewed when in fact it is peer review in itself.

May 1, 2009 - 8:13 am 25. MikeD:

“I say GFY.”

Boris reduces himself to his pure essence: no evidence, no intellectual leg to stand on, no class.

May 1, 2009 - 8:17 am 26. Robert Wagner:

G Alston: “What surfacestations shows is that UHI is real enough and that land use influences temps, NOT that the data is garbage. The temps *are* up where the measurements show they are. You’re better off arguing the constant back adjustments from GISS if you want to claim surface data is garbage.”

Your comment demonstrates a complete ignorance of the topic. We are talking about the relationship between CO2 and temperature. The CO2 level is identical at both those locations. There is no argument that land use changes can alter LOCAL climate, but it has absolutely nothing what so ever about CO2. They are using DATA that you yourself argue reflects LOCAL land use changes to argue GLOBAL warming due to CO2. You just made my point. The data is junk, biased and being used in totally inappropriate ways to prove something it isn’t capable of proving.

My comment about believes is to differentiate them for true science which is characterized by SKEPTICISM. The tyranny of the status quo is the trademark of any real science. Scientists are skeptics, that is our job.

http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/Pasour%20Intellectual%20Tyranny%20April%202004.pdf

May 1, 2009 - 8:17 am 27. trapper:

Any of human knowledge must always be open to revision by those with different interpretations and points of view, including the AGW position. The most disturbing aspect of this controversy is the refusal of the AGW proponents to allow for possibility of their error–if so they would be the first humans ever to be infallible.
And it is intolerable that AGW proponents try to destroy the careers of those who disagree with them.

May 1, 2009 - 8:22 am 28. asdf:

Boris:
Still no answer for the Ordivician era huh? Facts make people assholes? In that case you as far from an asshole as anyone in the universe.

May 1, 2009 - 8:25 am 29. Robert Wagner:

Surface stations is the most inconsistent data set ever assembled. Watch this video and remember that they construct a continuous data set from these highly variable weather stations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSRNeGFN2lE

Clearly temperatures measured in 1900 using this method are not related to temperatures measured in 2000, and yet you are told they are related. That is absurd.

May 1, 2009 - 8:26 am 30. David W. Lincoln:

Leave it to those who copiously imbibe the koolaid of kyoto to spout their nonsense, when they are alone on their podium. But, when someone who arrives at the other conclusion is to be on the stage at the same time as they are – they run and hide.

More proof that the protocols of the elders of zion has just as little credibility, as those who copiously imbibe the koolaid of kyoto.

May 1, 2009 - 8:28 am 31. D-wah:

#1.BPT–nice one! Tx

This excerpt typifies the fascist nature of this global warming fraud:

“Wagner said. “I had to agree to all of his debate terms, including providing him copies of my presentation beforehand while not allowing me to see his, but it was so surprising that anyone would agree to appear publicly that I jumped at the chance.”

Way to go! Pop their phony bubble!

May 1, 2009 - 8:37 am 32. Boris:

“Still no answer for the Ordivician era huh?”

The Ordovician period was warm, genius. Also, use more verbs.

May 1, 2009 - 8:38 am 33. Stephen Shore:

I don’t pretend to know much about global warming either way, but if global warming is real, and the skeptics win the worldwide crowd, it will be the fault of the pro-GW scientists for pushing “real people” to the side rather than addressing their very real questions and concerns.

Here’s what I mean… I’ve been reading these kinds of articles lately, and I’ve noticed two things:

1) the climate guys always come off as really arrogant (and human nature will push people into not liking them or what they say because of it — love it or hate it; that’s just the way it is)

2) Ad hominem attacks abound on both sides, but ESPECIALLY from the pro-global warming people. By not addressing the questionable parts of GW, the push people even further away.

[Ad Hominem attack - Replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.]

Like I said, I don’t know much about all this stuff, but after reading everything over the last few weeks, most of the pro-GW people are a bit irritating, not the least bit humble, and it makes me less and less willing to listening to them.

So pro-GW people, stop being mean, and begin debating the issue.

Kudos to Dr. Box for being willing to debate, even though he is acting like an arrogant SOB in the process.

May 1, 2009 - 8:45 am 34. G Alston:

#23 — Only about 11% of current surface temp stations follow guidelines on location and setup – and those stations don’t seem to show the anomalies in temperature that afflict the rest of the system…

But they do. One case in N.M. was rather interesting; a rural station sited correctly etc showed near constant temps when the land was ranchland. Then it was used as farmland and temps seemed to go up (tracking humidity.) When it reverted later back to ranchland the temps went back down again. Provenance is worth a great deal (when it can be had, that is.)

There are other cases where the siting seems to not track UHI but the temps seemed to vary based on the proximity of forest and/or farmland.

When I said “land use” I did in fact mean “land use.”

This seems to be the ultimate value of the surfacestations project. In claiming that the temp data is garbage, you’re also claiming that the discernable effects re land use are also garbage, thus negating the positive that comes from the project. You can’t claim that it’s a success AND that all the data is garbage. The data is the data, and it’s useful.

#26 — Your comment demonstrates a complete ignorance of the topic. We are talking about the relationship between CO2 and temperature.

Reading comprehension much? I didn’t address CO2 whatsoever. I have confined my commentary to the data from surfacestations. I’m saying that land use alone will show differences in surface temps. If you’re going to beat the skeptic drum for the rest of us, it would help if you were less reactionary and a bit more thoughtful. Quit screeching.

May 1, 2009 - 8:47 am 35. G Alston:

#20 — How are facts concerning concentrations of co2 and their relationship to temp denial?

Simple. The climate is changing. Denial says otherwise.

It’s one thing to note the *fact* that the climate has warmed since the little ice age, and another thing entirely to claim that it has not. Denialists often claim no change.

One can make a strong case that the climate has been warming since the end of little ice age and that this is natural, that most of the rise of CO2 rise we see is also natural, and so on. This isn’t the denialist position, but the skeptical one.

On the other hand man *does* contribute to CO2 concentration and this is measurable (and has been measured.) And CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas which works as advertised. Now’s the time where you go off the deep end and tell me I drank the warmer koolaid, right? But here’s the fun part: that contribution that man has measurably made is some 3% of the total. In other words, nothing to get your knickers in a twist about as it’s barely detectable. The 3% is of no real consequence.

Denial bypasses all of this stuff, says it’s all a lie, and goes downhill from there. It’s sane to recognize that man has an influence. Of course man does.

May 1, 2009 - 9:00 am 36. D-wah:

Steven Shore: The earth will be fine. The alarms are unfounded. It’s that very fear they’ve infected you with that you’re addressing. Look at is this way–we could all WALK and never drive again, and one forest fire would pump more stuff in the air than we’d be preventing. It’s comical. I’m not for taking reasonable responsible steps to keep the environment clean, but c’mon. Carbon footprint? You mean I have to feel guilty for living? And now breathing? It’s insane. You have to look at the agenda behind it, then it makes sense. It’s all about control–in addition to some standing to make boatloads of money–just see how many alternative energy and carbon credit companies Gore and others are holding. (see Planet Gore blog)

May 1, 2009 - 10:08 am 37. Boris:

G Alston,

“But here’s the fun part: that contribution that man has measurably made is some 3% of the total.”

3% of what? Burning fossil fuels has increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by over 35%.

May 1, 2009 - 10:32 am 38. G Alston:

Boris — 3% of what? Burning fossil fuels has increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by over 35%.

C12/C13 ratios say 3%.

When you put air in a jar and that’s the number that pops out, it’s tough to claim that the same experiment done 5 years earlier is additive. It’s not Harry Potter.

If it was 35%, this would be big news everywhere and there would be absolutely ZERO debate at any time. As far as I know you’re the only one who claims this. You know the rules: link or STFU. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

May 1, 2009 - 10:45 am 39. Robert Wagner:

G Alston: “#26 — Your comment demonstrates a complete ignorance of the topic. We are talking about the relationship between CO2 and temperature.

Reading comprehension much? I didn’t address CO2 whatsoever. I have confined my commentary to the data from surfacestations. I’m saying that land use alone will show differences in surface temps. If you’re going to beat the skeptic drum for the rest of us, it would help if you were less reactionary and a bit more thoughtful. Quit screeching.”

Sorry GA, I didn’t intend it to come across as it sounded. My point was AGW is attributed to CO2, and well, you get my point. Sorry, I should have worded it differently.

May 1, 2009 - 11:41 am 40. Boris:

“You know the rules: link or STFU.”

You don’t follow your own rules. I missed the link to the 3% claim.

In any case, the fact that humans have increased CO2 concentrations by over 35% is not an extraordinary claim at all. It is well known. Even prominent skeptics like Lindzen don’t dispute it.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/pdf/453291a.pdf

CO2 levels are higher than they have been in the past 800,000 years and they started rising right at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Moreover, they have tracked the increase in fossil fuel use over the years. In addition, ocean CO2 levels are also increasing, since the oceans are absorbing at least a third of all anthropogenic emissions.

Isotope evidence confirms this. As does the decreasing level of oxygen in the atmosphere.

May 1, 2009 - 11:48 am 41. bill-tb:

Pay more in taxes to the government so government scientists can pretend to control the weather. What’s so hard to understand about that — It’s always been about taxes, and the guilt trip needed to get acquiescence to get people to cow down to that.

The Catholic Church used to make you pay condolenses for extra benefits.

May 1, 2009 - 1:07 pm 42. bill-tb:

Sombody needs to say: Boris, prove it — Burning fossil fuels has increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by over 35%.

While you are at it, hustle on over the satellite and show us the signature of global warming that all the GCMs predict should be there, but is nowhere to be found. I am sure you can find it.

And then, check out this link,
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/the-available-evidence-does-not-support-fossil-fuels-as-the-source-of-elevated-concentrations-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-part-1/

it shows where the CO2 in the atmosphere is actually coming from, natural sources.

Furthermore — Computer models are not science they are just mathematical gibbersih that can be easily manipullated to give any result the modelers desire.

If we were plants would we be banning oxygen?

May 1, 2009 - 1:48 pm 43. Robert Wagner:

Boris: “You don’t follow your own rules. I missed the link to the 3% claim.

In any case, the fact that humans have increased CO2 concentrations by over 35% is not an extraordinary claim at all. It is well known. Even prominent skeptics like Lindzen don’t dispute it.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/pdf/453291a.pdf”

This totally ignores Henry’s Laws. You assume man is the only thing adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and that is absurd. Facts are the cleaner skys have allowed more sunlight to reach the surface and have warmed the oceans.
http://www.worldweatherpost.com/2009/03/29/atlantic-ocean-temperature-warming-trend-caused-by-dust/

What happens when you warm a liquid? You got it, it releases CO2. Test it yourself with a bottle of Coke. Bottom line, sun heats up, air gets cleaner, earth and oceans get warmer, decomposition increases and the diffusion of a gas in a liquid decreases. It is that simple and explained in every biology and chemistry book in the world, and it has nothing to do with man burning carbon that once existed in the atmosphere anyway.

This law was written back in 1803, and people still don’t seem to understand its application.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law

May 1, 2009 - 1:50 pm 44. Robert Wagner:

Boris, the other problem you have is that you are relying on Ice Core data for your CO2 levels. Ice Cores are a proxy, and therefore less accurate than a direct measurement. Using a direct measurement of CO2, you can see that atmospheric CO2 is far BELOW the level of 1945, 1920 and 1860. Facts are we aren’t even at 100 highs for atmospheric CO2. While man has been burning all this carbon atmospheric COs has been FALLING!!! That is unless my eyes are lying to me.
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/bayreuth/NY20081e.jpg

May 1, 2009 - 2:03 pm 45. Boris:

Robert,

The CO2 levels are INCREASING in the ocean. The CO2 in the atmosphere cannot possibly be coming from the ocean.

From your link:

“the concentration of carbon dioxide in solution will come into equilibrium with the carbon dioxide in the air”

And we know we burned about 7 gigatons of carbon last year, but only about half of that stayed in the atmosphere. Where did it go?

You are going to get buried.

May 1, 2009 - 2:19 pm 46. Boris:

bill,

Your link was pretty dumb.

Let me get your argument straight. We burn fossil fuels, which releases 7 Gt of carbon each year. This carbon does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

Then, the oceans outgas about 3.5 Gt of carbon which actually does get added to the atmosphere.

Where is the human carbon going?

Where is the oceanic carbon coming from?

Oh, I almost forgot, the ocean started producing this carbon in about 1850, after 800,000 years of lower CO2 concentrations. The ocean has increased this output of carbon at about the same rate as fossil fuel burning for the last 150 years when ice core records show a 100ppm increase typically takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. (That’s a tricky ocean!)

Have I got your argument right? Let’s not even publish this. Let’s just carve it on a fricking stone monument.

May 1, 2009 - 2:29 pm 47. Dr. Bukk:

I consider “Climate Change” to be an hypothesis. To prove it, you need a control vs. an experiment. Since this is impossible on our planet, it will remain an hypothesis. I cannot believe a serious scientist would jump to a conclusion under the rules of the scientific method, especially since there are dozens of influences, not just CO2.

BTW, it was “indulgences” that were sold by Bishops in the Catholic Church. Cap and trade will be the equivalent: making gobs of money off of an unprovable value.

May 1, 2009 - 2:37 pm 48. Boris:

Lol Robert, it’s clear you will believe anything. So CO2 levels jumped all around until they smoothed out right after Charles David Keeling developed a reliable method to measure them? Tricky CO2 levels!

You won’t just get buried, you will get embarrassed. Did you include Beck’s graph in the presentation you gave to Dr. Box? I hope you didn’t for your sake.

May 1, 2009 - 2:49 pm 49. Roderick Reilly:

“”"”"“I had to agree to all of his debate terms, including providing him copies of my presentation beforehand while not allowing me to see his,”"”"”"

WTF? Is that written correctly? Demanding that your debate opponent be put at a huge disadvantage before agreeing to “debate?” Seriously?

What kind of insolent arrogance is that?

May 1, 2009 - 2:49 pm 50. Roderick Reilly:

“”"”"”Oh, I almost forgot, the ocean started producing this carbon in about 1850, after 800,000 years of lower CO2 concentrations. The ocean has increased this output of carbon at about the same rate as fossil fuel burning for the last 150 years when ice core records show a 100ppm increase typically takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. (That’s a tricky ocean!)”"”"

Boris, it is pretty much established — even by sober climate-change advocates — that the 1850-to-modern-times warming trend was a natural cycle out of the tail end of the so-called “Little Ice Age.” No reasonable AGW advocate considers human activity to have been a factor until the 20th century.

May 1, 2009 - 2:53 pm 51. Roderick Reilly:

What is really at the crux of this AGW skepticism? It isn’t even a scientific debate issue, as in academic jousting over data, facts and figures. The single biggest reason for the skepticism and cynicism is because we, the public, have been “had” before, repeatedly, time and again by alarmists who usually had hidden agendas.

We were told in the late 60’s to expect massive, spectacular famines by the 80’s. Didn’t happen

We were rooked into tearing out asbestos from thousands of buildings for billions of dollars because of the “health risk,” when it was proven that the risk was to miners and manufacturing site workers only.

We were told that the ozone layer would be severely damaged by chlorofluorocarbons, and that proved to be greatly exagerrated.

Breast implants were causing “autoimmune” and other health problems for thousands of women — wrong and refuted handily.

Overhead powerlines caused health problems. Wrong again.

Radon is a huge problem. Wrong once more.

Love Canal and other “polluted” sites had to be evacuated permanently. Turned out to be unnecessary.

On and on and on, the socio-political landscape is littered with the rusting hulks of panic, ideology, and junk-science-driven policy decisions.

So, why then should we believe that AGW, assuming it’s even actually happening, is a major calamity in the making? Environmentalists and other ideologues have cried wolf so many times, that people are getting both weary and angry. And now, these activists face an ironic threat to their position: the power of perception, right or wrong. Much of what activism has gained has been based on wildly distorted perceptions that they fostered. Now, all it may take is a couple more colder than average winters (or the perception of such), and people will just tell the AGW crowd to take a hike, even if there is an actual, creeping, almost imperceptible AGW phenomenon going on.

May 1, 2009 - 3:14 pm 52. Boris:

“No reasonable AGW advocate considers human activity to have been a factor until the 20th century.”

Read what I wrote. I was talking about CO2 concentrations, not temperature.

May 1, 2009 - 3:16 pm 53. Roderick Reilly:

“”"”"”Read what I wrote. I was talking about CO2 concentrations, not temperature.”"”"”"

OK, thank you, Sir, for pointing that out. I reread it.

May 1, 2009 - 3:40 pm 54. John Moore:

Boris,

The temperature increase in the last 150 years is much more consistent with a simple greenhouse effect (~1 degree C/doubling of CO2) than it is the alarmist models, which use a high degree of positive feedback.

The real issue isn’t whether human activity has changed the climate through CO2 emissions – it has and any reasonable skeptic knows that. The issues are:

1) What is the climate really going to do in the future. The models are just that: models, attempting to predict the atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 in concentration regions where the parameterizations cannot be calibrated.

2) What should we do in the fact of the uncertainty of the predictions?

3) What priority should this issue take in the grand scheme of things?

4) What makes anyone think that any measures the US takes to reduce its own CO2 emissions will have any effect on the global CO2 concentrations? The Chinese already contribute more CO2 than the US, and they have no plans to reduce that.

5) Why is it so urgent to do something – especially in light of the economic crisis? The evidence for near “tipping points” is much worse than the evidence for positive feedback in the CO2 response, and that evidence itself is weak.

Also…

You assert that the debate is won in the scientific paper world. But have you considered the following sources of sampling bias in that assertion:

1) The serious risk to professional careers for publishing papers against the consensus (I know one PhD who was pushed out of his job by Al Gore as a result of this)

2) The frequent emergence of new skeptics who are senior in the appropriate fields (or retired) – senior enough to both know a whole lot and to not have to worry about their careers. This include the “father of climatology.”

3) The strong bias towards publishing pro AGW papers (and even more, papers showing harm rather than benefits) that the current scientific establishment has. This is a result of the way funding is produced.

May 1, 2009 - 4:42 pm 55. William:

As I have posted many times, why did the mile high Laurentine ice sheet which covered most of Canada and the Northern US as far as Western Pa. melt 16.000 to 10,000 years ago when there was hardly a human around these parts? Because it was a normal glacial – interglacial cycle in the 65 million year old Pleistocene Ice Age epoch. If the past trend holds and interglacials last about 10,000 years, we are at the beginning of a new glacial period. These were scientifically observable events, not some ignorant politician looking to make a buck.

May 1, 2009 - 6:12 pm 56. LennyB:

Alston, no offense, but even for a guy who appears informed, you aren’t much on being open-minded. As a non-scientist, but to me, this sounds an awful lot like you’re trying to convince yourself:

“One can accept the obvious, that man affects his environment one way or another, and then argue along the lines of ROI re mitigation options. i.e. you can agree that man has an effect but it’s small enough to not be worth wrecking the economy. This is rational. The stance you appear to be taking isn’t skepticism, but denial. That’s not very clever given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. All this does is make your argument seem irrational.”

“#20 — How are facts concerning concentrations of co2 and their relationship to temp denial?”

Simple. The climate is changing. Denial says otherwise.”

“It’s sane to recognize that man has an influence. Of course man does.”

Dude. You’ve already reached a conclusion before you look at any piece of data, doesn’t seem real scientific to a little old non-scientist like me. For instance: Man may have an influence. Feedback systems may either eclipse, or perhaps, automatically neutralize man’s influence. Who is to say? Certainly not you. Why would anyone listen to a snake who not-so-slyly substitutes “global warming” for “climate change” in order to deploy the term “denier”. Nobody is denying climate change, that seems pretty preposterous. But how it’s changing (as in, like, which way) and what’s causing it, seems like there’s plenty of room for disagreement to me. Seriously, is there any room in science to label someone a “denier”? Shouldn’t someone like you be called a denier of your examination starts with the presumption that humans must be affecting climate, regardless of how sane you think that is?

Wagner seems to have shut you down pretty well, the only points you can score seem to be by parsing language rather than addressing concepts. And that’s not really science, is it?

May 1, 2009 - 6:33 pm 57. bmw120556:

Boris:
I bet you still think that carbon14 dating is accurate!! It has been proven inaccurate by everyone except evolutionists and atheists. The point is if you choose to believe in antiquated technology gingerly shaken with a measure of fantasy, so be it! Gore just sat before congress and could not defend his own theory. He could, however, defend his check book!!

Oh yea! Forgot to mention that studies have shown that co2 levels were higher before the industrial revolution then they are now.

May 1, 2009 - 6:44 pm 58. LennyB:

“That’s not very clever given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary”

Sorry, with comments like “revival tent histronics”, I thought you were the one who was trying to be clever.

I get that you want the best argument in an AGW skeptic (or as I call them, rational scientists who are still seeking to test an unproven theory, or hypothesis, actually). For good reason as we all know, because a lot depends on the ability of these wonderful, genuine folks to gain sufficient traction to inform the masses that AGW may in fact reasonably be suspected to be possibly a hoax, and that this is not a sign of mental instability.

But buying off on your prospect that we know affirmatively that humans are affecting climate, a lot or a very little, seems to require that we all acknowledge that the AGW religion proceeds from a kernel of truth, and on data that is consistent and cannot be manipulated. I disagree. Humans might not be. I think they are, personally. But they might not be. I think it might be that AGW is exactly what it appears to be: a religion that proceeds from the naturally occurring hubris of intellectuals who over-estimate their own capacity to attain knowledge.

It seems to me, a layman (and perhaps I’m wrong here because I often am about many things as I’m sure you will be pointing out using very clever language), that the real argument here, the one that matters, the one that is chiefly between scientists in the know rather than politically motivated hacks or randoms like me, is about a) what the evidence actually is (i.e., data collection methods and how consistent and accurate they may or may not be); and b) what the evidence signifies. You seem to skip part A, perhaps I’m wrong about that. And as you well know, data can certainly be sufficient to prove certain things (i.e., relative numbers using consistent sampling techniques), but garbage (and properly diagnosed as such) if it is fraudulently used to address more than it can. I think the stronger the perceived fraud, the stronger the language employed by its skeptics should be. And garbage really isn’t all that strong.

May 1, 2009 - 6:58 pm 59. Robert Wagner:

Boris: “Robert,

The CO2 levels are INCREASING in the ocean. The CO2 in the atmosphere cannot possibly be coming from the ocean.”

Not to rain on your parade, but look at this chart. Is atmospheric CO2 concentrated between Europe and N America? If not, you will have a pretty tough time explaining why change in CO2 happens in essentially just one area of the globe. Additionally, the deep oceans are warming which would drive CO2 towards the surface. Keep trying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AYool_GLODAP_del_co3.png

Bore-Us: “From your link:

“the concentration of carbon dioxide in solution will come into equilibrium with the carbon dioxide in the air””

Yep, warmer oceans will release CO2, it doesn’t mean that they don’t absorb is as well, but on a net basis they will release CO2 as it warms. BTW, warmer oceans mean what to organic life? It increases. As it increase more organisms are respiring, including algae which would alter the surface Ph.

BoreUs: “And we know we burned about 7 gigatons of carbon last year, but only about half of that stayed in the atmosphere. Where did it go?”

Output of one volcano:
1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens
In all, Mt. St. Helens released 24 megatons of thermal energy, 7 of which as a direct result of the blast. This is equivalent to 1,600 times the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. [23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_eruption_of_Mount_St._Helens

Mother Nature has been dealing with sudden and huge inputs of CO2 since the beginning of time. Man is a drop in the bucket.

Bore-Us: “You are going to get buried.”

Keep dreaming

May 1, 2009 - 7:00 pm 60. middleagedpatriot:

Please tell me why I’m wrong. Fossil fuels come from carbon sequestered under ground that used to be carbon living above ground in the form of plants and animals and was doing quite a fine job of not destroying the planet. Please explain to me why digging it up so that it can be turned back into plants and animals is a bad thing?

May 1, 2009 - 7:13 pm 61. Robert Wagner:

Bore-Us: The other thing to pay attention to is this graph going back to 1700s about the pH of the oceans. There is no way in hell they have enough detailed data to create such a continual chart. Once again, computer generated graphics isn’t evidence and it isn’t a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AYool_GLODAP_del_pH.png

May 1, 2009 - 7:23 pm 62. Robert Wagner:

Bore-Us: Here is another interesting chart about Ocean pH. Note the huge variation on an annual basis. In 1996-97 the range is from 8.06 to 8.01, and the range is routinely +/-0.02. Since 1996, the regression line show a decrease of about 0.01, well with any std of error, and as I said, you can’t rule out natural changes like increase life.
Warmer oceans, more life on the surface, more metabolism.
http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/obe/OA/fig2.gif

May 1, 2009 - 7:36 pm 63. Robert Wagner:

Bore-Us, here is even more evidence. Just where are you getting that the ocean as a whole is getting more acidic? Sea water has a pH of about 8, which is less acidic than distilled H2O.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/PH_scale.png/350px-PH_scale.png

Now here is the kicker, the vast amount of the ocean is LESS acidic than a pH of 8. Sure some areas are more acidic, but how can you make the case that atmospheric CO2 is causing that when CO2 is evenly dispursed? Facts are, this chart proves the oceans are pumping out Co2 as it is warming as predicted above.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45556000/gif/_45556228_ph_levels_oceans_466in.gif

BTW, thanks for making me brush up on this before the event tomorrow:)

May 1, 2009 - 7:51 pm 64. Robert Wagner:

Bore-Us ““Still no answer for the Ordivician era huh?”

The Ordovician period was warm, genius. Also, use more verbs.”

According to who? Here is a chart that shows that during that period we entered an ICE AGE and CO2 as over 4000 PPM. This chart alone disproves every point anyone could make that CO2 drives termperature. It simply hasn’t for OVER 650 MILLION YEARS!!! That is unless my eyes are lying to me.
http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

Bore-Us, this chart makes you look pretty darn gullible.
http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

May 1, 2009 - 8:19 pm 65. lefroy:

To doubt anthropogenic climate change is “so last century”, according to Box. Well, that’s impressively scientific.

And when a scientist supports his argument by appeals to consensus, you know there’s something wrong.

At the turn of the last century, the scientific consensus about the physical world that the climate change consensus in the shade. Everybody agreed that everything about the physical world had been discovered. Newtonian mechanics were unassailable truth, and there were only a few peripheral details still to be worked out.

5 years later Einstein published his paper on special relativity; 10 years later Rutherford discovered the structure of the atom; and then came quantum physics, exploding the adequacy of Newton’s universe forever.

So much for consensus.

Good luck, Mr Wagner!!

May 1, 2009 - 9:09 pm 66. Dan Pangburn:

Since 2000, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased 18.4% of the increase from 1800 to 2000. According to the average of the five reporting agencies, the trend of average global temperatures since 1998 shows no increase and since 2002 the trend shows a DECREASE of 0.8°C/century.

Many Climate Scientists are completely unaware of some relevant science and understand other relevant science poorly (it’s not in their curriculum). The missing science proves that added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature. See the pdf linked from http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true for the proof.

As the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to increase and the average global temperature doesn’t it is becoming more and more apparent that many climate scientists have made an egregious mistake and a whole lot of people have been mislead. I wonder how wide the spread will need to get for the IPCC to accept that they have missed something. Any action that is taken to reduce human produced carbon dioxide to reduce global warming is a mistake and puts freedom and prosperity at risk. Increased efficiency, reduced waste and reduced energy imports increase prosperity and security.

May 1, 2009 - 9:49 pm 67. Tom Harris:

Someone should hold Dr. Box to account why he will not allow his opponent to see his talk ahead of time, if Dr. Bax can see his opponent’s ahead of time.

May 1, 2009 - 11:11 pm 68. Rocky:

Dr. Wagner,

Kudos to you for your work, tomorrow’s debate, and for your patience in doing your best to patiently enlighten those that profess to understand and ‘know’ that the science has been decided and that debate is futile. Seems as if these are the ones that forgot, or never learned, what scientific method is all about.

I am a retired now, a geologist in a previous career, and have been following the GW/CC claims for quite some time and wish more people used their common sense and had paid more attention to what science and scientific method are when they were in school. If these same people paid any attention to geologic history, that would help their understanding immensely and perhaps re-open their minds to understanding cycles of the Earth.

In my mind, we are, in essence, gnats & have as much impact as gnats, in the grand expanse of Earth’s geologic and climatic history.

Thank you for taking this on, many, many of us are behind you.

May 1, 2009 - 11:31 pm 69. Smoking Frog:

Mr. Box, on his web page, gives as one of his reasons for choosing to debate Mr. Wagner that “deniers” have not shown that humans “can not” affect the climate. I don’t know whether Wagner claims that humans *can not* affect the climate, but I hope not, since that’s horribly difficult to support, it’s probably false, and there’s plenty wrong with AGW alarmism without it. If Wagner does claim that humans can not affect the climate, I’m not surprised that Box is willing to debate him.

May 2, 2009 - 4:54 am 70. Lynn B.:

Gore in front of Congressional Committee. Asked if he will make lots of cash on this “cap and trade” bill. (went from 2 million to 100 million for touting global warming) He became stupified and cranky at the question. Global Warming (now Climate Change) is the new cash cow for people like Gore. It’s all about the money and nothing else.

May 2, 2009 - 6:51 am 71. Alex:

http://yct.tamu.edu/

Good lecture.

There are items such as Outgassing by the earth itself thru the oceans into the atmosphere, and volcanic erruptions that will spike Co2 and other gas levels. One moderate volcano will deliver millions to hundreds of millions tons of gasses and particulates into the atmosphere.

May 2, 2009 - 7:54 am 72. LennyB:

@69

Good point but it sounds like Dr. Box may be employing a straw man in making such a statement. Since his tactics do not seem exclusively scientific, I’m sure he has no problem mis-characterizing the positions of his opposition. That would be totally consistent with the conjecture of the multitudes of AGW supporters and I suspect the IPCC. (I would also submit that since AGW is introduced as a hypothesis, it nevertheless remains up to them to prove the affirmative no matter what is said in opposition, supported or unsupported, don’t you think?)

Notwithstanding that, Dr. Wagner’s comments on this thread don’t seem to be consistent with someone who is willing to assert something that cannot be proved as support for his argument. In fact, if you look at his language closely, he is downright charitable in his willingness to supply exactly relevant data without even giving the appearance that he’s willing to beat anyone over the head with it (which he’d certainly be justified in doing). He has even politely conceded a point or two, which is something that is usually done only by those who care more about finding the truth than about being right. Notice that the AGW supporters never, ever concede any point, large or small.

My last comment: does anyone else detect a difference between the de facto premise that humans must affect climate, and Original Sin? Because I’m having trouble coming up with a difference. Cap-and-Trade = Indulgences. We’ve seen all this before, and with similar motives I suspect (witness Lynn’s point).

May 2, 2009 - 9:01 am 73. Lynn B.:

And another thing, why is Boxer so opposed to the solar panel project in the Mojave and Kennedy so opposed to windmills in Mass? Aren’t they part and parcel of the green group?

May 2, 2009 - 9:46 am 74. Boris:

“Output of one volcano:
1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens
In all, Mt. St. Helens released 24 megatons of thermal energy, 7 of which as a direct result of the blast. This is equivalent to 1,600 times the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.”

Robert,

You don’t know the difference between a gigaton of carbon and a megaton of thermal energy? You are an idiot.

May 2, 2009 - 10:07 am 75. John Moore:

#74 Boris

Well, you are at least right about one thing.

May 2, 2009 - 12:00 pm 76. Bear:

Boris:Of course, most of the posters here believe the same stupid things. Because you are smarter than actual scientists, right guys?

Boris are you a scientist? You seem to believe that scientists have a monopoly on intelligence.

May 2, 2009 - 1:03 pm 77. Boris:

“You seem to believe that scientists have a monopoly on intelligence.”

Not at all. But scientists have spent their lives studying these issue. It’s humorous to see people like Robert Wagner who claim that global warming is a fraud, yet don’t understand the simple issues, let alone the complex ones.

Would you trust a climate scientist to examine your eyes? Then why would you trust an optometrist on climate science?

May 2, 2009 - 1:44 pm 78. John Moore:

Boris,

Your argument by authority is not convincing, because there are many scientists who have “spent their lives studying these issues,” including friends of mine, who do not believe the consensus. Every climatologist I happen to know is either publicly or quietly (due to career threat) extremely skeptical of all but the most conservative predictions.

That a poster on this board is ignorant of basic physics doesn’t mean that all skeptics are wrong. The “greenhouse effect” is real and accepted by any scientific skeptic. The much higher projections that the alarmists put out are another matter.

May 2, 2009 - 3:05 pm 79. Robert Wagner:

Hey everyone, I survived, and IMHO beat him like a drum, LOL. No, seriously, the event went great, great turn-out, Dr Box was fantastic, and I am working on getting the video out on the internet. You can then decide if I beat him like a drum or not. I am also working with Patrick Poole to see if he will do a follow up article including interviews or a review of the event and/or video.

Here is the live event stream but the sound quality is awful.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1456839

May 2, 2009 - 6:06 pm 80. Benson:

# 9, Skip, is right: “skeptic” is the wrong word. This is a debate beween real scientists and cultists, with the cultists claiming CO2 drives temperature. CO2 levels lag temperature levels.

The confusion over percentages caused some real glitches here. The air:
Nitrogen – 78%
Oxygen – 20%
Water vapor + argon + hydrogen + CO2 – total a little over 1% of the air.

Of the “little over 1%,” CO2 from ALL sources totals 0.04% of the air.

Of the CO2 in the air, about 3 to 5% is the result of human activity.

That means anthropogenic CO2 is somewhere less than three one-thousandths of one percent of the atmosphere.

(Yeah, I rounded off, so the numbers are a bit off. Sue me.)

Then there is
this hoax which Al Gore perpetrated in his film. Global warming is the new Piltdown Man.

Now there is an entirely understandable effort to re-brand global warming so it can be sold to a public that the cult takes to be fools.

Sea levels.

The question of Liberty.

Hope this works — love to have a Preview feature here!!

May 2, 2009 - 9:09 pm 81. Kay:

MMGW alarmists(cultists) want NOTHING to do with science getting involved….It’s the world’s second most dangerous religion. A little legislation can easily bump it to #1.

May 2, 2009 - 11:01 pm 82. Tom Stacy:

What strikes me is that of the ten or so people I talked to at the Martini Grill event, all claimed to be political conservatives and deniers (what I call “climate realists”), but NONE had even heard of The Heartland Institute, who sponsored the 2008 and 2009 International Conference on Climate Change http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html

Lord Monckton of the UK, mentioned in Wagner’s presentation several times, was one of one hundred realist speakers at the NYC Marriott Marquis venue this March. Others included Congressman Tom McClintock of California http://www.tommcclintock.com/about/

Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT’s leading climate scientist, President Vaclav Klaus, president of both the Czech Republic and the European Union, and many, many more scientific and political leaders worthy of mention here.

At the tail end of the debate, I heard Wagner and Box speak of “finding common ground” and pointing toward supporting renewable energy as one area where both sides agree. Bob even said we n eed to be selling wind turbines to China, not buying them from Germany! Reality delivered a painful slap in the face with that one.

Folks, anyone remotely considering themselves in favor of free markets, opposing socialism, interested in America retaining global leadership or even any sensible environmentalist must know the truth about the costs and benefits of renewable energy. The lack of factual, quantified knowledge about this in conservative circles makes me shudder. This area is an achilles heel we can nary afford not to shore up. You can get started by reviewing the materials on this Ohio web site http://www.savewesternOH.org, and the hundreds of references and referred web sites to irrefutable data on the topic.

Respectfully,

Tom Stacy, Managing Director
Save Western Ohio
tstacy@savewesternOH.org

May 3, 2009 - 6:05 am 83. typos_R_us:

“Of course, most of the posters here believe the same stupid things. Because you are smarter than actual scientists, right guys?”

Boris, WHAT “actual scientists”? I do a random sample off every list of scientists that support anthropogenic climate change and have yet to find a scientist. Maybe that word doesn’t mean what you think it does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

{snipped}
“In a more restricted sense, scientist refers to individuals who use the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science”

Someone with a PhD in Plasma Physics that runs the Lab at PoDunk U is NOT a scientist. They are an administrator. Naturally, they believe in anthropogenic climate change, since it puts money in their pocket. If they work for the DoD or DoE, then they are bureaucrats. Naturally, they believe in anthropogenic climate change sine it puts money in their pocket. If they teach Plasma Physcs at Cow Flop U, then they believe in anthropogenic climate change, since it puts money in their pocket.
Starting to get the picture?
The real scientists, the ones that spend long hours in the lab moving back the frontiers of science, don’t believe. They say we need more data. More research, more experiments.
That is understandable, since it puts more money in their pockets.
Starting to get the picture?

Any “actual scientist” that thinks anthropogenic climate change can happen when there are no anthros around is not much of a scientist. Climate Change goes back about 1.2 MILLION years that we can measure. Humans have been around for about 100,000 or so. Please explain how humans changed the climate BEFORE they existed. Ask your “actual scientist” about this.

May 3, 2009 - 11:19 am 84. Freya:

“Climate Change goes back about 1.2 MILLION years that we can measure. Humans have been around for about 100,000 or so. Please explain how humans changed the climate BEFORE they existed.”

Don’t have to. No one claims that. No one’s saying that climate never changed naturally, or has stopped changing naturally, just that human influence has become significant enough to make a difference, a potentially serious one.

May 3, 2009 - 11:54 am 85. Boris:

“I do a random sample off every list of scientists that support anthropogenic climate change and have yet to find a scientist.”

This says a lot about your searching abilities.

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/index.html

May 3, 2009 - 12:00 pm 86. Freya:

“Of the CO2 in the air, about 3 to 5% is the result of human activity.”

Not exactly. Of total annual CO2 emmissions, about 3% are human-caused emissions. But of the total, about 98% of it is absorbed by natural sinks, including growing plants, soil organic matter, and the oceans (for now). So, without human emissions or even with half the human emissions, all CO2 would be absorbed and there’s no net increase. With current human emissions, there is a net increase. Not much of one, but it has added up over time.

May 3, 2009 - 12:01 pm 87. John Moore:

It appears that CO2 produced by human activity has added very roughly 50% to the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

Physics predicts about a 1 degree C warming (from the greenhouse effect) for each doubling of CO2. Notice that this means that the effect diminishes rapidly. 250-500 ppm => 1 degree C. 500ppm->1000ppm => 2 degree C. 1000ppm->2000ppm => 3 degree C. We are at about 380 ppm now.

Alarmist projections are much, much higher, based on models which presume high levels of positive feedback – models which have not been validated.

May 3, 2009 - 12:36 pm 88. Paul -Indiana:

BTW, what’s causing the temperature changes on Mars? Did we outsource our SUVs?

May 3, 2009 - 2:14 pm 89. Billy Bob:

Boris

What are your credentials in this area?

May 3, 2009 - 2:40 pm 90. Robert Wagner:

Here is another video of the event. I was told the audio gets better after a few minutes. And at about 3:30 it does.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1457013

May 3, 2009 - 6:10 pm 91. Robert Wagner:

Here is the post event interview:

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1462650

May 3, 2009 - 6:12 pm 92. Robert Wagner:

Here is our website and a few of my favorite videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjO-YRFaM-g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnGVFW5wEmw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvUaYoRVdbA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aumWn2PRNUc

May 3, 2009 - 6:19 pm 93. Robert Wagner:

Here is another video of the pre-event interview:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1407807

Other Videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oztk8PJWUyw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KIyxTGaUCM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa1ka7_4uDY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGquwwoQfVY

May 3, 2009 - 7:12 pm 94. Smoking Frog:

@72 Lenny:

Dr. Box (on his page) does sound like someone setting up a straw man, not only with “can not.” I don’t recall other specifics, but I’ll say that I was not favorably impressed. Still, I thought, Mr. Wagner might be one who claims that man can not affect the climate, since this would explain why Dr. Box agreed to the debate; Wagner would be a soft target. I did not see anything on Box’s page about anyone like Lindzen or Spencer or McIntyre, and this contributed to my impression that he had chosen Wagner as a soft target. I apologize for still not knowing Wagner’s position, but I’m hard of hearing, so I’m not very good with videos (never mind videos with sound quality like those of the May 2 event!), and it would use up too much of my time right now to read any written material that Mr. Wagner has linked. I’ve read a great deal about global warming over the years, and, y’know, you get tired.

I picked on “can not” because Box was targeting people who claim “can not,” not because I think that we *do not* affect the climate. I think we do, and in this context I mean, by emitting GHG’s, increasing the greenhouse effect, but I do not think that we affect it enough to justify the mitigating measures that have been proposed, or any mitigating measures. Besides, short of perpetuating existing poverty and creating new poverty, we do not have, at present, any way of reducing emissions by so much as AGW “theory” (it’s not worthy of the name) says would be enough to matter. That’s what’s really makes the proposed mitigation a crock.

I do not agree with you that it “remains up to them to prove the affirmative,” if by that you mean, prove that we affect the climate. What it remains up to them to prove is that we affect it by enough to matter, and that the mitigation cost is no greater than the cost of so much as would be mitigated.

It has not been proved beyond doubting that our CO2 emissions affect the climate. I think there is some reason to doubt it. The reason why it does not “remain up to them” to prove it is this: Proof that our emissions merely affect the climate, however slightly, would not make the case for mitigation, and these people do make a respectable but questionable case that we affect it, however slightly.

Re this: “Does anyone else detect a difference between the de facto premise that humans must affect climate, and Original Sin? Because I’m having trouble coming up with a difference.”

Sure, the difference is that the human effect on climate is not necessarily bad.

Bill

May 4, 2009 - 2:08 am 95. Smoking Frog:

@82 Tom Stacy

Not many people have ever heard of anything. But I agree with you that it’s distressing to see this on the conservative side.

May 4, 2009 - 2:26 am 96. Robert Wagner:

Dr Box is claiming victory in the debate. I’ll leave it up to the viewers to decide once the video is out:
http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/

Here are comments from the audience:
http://www.meetup.com/The-Columbus-Ohio-Glenn-Beck-Meetup-Group/calendar/10204815/

May 4, 2009 - 6:06 am 97. Robert Wagner:

Bore-us: “Robert,

You don’t know the difference between a gigaton of carbon and a megaton of thermal energy? You are an idiot.”

My point seems to have missed you. Those nuclear bombs/Volcanoes releasing all that energy is polluting the environment at a biblical scale. Mt Tambora gave us a year without a summer. My point was simply that volcanoes dump huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and Mother Nature has never had problems dealing with it. Just for my information since you call me an idiot, if you set off a nuclear bomb once every second for 9 hours, just how many gigatons of CO2 do you think are released into the atmosphere? I guess my comment relied on you being to make the connection. I apologize for that higher math and cognitive skill requirements need for understanding my comments.

May 4, 2009 - 6:12 am 98. friedfish2718:

“The CO2 levels are INCREASING in the ocean. The CO2 in the atmosphere cannot possibly be coming from the ocean.”
There is fair amount of co2 in the Earth’s mantle which the alarmists do not realize. Volcanic eruptions put out alot of co2. Of course humans do contribute to the atmospheric co2 levels.

“And we know we burned about 7 gigatons of carbon last year, but only about half of that stayed in the atmosphere. Where did it go?”

photosynthesis on both land (plants) and sea (plankton); the rest is dissolved in the ocean as
carbonate and bicarbonate. And the ocean has a buffer system which allowed the pH to be constant for the past 20,000 years.

There is a disconnect in the co2-based AGW alarmists’ arguments. A disconnect between co2 and temperature. A disconnect between co2 and climate. More and more, alarmists talk about regional climate (in contrast to global climate), to reconcile with the observation that,say, glaciers are growing in some areas and retreating in others. As far as glaciers go, atmospheric co2 is not the controlling factor. In some places, temperature has been increasing in past 20 years, in others, it has been decreasing in past 20 years (for example, some places in South America).

May 4, 2009 - 6:23 am 99. Robert Wagner:

Volcanoes “sequester a huge amount of CO2. Here is an example when this sequestered CO2 is released:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962228,00.html

May 4, 2009 - 6:36 am 100. G Alston:

#72 lennyb — My last comment: does anyone else detect a difference between the de facto premise that humans must affect climate, and Original Sin?

Separating science from politics and/or religion doesn’t seem to be your strong point. Humans affecting the climate isn’t a value judgement.

Humans affect their environment. Whether temps raise by land use, soot emissions that coat the arctic in particles that change the icecap albedo, or CO2 output or whatever, humans have an effect on climate.

You seem to think otherwise. So… humans can change the landscape and change an ecology or even wipe out species here and there (e.g. horses in North America, megafauna in Australia, the Dodo) but they can’t possibly change the climate? Why? It’s too big? What sort of disconnect must one have to believe this? OF COURSE humans affect the climate; man has an effect on everything he touches.

What drives the mindset of climate alarmists and other sundry ecofreaks is that in almost every case this effect is not good: wiping out much of the Indians in the 1500’s and the dodo bird and so on are all part of a long and consistent history that suggests humans aren’t very bright. Modern science also allows us to look at humans in the past, e.g. the Aussie aborigines managed to kill off the Aussie megafauna in a couple of thousand years and this was quite some time ago. American Indians did likewise and also killed off indigenous horses. Ate them. Never figured out they could domesticate them. Not a pretty picture. Paleoindians also torched millions of acres flushing out food. Changed the landscape significantly. Whether you like it or not, the ecofreaks have a valid point: man is destructive. Climate change isn’t original sin. The discovery of fire would be a better candidate for that.

Your mindset appears to be of the ignorant anti-ecofreak variety: “did not!” when the ecofreak says “did so!”

There is however an alternate viewpoint: recognition of the facts as they are without prejudice either way. That would include recognising that man affects his environment and at least in some way also affects the climate. Skeptics agree that man affects the climate. (Rather difficult to say otherwise since this is simple recognition of the facts.) What skeptics don’t buy is the ecofreak solution to clobber the economy. This is due in part to the science itself; man contributes a *minor* share of this change. And in the case of an impending ice age (within a few thousand years) it’s obvious that a warmer world is more conducive to life and prosperity than living on an ice cube. If anything maybe what we really want to do is figure out how to make the world warmer on purpose.

Climate change is not only NOT original sin, it’s also the most wonderful thing modern humans could hope for: an opportunity to understand the earth’s systems well enough to be able to mitigate ice ages or even natural disasters. Take off your blinders. You are so filled with hatred of the “other side” that you’re failing to see the big picture.

May 4, 2009 - 8:32 am 101. Paul -Indiana:

Lest we forget. This is all about control, not ‘warming’.

May 4, 2009 - 10:25 am 102. Harry:

Global Warming as far as I have learned dates back to some French coffee shop in the 1970s where a group of left wing “intellectuals” were trying to conjure up yet another way to thwart the American machine from growing even larger. They try, they try, they try. It has never seemed to work. Why should we assume it’ll work this time. From what I can see, it’s the Americans, ironically, who are capitalizing on the “green” craze more than anyone. My firm has just recently hired “green” consultants who come to our office once a month to give seminars in how to lessen the effects of what is now called climate change. My firm pays this company $45,000 a year for their “services.” More power to them!

May 4, 2009 - 12:47 pm 103. Harry:

I want to elucidate on the huge money making machine global warming has become. Besides the obvious (the Al Gores etc making massive profits off films, etc) there is a huge incentive especially within academia to perpetuate what is called the “collective lie.” If researchers fail to perpetuate this lie, which they all know is a lie, but they have to pretent it’s not, they could risk their livelihoods. My fuel cell scientist friend tells me that you have to mention global warming in nearly every form of research proposal just to get a government grant. Scientists and researchers puppeting global warming theories comes down to job security.
It’s always about money folks, especially for the chrematophobes (people who hate money).

May 4, 2009 - 12:55 pm 104. Themistocles:

Sheesh! Boris has posted about twenty times here.

Boris needs to get a life. It looks like he spends all his time here, trying to convince everyone else that black is white, down is up, evil is good, and global warming causes global cooling. It appears that he hasn’t converted anyone.

Time to move out of your mom’s basement, Boris. Go get a girlfriend or something.

May 4, 2009 - 1:47 pm 105. Boris:

“Boris needs to get a life. It looks like he spends all his time here”

Some people can actually think and type efficiently.

May 4, 2009 - 6:18 pm 106. Boris:

Themistocles:

Also, stop acting like a douchebag.

May 4, 2009 - 6:19 pm 107. Boris:

“My point was simply that volcanoes dump huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and Mother Nature has never had problems dealing with it.”

It took thousands of years for volcanoes to emit the amount of CO2 we’ve emitted in the last 150. And the planet dealt with it all right: it warmed.

May 4, 2009 - 6:29 pm 108. LennyB:

@100: Where to possibly start. My strong points aren’t really relevant. Revealing that this was your very first point but I think you missed mine.

My own basic point is that humans may or may not be affecting the climate (climate not environment, a subtle but important difference that hopefully you will admit unless you are dishonest). You assert they are affecting climate, that they must, how could they not be?! That is your support. I think the point of this entire thread probably illustrates that cannot be granted as an axiom. Certainly it could turn out to be correct, but that’s typically not the way an intelligent examination of any topic should start or continue in my opinion (regardless of how ignorant I may be). I can agree with you all day long on that, tell you what a wonderfully intelligent assumption I think you’ve made, etc. But if I did, we really haven’t advanced the discussion in that event, have we?

For reasons mostly having to do with my own insufficient command of language, the point you thought I was making is a bit different than the one I was actually making. My point was not whether humans have the capacity to affect the climate. What with our ability to send up sulfur balloons and invent crazy mirrors to keep Swiss towns warm and all, I tend to think that the only thing that separates us from not having already affected climate is that kind of “mitigation” (as you put it) is that crack-pots usually can’t quite secure funding and the requisite govt approvals (although I do fear that the bar is increasingly lower on that front).

It’s hard to grasp you missing all this when I previously stated “I think they are, personally” in post 58. But hey, write first, read later, right? Don’t worry I probably gave as careful a reading of your posts as you did of mine, I guess that makes us equally ignorant.

“Climate change isn’t original sin. The discovery of fire would be a better candidate for that.” “Humans affecting the climate isn’t a value judgement.”

On the second part there, I couldn’t agree more. But I’m confused about the former statement, since that seems more like a value judgment than anything in my posts. My point in comparing the assertion that humans affect climate to Original Sin is not to compare affect on climate with sin on a perceived moral basis. It’s that in both cases, people deploy unproven “facts” with religious conviction to achieve there often financial ends.

“recognition of the facts as they are without prejudice either way. That would include recognising that man affects his environment and at least in some way also affects the climate. Skeptics agree that man affects the climate.” “OF COURSE humans affect the climate; man has an effect on everything he touches.”

As a wholly reactive “ignorant anti-ecofreak”, I nevertheless object to your attempt to parlay the very real observable certainty that humans affect their environment (axiom or no) into the not-so-certain prospect that man affects climate, even a wee little bit. One thing is clear: you are not an impartial independent on the sidelines my friend. Staking out a position you think is neutral between the ecofreaks and anti-ecofreaks without any support offered for that position does not cloak you in the sanctity of an “I” after your name and make you correct, it actually puts you on a level playing field with many from both sides.

But what really takes the case is this: “the ecofreaks have a valid point: man is destructive”. That is, in a nutshell, what I object to. That is a value judgment made by you, not the “ecofreaks”. Stop hiding behind them if you truly believe that. If you equate the term “human footprint” with “destructive”, well, I certainly agree humans can be mighty darned destructive, willfully and by accident. Man is natural and indigenous to this planet. As for saying man=destructive in the same post you laud “recognition of the facts as they are without prejudice either way”, I don’t quite know what to say about that. All human influence is not destructive, you probably should acknowledge that without prejudice. As for a good example of man’s anti-destructive capacity, I think your example of ‘making the world warmer on purpose’ is disingenuous. My vote would be, say, that man might someday be able to blow up a planet-killing asteroid. Now we are taking man’s anti-destructive nature seriously for once. I think it’s tremendously fascinating that humans are essentially just sacks of water and carbon and can nevertheless see one of those things coming years ahead of time.

“Skeptics agree that man affects the climate. (Rather difficult to say otherwise since this is simple recognition of the facts.)”

Sorry, I’m not sure that’s true. Skeptics agree that man does stuff that generates CO2. I’m doing it now in at least three ways I can think of: I’m breathing, my computer is using electricity, and the fridge is keeping some beers cold for me.

“You are so filled with hatred of the “other side””

Am not. But neither are you, not really.

May 4, 2009 - 7:15 pm 109. Robert Wagner:

Here is my response to Dr Box:
http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=50#comments

May 4, 2009 - 7:51 pm 110. G Alston:

#108 — My own basic point is that humans may or may not be affecting the climate (climate not environment, a subtle but important difference that hopefully you will admit unless you are dishonest).

Man’s influence on the climate is measurable and has been measured. This isn’t disputed by any reputable scientific skeptic. NONE. You have no basic point.

May 4, 2009 - 10:44 pm 111. Smoking Frog:

@97,99 Robert Wagner

1. All sources that I’ve seen say that, per year, CO2 emissions by humans are on the order of 100 times CO2 emissions by volcanoes. (Over the long run, total volcanic emissions have far exceeded total human emissions, but this is irrelevant, since volcanoes have been operating for far more time, and the excess CO2 does not stay in the atmosphere forever, any more than our own does.)

2. The 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption ejected about 1 km^3 of material. 1-5% of that is gas, 70-90% of the gas is water vapor, and not all of the rest of the gas is CO2. So a highball estimate of the CO2 from the eruption might be 1.5%, or 1.5X10^7 m^3. At least 50% of the total material is silica, so maybe I can guess that the density is the same: 2.8 g/cc. That gives 4.2X10^10 kg of CO2. (I’m playing fast and loose with mass vs. volume.) The average US vehicle emits 7 tons of CO2/year; that’s about 6350 kg. So the eruption produced the same CO2 as one year’s operation of 6.6 million vehicles. There are 250 million registered vehicles in the US, so the eruption produced 2.64% of what all our vehicles emit in a year, and remember, that’s very highball. But since it only does that maybe once every 200 years, we can say that, per year, it emits about 1/100 of 1% of what all our vehicles emit. This is a very wild estimate, of course, and I may have even made errors, but I’m just trying to show some broad dimensions.

3. To say that a volcano sequesters CO2 is like saying that a leak in a water tank sequesters water. The tank is what sequesters the water, not the leak.

May 5, 2009 - 1:45 am 112. Smoking Frog:

@108 Lenny B

The CO2 from your breathing doesn’t count, since it’s part of the short-term carbon cycle. What counts is when we release long-term sequestered carbon by burning fossil fuels.

Bill

May 5, 2009 - 1:49 am 113. Robert Wagner:

Smoking Frog: “All sources that I’ve seen say that, per year, CO2 emissions by humans are on the order of 100 times CO2 emissions by volcanoes.”

Even if I give you that point, there is no causal effect of CO2 driving temp higher. Going back 650 million years, high levels of CO2 NEVER caused temperatures to make it above 22 degree C.
http://csccc.fcpp.org/files/f13.jpg

What makes you think this time is different?

May 5, 2009 - 5:06 am 114. Dan Pangburn:

Many Climate Scientists are completely unaware of some relevant science and understand other relevant science poorly (it’s not in their curriculum). The missing science proves that added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature. See my pdf linked from http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true for the proof. Or email me at danpangburn@roadrunner.com .

May 5, 2009 - 5:20 am 115. Smoking Frog:

@113 Robert Wagner “Even if I give you that point [that man emits far more CO2 than volcanoes do] there is no causal effect of CO2 driving temp higher. Going back 650 million years, high levels of CO2 NEVER caused temperatures to make it above 22 degree C.”

http://csccc.fcpp.org/files/f13.jpg

“What makes you think this time is different?”

You seem to imply that CO2 did cause the temperature to go as high as 22 C., but not higher. I don’t think you mean that, but even if you don’t, you sound like you think 22 C. isn’t much. Actually it’s a lot, an 8-degree rise. I’d be surprised to see more than a 2-degree rise by the end of the century or any “foreseeable” date later than that.

8 degrees is at the high end of the IPCC projections. It assumes high positive feedback, but there have been findings that the feedback is even lower than the low end of the IPCC range of assumptions. Even without any special findings, there’s the simple fact that we’ve seen less warming since the 1800s than we should have seen with *NO* positive feedback.

With no positive feedback, we’d need 3,000 ppm CO2 to raise the temperature by 8 degrees, and that’s without fudging in any “less” as above. There’s no chance at all that we’d make the CO2 level that high. However, if we put it up to about 1,000 ppm, we could, if the feedback is non-negative, get a 4-degree rise, and I guess that would be trouble. I don’t say that any of this 1 degree or 4 degrees will happen. I say that the alarmists have a non-negligible case, and I say that *if* they are right, the question comes down to the cost of letting the temperature go up that high vs. the cost of cutting emissions, and, at present, I think the 2nd cost is higher. Now, naturally, we’re going to have – we do have – many politicians claiming that it’s not higher, but we know how well their projects work, e.g., look at welfare.

May 6, 2009 - 12:57 am 116. Boris:

“Even without any special findings, there’s the simple fact that we’ve seen less warming since the 1800s than we should have seen with *NO* positive feedback.”

This is wrong for a variety of reasons:

1. we’ve seen a 0.7 deg C rise and CO2 has grown by 40%. No feedbacks gives 1.1C for a doubling of CO2.

2. Sulphate aerosols have very likely offset some of the CO2 warming.

3. We are not at equilibrium yet. Even if no more CO2 were added, the excess heat in the oceans will warm the surface by about another 0.5C.

May 6, 2009 - 3:10 am 117. Robert Wagner:

Smoking Frog: “You seem to imply that CO2 did cause the temperature to go as high as 22 C., but not higher. I don’t think you mean that, but even if you don’t, you sound like you think 22 C. isn’t much. Actually it’s a lot, an 8-degree rise. I’d be surprised to see more than a 2-degree rise by the end of the century or any “foreseeable” date later than that.”

I didn’t make any judgment at all about whether or not 22 degree C is hot or not, it certainly didn’t kill off life. My point is that a simple visual review of the chart shows no relationship between temp and CO2 what so ever going back 650 million years. Over a 650 million year period I am sure you can find short periods, like today according to some sources, that appear to be correlated. Facts are there is no linear or any relationship between CO2 and Temp, that is unless my eyes are lying to me. Are you refuting my chart?

May 6, 2009 - 6:22 am 118. LennyB:

@ 110, Alston

Thanks for responding. I’m not super well read on this topic. But. “Man’s influence on the climate is measurable and has been measured. This isn’t disputed by any reputable scientific skeptic. NONE. You have no basic point.” What measurement? Where? Which one shows that man influences the climate, and by how much? I’ll scour this thread for it. Estimates on the relative concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere do not prove that man influences the climate in either large or small measure. It proves that man emits CO2. Localized temperature data near man-made improvements doesn’t get you to “man affects the climate in a way that is too obvious to explain to the layman”. You might not think this observation is a point or a correct one, but, I’m not the one making assertions.

112 Bill – thanks for the comment, and it’s a fair point to characterize my naturally occurring carbon footprint in terms of both relative volume and the natural evolution of its occurrence.

But I do have a problem with the distinguishing it from the release of “long-term sequestered carbon by burning fossil fuels”, and this is kind of an aside to the argument whethe we absolutely know man affects climate. Certainly your description is a good way to characterize the more contrived impact of the human species (natural still in my opinion because we’re bags of H2O and Carbon), but the use of the active term “sequestered” seems to imply some sort of natural providence in storing this carbon in this manner and that somehow humans are fouling up this natural equilibrium. I reject the customary view that human activities by definition interfere with natural processes. Some of them surely do particularly with artificially produced compounds (CFCs), some of them surely don’t rise to that level (exhaling), and some of them are unknown. But don’t you think that with a reproduction of a process that also occurs naturally, for instance the presence of fire, don’t you think the burden of proof on that is a bit higher? I’m no scientist and I confess my understandings are surface level, but certainly when the sequestered carbon in the depths of the earth’s mantle are once again exposed, sporadically or all at once, they will burn and release a veritable boatload of CO2. Just as when they were once jungle vegetation, they were all compressed into coal and the like, geologically this likely at once given the uniform depth and concentrations of coal and oil. Seems to me that man’s primary impact, to the extent it’s statistically significant re the volume of fossil fuels burned, is to smooth the release of carbon over time rather than to create the inevitable staggered mass releases that would surely occur in man’s absence. I’m not saying it’s good or bad, because I don’t know. But none of that seems to prove whether man is influencing the climate. Although it seems that man may indirectly affect climate in the distant future by averting the mass input of “sequestered” carbon all at once and perhaps reaching some critical mass of concentration that transforms the earth’s climate and atmosphere into something wholly different. I’m supposing myself into all this and none of it has to do with whether anthropogenic C02 release affects climate. But it’s interesting to consider, at least for me.

May 6, 2009 - 6:15 pm 119. Smoking Frog:

@116 Boris

“This is wrong for a variety of reasons:

“1. we’ve seen a 0.7 deg C rise and CO2 has grown by 40%. No feedbacks gives 1.1C for a doubling of CO2.”

What are you saying, that with no feedbacks the increase should have been 40% of 1.1 C? That’s not true. The temperature is logarithmic with CO2. I doubt that the present CO2 level is quite so high as (280)(1.4)=392, but you say it, so I’ll use it.

ln(392)/ln(280)=1.06
ln(560)/ln(280)=1.12
1.06/1.12=0.946

So we should have seen 94.6% of the rise due to doubling.

“2. Sulphate aerosols have very likely offset some of the CO2 warming.”

You seem to be hedging on (1). Anyway, the claim that pollution explains the cooling from WWII until the 1970s is at least controversial.

“3. We are not at equilibrium yet. Even if no more CO2 were added, the excess heat in the oceans will warm the surface by about another 0.5C.”

Of course we’re not at equilibrium yet, since we keep raising the CO2 level, but how long it would take to get there if we were to stop raising, and how far from it we are in terms of temperature, is controversial. For example, see Roger Pielke Sr.’s discussion of the issue:

http://climatesci.org/2009/03/09/further-comments-regarding-the-concept-heating-in-the-pipeline/

Bill

May 7, 2009 - 2:05 am 120. Smoking Frog:

@117 Robert Wagner

No, I’m not “refuting [your] chart.” I’ll try to get back to you tomorrow, but it’s way too late at night right now. Meanwhile, take a look at what I just wrote to Boris. It might cheer you up.

Oh, by the way, the relationship of temperature to CO2 is not supposed to be “linear.” You gotta inform yourself better. Right now, you seem to be about as bad on the skeptical side as Jason Box is on the alarmist side.

@118 Lenny B

I’ll try to get to you tomorrow.

May 7, 2009 - 2:11 am 121. Boris:

“So we should have seen 94.6% of the rise due to doubling.”

You are right that the relationship is logarithmic, but your math is way, way off.

It is not controversial than sulphate aerosols are masking some of the current CO2 warming. There is some debate as to how much they are offsetting, however.

Pielke Sr. is making a semantic argument. Ocean heat content is still rising (see Levitus 2009). There is plenty of warming “in the pipeline.”

May 7, 2009 - 5:50 am 122. Anonymous:

@121 Boris

“You are right that the relationship is logarithmic, but your math is way, way off.”

Sorry, I got the right answer for the wrong problem. My math is right for the total GHE, although it’s needlessly complex, since ln(280) cancels. The total GHE at 392 ppm is 94.4% of the total GHE at 560 ppm:

ln(392)/ln(560) = 0.944 approx.

That’s 94.4% of the total (say) 32 kelvins. What you’re talking about, and what I blearily thought I was talking about is:

ln(392/280)/ln(560/280) = 0.485 approx., or

(log(392)-log(280))/(log(560)-log(280)) = 0.485 approx.

That is, temperature-wise, we should now be 48.5% of the way from 280 ppm to 560 ppm. Applied to your 1.15 C, the rise so far should have been 0.54 C, but “in fact” it’s been 0.7 C. On the other hand, assuming that 0.7 C *is* 48.5% of the “way,” the “way” is 1.443 C. That might be nearer the truth, since the total GHE implied by 1.15 C is 19.49 kelvins, nowhere near 32. Let T,D = total GHE at 392, GHE increase by raising CO2 level from 392 to 560.

T = 0.944(T+D)—>T = D/0.059
1.15 /0.059 = 19.49, whereas
1.443/0.059 = 24.45

but that’s still far below 32, which requires D=1.89. If 1.89 is right, we should have seen 0.916 kelvins, and that’s greater than the 0.7 which we supposedly have seen.

A fundamental problem with all this is that we do not actually know where we are on the log curve. Fully half of the present-day GHE ought to exist at 20 ppm, but there is nothing remotely like that in natural history to guide us, so we don’t know that the total is 32 kelvins, and therefore we don’t know what the increase from 280 to 560 really ought to produce.

I don’t agree that Pielke is arguing semantics.

More later.

May 7, 2009 - 3:46 pm 123. Anonymous:

I just tried to post a much longer message than this one, but the system somehow made it disappear. I’ll have to be brief now.

“You are right that the relationship is logarithmic, but your math is way, way off.”

Sorry, OK, but it’s the right answer for the wrong problem. It’s correct for the total GHE, although it’s needlessly complex, since the ln(280) cancels. The total GHE at 392 ppm is 94.4% of the total GHE at at 560 ppm, but what you’re talking about and what I blearily thought I was talking about is:

log(392/280)/log(560/280)=0.485, or, the same thing:
(log(392)-log(280))/(log(560)-log(280))=0.485

If your 1.15 is right, then you’re right, we should have seen an increase of 0.56 kelvins, but supposedly we have seen 0.7. However, that doesn’t gibe with the claim that the total GHE is about 32 kelvins; it gives 19.49. If we take it that 0.7 *is* 48.5% of the way from 280 to 560, we do better, something like 24 total GHE, but we’re still nowhere near 32. To get 32, we have to use something like 1.9, not 1.15 or whatever I used to get 24 total GHE, and in that case we’ve seen less warming than expected.

A fundamental problem with all this is that we don’t actually know where we are on the log curve. Fully half the present-day GHE should exist at 20 ppm, but there is nothing remotely like that in natural history to guide us. So we don’t know what going from 280 to 560 should do.

I do not agree that Pielke is arguing semantics.

More later.

May 7, 2009 - 4:04 pm 124. Smoking Frog:

Arghh. That “Anonymous” is me having neglected to enter userid etc. I thought it didn’t post, so I posted another, briefer message, and again neglected to enter userid etc. Probably it will show up shortly as a 2nd “Anonymous.”

May 7, 2009 - 4:06 pm 125. Smoking Frog:

@117 Robert Wagner

As I said, no, I’m not trying to refute your chart. I accept it. What ought to concern you is this: Scientists who believe that AGW is real probably accept it, too. It is not true that it shows “no relationship between temp and CO2.” It does show a relationship. I hesitate to guess the coefficient of correlation, but it would surprise me to find that it was not pretty high. The chart might be grounds for rejecting AGW, but you don’t know that, and neither do I. No one claims that the temperature should move in lockstep with CO2, never mind claiming that it should move in lockstep over hundreds of millions of years in which the continents move, solar irradiance changes, and the earth’s orbit and axial tilt changes.

I don’t think you know, and I certainly don’t know, whether all the temperatures in the chart are global means or whether some of them are merely whatever Scotese could glean from limited geographical areas. Until 200-300 million years ago, compared with today, a greater amount of land was near the equator, and the continents were far more clumped together.

I don’t like to be defending AGW, but you’re forcing me to it, with your idea about volcanoes and now with this chart.

Bill

May 8, 2009 - 1:36 am 126. Boris:

I’m confused. Why do you think you can determine the total greenhouse effect from CO2 concentrations alone?

May 8, 2009 - 5:17 am 127. enviro589:

Since 2000, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased 18.4% of the increase from 1800 to 2000. According to the average of the five reporting agencies, the trend of average global temperatures since 1998 shows no increase.

It is easily proven (see link at 114.)that added atmospheric CO2 has no significant influence on average global temperature.

May 8, 2009 - 8:33 am 128. Boris:

“It is easily proven (see link at 114.)that added atmospheric CO2 has no significant influence on average global temperature.”

You are just cherry picking a warm year and then claiming that there is no increase. That’s pretty dishonest and shows an ignorance of statistics.

May 8, 2009 - 9:24 am 129. Smoking Frog:

@126 Boris

“I’m confused. Why do you think you can determine the total greenhouse effect from CO2 concentrations alone?”

I’m not talking about total GHE due to all GHGs, but only total GHE due to CO2 and water vapor. When you tell me that doubling the CO2 concentration from 280 to 560 ppm would raise the temperature by 1.15 C, you’re not talking about all GHG’s, either; you’re talking about CO2 and water vapor.

May 8, 2009 - 2:49 pm 130. enviro589:

@128 Boris
Speaking of dishonesty,if you had looked at the link you should have noticed that no warm years were used. The data used are ‘official’ and corroborated. No statistical analysis was needed or used.

May 8, 2009 - 4:28 pm 131. Boris:

“When you tell me that doubling the CO2 concentration from 280 to 560 ppm would raise the temperature by 1.15 C, you’re not talking about all GHG’s, either; you’re talking about CO2 and water vapor.”

No. CO2 by itself will raise temps by about 1C when doubled. With feedbacks (eg water vapor), the total increase will be more like 3C.

May 9, 2009 - 9:06 am 132. Boris:

“the trend of average global temperatures since 1998 shows no increase.”

“no warm years were used.”

1998 was a warm year. Cherry picking 1998 as your endpoint is dishonest and misleading.

“No statistical analysis was needed or used.”

Then how did you determine that temps have shown “no increase” since 1998? Did you eyeball it?

May 9, 2009 - 9:09 am 133. Smoking Frog:

“No. CO2 by itself will raise temps by about 1C when doubled. With feedbacks (eg water vapor), the total increase will be more like 3C.”

You’re right, I made a mistake; 3C is what they say for that (regardless of whether it matches reality). But you still seem to be missing the point that what I was talking about with “total GHE” was GHE relative to 0 ppm CO2, not “total” including all GHG’s, just as you were talking about GHE relative to 280 ppm CO2, not including all GHG’s.

This is important, because unless what gives us the 3C is about as rigorous as what gives us the 1.15C, and unless we could expect it to be valid over a broad range of CO2 levels, probably all the way down to 0 ppm on the down side, it has no claim to being “the” increase that ought to accompany the doubling from 280 to 560 when water vapor is included. Well, we have no idea of whether it satisfies those conditions, and we have reason to believe that it does not.

Please don’t misunderstand me as saying that water vapor should be ignored, and 1.15C is what we should expect from the doubling. I merely say that the 3C is not nearly as well founded as the 1.15C. This is like saying that Chevrolet is not as good a car as Harley-Davidson is a motorcycle.

May 9, 2009 - 8:57 pm 134. Smoking Frog:

@118 LennyB

With “relative volume,” you seem to be misunderstanding me as saying that your “natural” CO2 emissions don’t count because they’re small. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that they don’t count because they are part of the short-term carbon cycle. If you had said “all humans’ naturally occurring carbon footprint,” instead of “my naturally occurring carbon footprint,” my answer would be the same.

However, I do not claim that the atmospheric CO2 level would be just the same as between the two hypothetical situations (1) humans only produce natural emissions, and (2) humans do not exist. There might be a difference, but it might be in either direction.

It is not relevant to AGW to talk about CO2-level differences between various natural situations, because, short of some truly huge natural disaster, such as all coal fields being on fire at the same time, they all “work”; otherwise they could not exist. For example, a situation in which all humans were “natural,” and their CO2 emissions exceeded CO2 uptake by plants and other natural carbon sinks, could not exist, because there would not be enough plants in the food chain.

You might object: “Yes, but the atmospheric CO2 level would rise during the approach to that situation, even though the situation could not be reached. So my natural carbon footprint does count.” My answer is, no, we don’t know that it would rise, and probably it would not, because the population-limiting effect of plants being in short supply does not suddenly kick in at the point of *global* starvation.

You might object: “Given the fact that we are not natural, our natural emissions add to the total atmospheric CO2 level.” No, that’s nonsense. The unnatural emissions are what add to it, if any emissions do.

You say you don’t like the word “sequester” in this context, since it implies a “natural providence” that is “storing carbon in this manner,” and this implies that we are “fouling up this equilibrium.” If, with “providence,” you mean God, then, no, it does not imply God, but if you do not mean God, you can only mean the natural order of things, and you might just as well say that you reject the idea of a “natural providence” that makes water flow downhill, or the earth stay in its orbit, or anything at all. The fact is that by burning fossil fuels we are changing an equilibrium that would exist if we were not burning them.

It is not true that by burning fossil fuels we are “smoothing the release of carbon over time” and thus preventing “inevitable staggered mass releases.” If it were true, the fossil fuels could never have accumulated in the earth. We have only been burning them for a tiny fraction of the time during which they accumulated.

May 10, 2009 - 12:40 am 135. Smoking Frog:

It’s unfortunate that comments threads from news and opinion articles peter out so quickly. Every time I post, I think I might be wasting my time, since the thread may have been abandoned.

May 10, 2009 - 12:55 am 136. Boris:

“I merely say that the 3C is not nearly as well founded as the 1.15C.”

I agree.

May 10, 2009 - 5:14 am 137. enviro589:

The proof that CO2 has no significant influence on average global temperature is given in the the pdf file linked from http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . The proof does not use warm years or statistical analysis.

May 12, 2009 - 6:25 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: