Just 20 Years

I wanted to pull out one thought from my longer video and presentation on global warming.

As a reminder, I adhere to what I call the weak anthropogenic theory of global warming — that the Earth’s sensitivity to CO2, net of all feedback effects, is 1C per doubling of CO2 concentrations or less, and that while man may therefore be contributing to global warming with his CO2 (not to mention his land use and other practices) the net effect falls far short of catastrophic.

While in the media, alarmists want to imply that the their conclusions about climate sensitivity are based on a century of observation, but this is not entirely true.  Certainly we have over a century of temperature measurements, but only a small part of this history is consistent with the strong anthropogenic theory.  In fact, I observed in my video is that the entire IPCC case for a high climate sensitivity to CO2 is based on just 20 years of history, from about 1978 to 1998.

Here are the global temperatures in the Hadley CRUT3 data base, which is the primary data from which the IPCC worked (hat tip Junk Science Global Warming at a Glance)  click to enlarge

Everything depends on how one counts it, but during the period of man-made CO2 creation, there are really just two warming periods, if we consider the time from 1910 to 1930 just a return to the mean.

  • 1930-1952, where temperatures spiked about a half a degree and ended 0.2-0.3 higher than the past trend
  • 1978-1998, where temperatures rose about a half a degree, and have remained at that level since

Given that man-made CO2 output did not really begin in earnest until after 1950 (see the blue curve of atmospheric CO2 levels on the chart), even few alarmists will attribute the runup in temperatures from 1930-1952 (a period of time including the 1930’s Dust Bowl) to anthropogenic CO2.  This means that the only real upward change in temperatures that could potentially be blamed on man-made CO2 occurred from 1978-1998.

This is a very limited amount of time to make sweeping statements about climate change causation, particularly given the still infant-level knowledge of climate science.  As a result, since 1970, skeptics and alarmists have roughly equal periods of time where they can make their point about temperature causation (e.g. 20 years of rising CO2 and flat temperatures vs. 20 years of rising CO2 and rising temperatures).

This means that in the last 40 years, both skeptics and alarmists must depend on other climate drivers to make their case  (e.g. skeptics must point to other natural factors for the run-up in 1978-1998, while alarmists must find natural effects that offset or delayed warming in the decade either side of this period).  To some extent, this situation slightly favors skeptics, as skeptics have always been open to natural effects driving climate while alarmists have consistently tried to downplay natural forcing changes.

I won’t repeat all the charts, but starting around chart 48 of this powerpoint deck (also in the video linked above) I present some alternate factors what may have contributed, along with greenhouse gases, to the 1978-1998 warming (including two of the strongest solar cycles of the century and a PDO warm period nearly exactly matching these two decades).

Postscript: Even if the entire 0.7C or so temperature increase in the whole of the 20th century is attributed to manmade CO2, this still implies a climate sensitivity FAR below what the IPCC and other alarmists use in their models.   Given about 44% of a doubling since the industrial revolution began in CO2 concentrations, this would translate into a temperature sensitivity of 1.3C  (not a linear extrapolation, the relationship is logarithmic).

This is why alarmists must argue that not only has all the warming we have seen been due to CO2 ( heroic assumption in and of itself) but that there are additional effects masking or hiding the true magnitude of past warming.  Without these twin, largely unproven assumptions, current IPCC “consensus” numbers for climate sensitivity would be absurdly high.  Again, I address this in more depth in my video.

  • sundevil

    @Chippas:
    Opinions is shifting toward the ‘denier’ side of the argument. If you cannot see that, I’m sorry to say that you are deluded. The inherent weaknesses of AGW theory are being formed into valid alternative explanations and more and more scientists are abandoning the AGW ship. At the very least, they are gravitating the weak-AGW theory (climate sensitivity is less than originally theorized).

    @Renewable:

    Public polling indicated AGW to be very very low on the list of people’s concerns. Temperatures are regressing to the mean as this main article notes. In the end, the public just isn’t buying the fear-mongering. As I said, man likely is contributing is some fashion, but “so, what?” is the public’s reaction, and so far, that reaction has proven to be prudent.

    If you want to know more about how the climate models produce hockey sticks with random data, just Google it. Do your own research. It’s not hard to find and I’m not going to get into a battle of links. If you are truly intellectually honest, you’d look at the best arguments against your position and the possible corruption of the science you hold so dear. It seems obvious you don’t care and you just want to obfuscate things and re-define term so that, in your mind, you win the argument.

  • Renewable Guy

    pauld:
    ” I am curious whether you agree with Romm that “the grim consequences humanity faces if we take no serious action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions” are 100% certain.”

    Renewable: why are you avoiding answering this question. Romm statement implies that just as it is 100% certain that everyone will die, it is 100% that humanity will face grim consequences if we take no serious action to curtail greenhouse gases.

    The part of this statement that I am interesting in hearing your response is the part dealing with level of certainty with which Romm holds his view. The part where he equates the certainty of grim consequences with the certainty of death.

    ############################################

    I don’t know why you need 100%. WIth more co2 the temperatures will increase. Guaranteed.

    The consequences Romm talks about of increased co2 are in line with the science of climatology.

    I’ve learned correct climate science through Romm.

    If this is proof that I’m hedging according to you then so be it. It’s your interpretation not mine.

  • Renewable Guy

    sundevil:

    If you want denier science then look no further than the NIPCC taking place in Washington DC. Talk about out of touch. Whacked out is more like it.

    Science is self correcting, denier science just spreads confusion. Back to Spencer. He couldn’t get his book peer reviewed so he just skipped it. Lack of integrity is well rewarded on the denier side. Lies are highly appoved of and well paid for.

    Doesn’t matter what the whole population believes. GHG’s do what they do. We will get warmer while you keep touting ice ideas with no basis in observation. Just a wing and prayer.

  • Renewable Guy

    Malcolm:
    For Renewable Guy, on CRU and US DOE:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/21/us-doe-apparently-funded-cru-millions-not-200k-as-reported/

    This cites Climategate emails and the website of CRU. All money leaving DOE are public record, so you should be able to verify the cited figures.

    #####################################################

    Anthony is on another witch hunt.

  • Renewable Guy

    ADiff:
    I trust Exxon a hell of lot more than DOE, and I’ve worked with both
    ##################################

    Since you don’t accept climate science, then your position would make sense. I don’t agree with you though.
    I accept the IPCC as conservative in their forcasts and DOE’s purpose is to move on energy efficiency, cleaner energy generation, promoting cheaper and more abundant clean energy, support for clean energy projects.

    That supports my thinking the whole way.

  • Renewable Guy

    Adiff:

    A Proxy is a proxy, not a temperature measurement, so save your breath about how the proxies work (or don’t, as the case may be…to some extent or other…).

    ######################################

    From your statement you probably don’t give accurate balance to proxies, which would make sense to me since you are cynical about AGW.

    Each proxie by itself could be vague, but if several proxies indicate the same trend, then they act as a group and strengthen the confidence in the questions being asked.

  • Renewable Guy

    Adiff:

    You seem to think your “issue” so important that your lying is justified, starting with to yourself….

    ##############################################

    Interesting view you have of me.

    CO2 regualtes the H2O in the atmosphere. H2O as so many deniers are fond of saying is the stronger ghg. The two work in concert and outdo the negative feedbacks.

    IF I’m lying to myself on that one then so be it.

    Then tell me Adiff, how is that a lie?

  • Renewable Guy

    Adiff:

    No catastrophe …
    No crisis …
    No emergency

    I’ll pick one easy one that has human causation in it.

    The record breaking tornado outbreak in the spring. According to DR Trenberth, the gulf of Mexico was 2 F above normal. 1F was natural variation and 1F was anthropogenic. That one degree puts extra mooisture in the air along with its associated latent heat. That extra energy went into the storms rolling through the United States. The extra water vapor landed in the midwest causing record floods.

    There were a lot of other more extreme storms than normal all over the world.

    As the earth heats up, more moisture comes into the air adding energy to whole weather system. That’s a given.

    CO2 increases more moisture increases, more energy in storms, more ice melts from co2, sea levels rise,

    Sea level rise will be trillions of dollars damage alone.

    The investment of clean energy will bring the final average temp peak lower rather than a higher temp peak which would be destructive to our present society.

  • Renewable Guy

    Sundevil:

    If you want to know more about how the climate models produce hockey sticks with random data, just Google it. Do your own research. It’s not hard to find and I’m not going to get into a battle of links. If you are truly intellectually honest, you’d look at the best arguments against your position and the possible corruption of the science you hold so dear. It seems obvious you don’t care and you just want to obfuscate things and re-define term so that, in your mind, you win the argument.
    #############################

    You must prove science corrupt. Otherwise you are just being a rumor monger. The climategate has been cleared by several groups as the scientists are mostly pissed at deniers.

    http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html

    I know you pretty much won’t watch these videos. There are 23 different lectures by a professor in climate. The students pay about 500 to a 1000 dollars for this class. Compare it to Anthony Watts if you want.

    With this much co2 in the atmosphere, we are going to get much warmer than this. 300 years out we are looking at 15 feet sea level rise.

    If you can’t accept the reality of this then come up science reasons why this is wrong. Corrupt science is a denier backed into a corner with no other explanation.

  • intrepid_wanders

    (Golf Clap…)

    Very nice Renewable Guy, for playing in an alley. But, that is how most cultists like to play. Since you estimate that most will not watch your suggested links; unless they are papers that have not been countered (you know, that science thing, where a theory can be countered with a dismissive thing).

    Anyhow, regardless of the views here, level playing field and all, what is it that you propose? We have a CARBON-LESS tech called NUCLEAR, should we give it a go and convert our COAL over to NUCLEAR (Until all the “Wonderland Wind-Turbines and Solar” catch up (In the business world, we call that a “Stop-Gap”)?

  • kelly liddle

    Global Thermal Warming

    The following study done by myself and assisted by a scientist is only to demonstrate that the warming can be mostly if not all explained by thermal emmissions or basically a large scale heat island study using energy use data. This is not intended to give any exact warming extent as average values are used and wind land cover etc are not taken into account (this is virtually impossible despite the claims of organisations such as NASA or CSIRO) Also the energy use is not constant and will have greater effects when weather is cold and heating is more widely used.

    The energy use we shall use is the total annual use of fossil fuels and nuclear. These 2 energy sources are being released by humans.

    Numbers used for calculations.

    Area m2 is square metres

    USA 9626091000000 m2

    China 9596960000000 m2

    France 547030000000 m2

    Germany 357021000000 m2

    United Kingdom 244820000000 m2

    Planet Surface 510066000000000 m2

    (Source : http://www.worldatlas.com)

    Annual energy use based on energy use in 2009. Includes fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Does not include others such as wind solar biofuels geothermal or hydro.

    Mtoe is Million tonnes or oil equivalent.

    USA 2119.8 Mtoe

    China 2037.7 Mtoe

    France 228.8 Mtoe

    Germany 285.6 Mtoe

    United Kingdom 197.7 Mtoe

    World 10424 Mtoe

    (Source : Statistical review of world energy full report 2010 (Beyond Petroleum))

    The following formula was used. It basically is working out the amount of energy in continuous watt output per hour per metre squared and then calculating out the expected change in temperature by using the average input of energy from the sun using Albedo and Suns energy per square according to NASA. This is not intended to give any accurate prediction but just a general prediction.

    Mtoe* 11.63*1 000 000 000 000 (conversion of Mtoe to Watts)*0.7 (energy available as thermal energy)/365/24(conversion to Watt output per hour)/land area in square metres(to give energy output per square metre per hour)*Kelvin 287/342/.703(to give estimated temperature change where Kelvin 287 is earth average temperature 342 is available energy from sun and 0.703 is the amount available to the troposphere after the albedo)

    After doing these calculations if the air never left the country and everything else such as albedo remained constant mentioned these would be the approximate temperature changes.

    USA 0.24 degrees increase
    China 0.23 ,,
    France 0.46 ,,
    Germany 0.88 ,,
    United Kingdom 0.89 ,,
    World 0.0224 ,,

    Conclusions: If a climate model printout has not taken this into account the printouts highest value shall be the greater of the recycling price to the use as a biofuel (but watch out for the thermal emissions). Most fuel use is over land and in the northern hemisphere so this is where the expected highest results are likely. Anecdotely this could be the effect in the antarctic peninsular but it is very difficult to get any fuel use figures. If this is the case the increases are likely to be in summer as this is when the scientists travel there.

    Note; The energy available is a very conservative estimation based on average power station efficiency and vehicle efficiency and uses eg. domestic use of energy is far higher with average households spending over 50% of energy dirrectly for heating (hot water cooking and space heating). The amount of energy from sun will not be accurate as the albedo and latitudes on the earth could have a big effect.

  • netdr

    The alarmists see that past temperature rise does not conform to the high sensitivity the IPCC believes in.

    They counter that all warming from past CO2 has not occurred yet, it is somehow being stored somewhere. Since over 95 % of the heat is stored in the oceans that would be the natural place to look.

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2005/to:2012/trend/plot/uah/from:2005/to:2012

    Between 2005 and today both the ocean and the atmosphere have failed to warm. That is impossible if a the sensitivity is as the IPCC says it is.

    See the “missing heat” argument. If the heat is somehow slipping to the bottom of the ocean undetected it isn’t doing any warming is it ? Will it surface 1,000 years from now or is it even there?

    Where is the catastrophe in the CAGW ?

  • kelly liddle

    hey if you want to get into that arguement you are wrong i do not know by what factor but the earths core would contain much more energy

  • netdr

    Renewable Guy:

    NetDr:

    Second of all the only period of “anthropogenic global warming” is 1978 to 1998.

    ################

    2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on the temperature history. I don’t believe the warming has stopped as some would like to think.

    2005 and 2010 are tied for the hottest years on record.
    *******************************
    This has been explained several times before.

    Your statemenst could be true and it still doesn’t prove that the 00’s warmed. Think it through.

    It is possible [and true] that the 00’s are warmer than the 90’s and that the 00’s have failed to warm and are essentially flat during the period 00 to 09. One statement doesn’t contradict the other.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2009

    It isn’t hard to understand.

    It warmed from 90 to 00 so the AVERAGE must be lower than the 00 value, Right?

    If it didn’t cool as much during the 00’s as it warmed during the 90’s the average of the 90’s would be less than the average of the 00’s. Right ?

    No matter how much lipstick is put on the pig it is still a pig.

    There has been failure to warm since about 1998. Something has changed and the heat isn’t going into the oceans. [see above]

    That is why the models have all jumped the shark.

  • netdr

    Kelly

    So the “missing heat” is stored in the earth’s core ?

    Interesting?

  • kelly liddle

    I am not saying that just that the arguement is insufficient. I would like for you to read my previous blog and calculate it it out and check the numbers should you wish. You seem like and intelligent gal or guy. I am not actually dissagreeing with you.

  • netdr

    Kelly

    Interesting !

    I have wondered on a micro level that my house burns [on average] 2,000 KWH per month. That is what my power bill is. No mater how good the insulation is that heat goes into the atmosphere.

    In Dallas there are about 6 million people and many businesses so where does the heat go ?

    I have personally measured the temperature heat island effect of Dallas and it is about 7 degrees F on a sunny summer afternoon. Downtown Dallas Vs 35 Miles in the country.

    Some of that is concrete heat absorption and some is just escaping heat from buildings. You might get an estimate about what each effect is by doing the same measurement at dawn.

    I did that too and the heat island was only a degree F or so. This was done with a temperature logging thermometer with 1 degree F resolution.

  • kelly liddle

    netdr

    Your insulation is irrelevant except for timing at some stage that heat will go somewhere at least the vast majority some could cause chemical reactions etc. The average efficiency of a fossil fuel power plant according to IEA is 36% in 2008 for nuclear i am guessing that is the same but i have not found that information (based on they are both steam turbine driven)so your real heat emission would be at least 2 times that in my opinion as in there are just as much emissions at th power plant. You are coming back to, in this case micro technicalities. I am not suggesting any exact measurement that is for those getting millions of dollars. Me and you do not have the ability to measure the temperatue on a large scale. At the transition period from heat absorbtion to heat emission and vis a versa theoreticaly it would be 0 timing when the transition is is difficult. There are so many variables that these predictions are impossible as in where ever you are take into account these variables your latitude, clouds in the sky, humidity, color of buidling (albedo) if you are in a down town area the entire thermal emissions from your area and then again from wind direction and speed if the wind is a high speed then even more difficult the rate of energy loss in other words how fast the energy disperses this is a factor of the temperature and the air currents and the evil gas co2 but based on the sea temps has had little if any effect as in how long will it take to rise to the top of the troposphere and the evaporation rate the energy for evaporation is very large. Basically i think these ideas are well beyond us but weather forcasting as in using previous readings to predict future readings is very good (weather not climate change). You know what to us now what may seem common sense was at the time a radical theory as in the the earth is round. So my main point is that they (climate scientists) at least the ones our governments talk about have not actually calculated out the energy produced as in thermal emissions. I am just assuming that but searching on mostly nasa and some csiro that is our mob. Excuse my gramma

  • Renewable Guy

    intrepid_wanders:
    (Golf Clap…)

    Very nice Renewable Guy, for playing in an alley. But, that is how most cultists like to play. Since you estimate that most will not watch your suggested links; unless they are papers that have not been countered (you know, that science thing, where a theory can be countered with a dismissive thing).

    Anyhow, regardless of the views here, level playing field and all, what is it that you propose? We have a CARBON-LESS tech called NUCLEAR, should we give it a go and convert our COAL over to NUCLEAR (Until all the “Wonderland Wind-Turbines and Solar” catch up (In the business world, we call that a “Stop-Gap”)?

    ###########################################

    Electric transportation where possible, geothermal heating and cooling where possible, renewable energy in all its forms, energy efficiency in all its forms, Peak shaving in electrical generation, smart grid, electric trains rather than diesel, utlity grade power storage.

    ##############################################

    should we give it a go and convert our COAL over to NUCLEAR (Until all the “Wonderland Wind-Turbines and Solar” catch up (In the business world, we call that a “Stop-Gap”)?

    ##############################################

    Wind and solar are cheaper and faster than nuclear.

  • kelly liddle

    renewable guy
    i suggest you read my first post it is is the only proof i have found of human induced warming

  • Renewable Guy

    netdr:
    Renewable Guy:

    NetDr:

    Second of all the only period of “anthropogenic global warming” is 1978 to 1998.

    ############################################################

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_Decades

    1970–1979 -0.00100{{{3}}}−0.001 °C (−0.00180 °F)
    1980–1989 0.1760{{{3}}}0.176 °C (0.317 °F)
    1990–1999 0.3130{{{3}}}0.313 °C (0.563 °F)
    2000–2009 0.5130{{{3}}}0.513 °C (0.923 °F)

  • intrepid_wanders

    Renewable Guy says:

    “Electric transportation where possible, geothermal heating and cooling where possible, renewable energy in all its forms, energy efficiency in all its forms, Peak shaving in electrical generation, smart grid, electric trains rather than diesel, utlity grade power storage.”

    You paint quite the utopia. You must be quite the follower of Sven Teske and his nonsense…
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/a-blunder-of-staggering-proportions-by-the-ipcc/

    Real experts in the field say that the COAL plants will still be firing with these LOW ENERGY DENSITY and UNRELIABLE wind and solar scams.
    http://ipccar5wg2ch10.blogspot.com/

    Richard Tol is a respected economist and IPCC contributor.

    and…

    Renewable Guy says:

    “Wind and solar are cheaper and faster than nuclear.”

    Care to cite something that can make this true?

    Also, some comments on this could be helpful…
    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/IPCC1995_Fail.htm

    Why do you suppose we hit the target (and better) of the most aggressive CO2 reduction simulation without the world wide commitment to going back to the stone-age?

  • netdr

    Renewable Guy:

    netdr:
    Renewable Guy:

    NetDr:

    Second of all the only period of “anthropogenic global warming” is 1978 to 1998.

    ############################################################

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_Decades

    1970–1979 -0.00100{{{3}}}−0.001 °C (−0.00180 °F) [The trend was DOWNWARD DURING THIS PERIOD – NETDR]

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

    1980–1989 0.1760{{{3}}}0.176 °C (0.317 °F) [This is the period when there were 3 El Nino’s to 1 La Nina Of course it warmed. No CO2 is needed to explain the warming. -NetDr]

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

    1990–1999 0.3130{{{3}}}0.313 °C (0.563 °F)
    [This is part of the El Nino warming during the period 1978 to 1998 check the chart– NetDr]

    2000–2009 0.5130{{{3}}}0.513 °C (0.923 °F)[During the period 2000 to 2009 there was essentially no warming as has been explained before.– NetDr.]

    ****************

    Looking at it by decades gives you a false pictures especially if you cherry pick the decades. The bigger picture is a cycle of warming and cooling on a 60 year cycle with a slight warming bias.

    You forgot the 1940 to 1949 and 1950 to 1959 and 1960 to 1969 and 1970 to 1979 cooling periods.

    Were they caused by CO2 ? As I recall there was a world war and CO2 emissions skyrocketed.

    The 1978 to 1998 warming is easily explained by the positive cycle of the PDO and a strong sunspot maximum.

    Since we are at the top of the sine wave the period 2010 to 2019 will be cooler than 2000 to 2009, and 2020 to 2029 will be even cooler, but we will have a long time to wait to verify that prediction. So far 2011 has been cool due to La Nina’s which will increase as part of the natural cycle.

    We are entering a similar cooling period of 30 years right now caused by more La Nina’s than El Ninos. [I wonder what mental gymnastics the alarmists will do to explain it away with aerosols.] By the end of it the global warming bandwagon will have crashed and burned.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

    The data indicates it [the cooling] was due to excess La Nina’s which are well documented. [Just as the 78 to 98 warming was caused by excess La Nina’s which are well documented also.] The aerosol excuse is undocumented and is just a software plug.

    So I say again:

    “Second of all the only period of “anthropogenic global warming” is 1978 to 1998.”

    And even that was during a natural positive cycle of the El Nino [PDO] and a maximum sunspot cycle and probably wasn’t due to CO2.

    http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html

  • Renewable Guy

    Kelly Liddle:

    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/sun_radiation_at_earth.html

    This simplified model of Earth yields an average global temperature for our home world of 254 K (or -19° Celsius or -3° Fahrenheit). Such a planet would be a chilly place indeed; most or all of the water on Earth would be frozen if this were indeed the temperature of our world. In reality, Earth’s overall average temperature is roughly +15° C (or +59°F or 288 K). As we’ll see in a bit, our atmosphere makes this planet a much more comfortable place to live!

    ##########################################################

    IT gives an idea of how much our atmosphere gives us a comfortable place to live. GHG’s combined of the past gave this climate of the last 10,000 years.

    IF you go to the equation in the link of “total power absorbed = total power emitted”. That is for an atmosphere in balance. Right now, our earth is balanced towards less emission by about .75 watts/m*2. The scientists are saying this why we are warming.

  • kelly liddle

    Yes i am very happy about our atmosphere. All i am pointing out is that the amount of extra energy we are releasing into the atmosphere is increasing the temperature slightly relatively close to its release point. Depending on how much energy you put in you will reach an equalibrim a point at which the energy loss will equal the energy input. This is because heat is emitted at a faster rate when the temperature is high. Before human activity assuming the earth and sea are not increasing or decreasing in temperature there would be more energy absorbed from swamps and the sea. As in what has made our coal and oil. Now we are expelling that energy so the amount of energy leaving the planet will be greater that is too balance the equation. I understand the arguement that increased green house gases are causing us to be warmer but there is very little empirical evidence. I am from Australia no measurable change here basically. and if the green house gas was the main cause then why have we not changed here. Basically i dissagree with those scientists.

  • Ted Rado

    The world experience with wind and solar is well documented in the literature. Google “cost of wind and solar power in Spain”. The cost in money and jobs is very high. And this is with “free” standby. Apparently, all the European countries are having second thoughts because of the obvious shortcomings and cost of wind/solar. As I have repeatedly pointed out, there are no technically or economically viable backup methods. The government is simply pouring billions into alternative energy studies to placate the enviroloonies (buy votes). It would be lovely to have some competent, objective, engineers in the government.

    I guess the AGW zealots are prepared to shoot themselves (and us) in the foot rather than face reality.

  • Renewable Guy

    Kelly:

    I understand the arguement that increased green house gases are causing us to be warmer but there is very little empirical evidence. I am from Australia no measurable change here basically. and if the green house gas was the main cause then why have we not changed here. Basically i dissagree with those scientists.

    ######################################################

    THis website is from Austrailia also. There are several thousand peer reviewed papers of observations linking the earth’s response to our global emissions.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-indicators-of-a-human-fingerprint-on-climate-change.html

    Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let’s look at more evidence that we’re responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.

    When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006).

    This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you’d expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide (Manning 2006).

    Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005).

    So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What’s the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

    If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth’s surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.” (Evans 2006).

    If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).

    Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what’s happening (Jones 2003).

    With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003).

    An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovi?ka 2006).

  • Kelly Liddle

    Renewable Guy

    Yes there is more co2 in the atmosphere. Why has it supposibly heated up the arctic the most and not had any effect on antarctica. Is the co2 in the southern hemisphere lazy? Please read my original post and give it to a scientist if you know one prove me wrong. The problem is the distribution of the heat changes for co2 to be the cause.

  • Renewable Guy

    Kelly:

    I understand the arguement that increased green house gases are causing us to be warmer but there is very little empirical evidence. I am from Australia no measurable change here basically. and if the green house gas was the main cause then why have we not changed here. Basically i dissagree with those scientists.

    ###########################################

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/great-barrier-reef-part1.html

    Austrailia is famous for its great barrier reef. The best scuba diving in the world is there. Impacts on its health are being observed.

    Austrailia had devastating floods earlier this year. There is a human component in that impact. With .8C increase in world wide temperature, there is an increase in water vapor at the rate of 6.5% per degree centigrade. It would be easy to say Austrailia got much more than a 6.5% increase in rain in those storms.This 6.5% increase rate has been observed by NASA.

  • Renewable Guy

    Kelly:

    So do I have to prove you wrong in everything you don’t believe?

    Pine Island Glacier (PIG) is being effected in Antartica. Just its ice alone can raise the sea levels several meters. The sea around antartica is increasing in temperature melting the ice that extends below the surface 1 to 2 kilometers deep.

    For the Artic, the ice albedo is decreasing allowing the sun more time to heat the water. The erosion of the ice habitat for artic animals is moving northward.

  • Kelly Liddle

    yes floods happen every now and then. Yes there were a lot of them but individually i think only 2 beat records. Effects on the reef are disputed by some there is no consensus there. With any photo you look at it might look bad but it recovers quickly and also could be taken after a hurricane or cyclone.

  • netdr

    renewable
    Austrailia is famous for its great barrier reef. The best scuba diving in the world is there. Impacts on its health are being observed.

    Austrailia had devastating floods earlier this year. There is a human component in that impact. With .8C increase in world wide temperature, there is an increase in water vapor at the rate of 6.5% per degree centigrade. It would be easy to say Austrailia got much more than a 6.5% increase in rain in those storms.This 6.5% increase rate has been observed by NASA.
    ******************
    How do you square this with the fact that water vapor has been going down for 60 years ?

    http://climate4you.com/ — Greenhouse gasses

  • Kelly Liddle

    see you tomorrow maybe

  • Ted Rado

    The temperature has been going up since the little ice age. That’s not the question. How much of it is due to man is what is in dispute.

  • ADiff

    Ted, There’s not much doubt there’s a contribution to global climate from human activities. The cumulative impacts are poorly and only partially understood, but there is at least some significant contribution to overall warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. It’s not yet clear exactly how this relates (in magnitude or mechanisms) with all the other significant determinants and influences, most of which are unrelated to human activity. There’s no question human generated gases contribute to warming….but to what effect and in what manner in relation to overall trends is very much still an unknown.

    But that’s not even what all the dispute is over. The dispute is over claims of pending disaster, catastrophe … and all the ‘end of the world’ bosh, mostly from non-scientists, or from people calling themselves scientists who are really administrators, manager, program directors … publicists, funding specialists and so forth… The evidence on balance completely fails to support any of the predictions of disaster.

    If there’s no pending disaster, then issues around warming and such might actually be able to proceed without becoming contentious matters of faith, ideology, political convinction, personal interest and all the other forces at play in the entire discussion of so-called “Global Warming”, “Climate Change”, whatever-the-latest-name is is…..

  • ADiff

    “The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.” – Mark Crislip

  • Renewable Guy

    NetDr:

    How do you square this with the fact that water vapor has been going down for 60 years ?

    climate4you.com/ — Greenhouse gasses

    ###############################

    http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm

    I believe that specific atmospheric humidity will be the most accurate representation of what I have been saying. It is the mass of water to the mass of dry air. A 4% increase in water vapor would be difficult to see in this graph. But starting at 1972 there would appear to be an increase overall. Plus there was an explanation of data before 1973, stating that the data is not homogeneous.

    With increasing temperature in the world how can humidity decrease? We are 70% ocean.

    http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/Elliott&Gaffen.BAMS1991.pdf

  • Renewable Guy

    Kelly:

    It’s waste heat
    Link to this pageThe skeptic argument…
    It’s waste heat
    “Global warming is mostly due to heat production by human industry since the 1800s, from nuclear power and fossil fuels, better termed hydrocarbons, – coal, oil, natural gas. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 play a minor role even though they are widely claimed the cause.” (Morton Skorodin)

    What the science says…
    The contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2. Greenhouse warming is adding about 100 times more heat to our climate than waste heat.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm

    Written by John Cook. From one Aussie to another.

  • Renewable Guy

    Ted Rado:
    The temperature has been going up since the little ice age. That’s not the question. How much of it is due to man is what is in dispute.

    “Who is disputing it?”, would be another good question to ask.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

    About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

    Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

  • Renewable Guy

    http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_report_two.htm

    Diplomats Overrule Scientists on Certainty of Global Warming Effects
    If these warnings seem dire, consider that the language was softened just hours before the report was released, a political maneuver led by China and Saudi Arabia that brought sharp protests from some of the leading scientists who worked on the report.

  • Renewable Guy

    ADiff:
    From the scientists themselves. I find them highly qualified. You are entitled to your own opinion on this.

    http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_report_two.htm

    Findings of the report include:

    •Projected climate change is likely to affect millions of people who are already vulnerable. Heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts will cause increased death, disease and other harm. Global warming is also expected to lead to more deaths due to malnutrition, diseases that cause diarrhea, cardio-respiratory diseases related to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, and wider distribution of diseases carried by insects, rodents, etc.

    •Millions more people are projected to be at risk from coastal flooding due to sea level rise, especially in densely populated and low-lying settlements that already face other challenges, such as hurricanes and tropical storms.

    •Approximately 20-30 percent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at higher risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5 degrees Celsius. The global average temperature already has increased by about 0.74 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.

    •In the course of the current century, water supplies stored in glaciers and snow cover are projected to decline, reducing water availability in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges, where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives. For example, glacial retreat in the Himalayas will disrupt downstream water supplies, which will have implications for billions of people across India, China, Nepal and Bhutan.

    •By 2020, 75-250 million people in Africa will be exposed to water scarcity due to climate change.

    •During the same period, yields from rain-fed agriculture in some African countries could be reduced by 50 percent.

    •Latin America faces a risk of significant biodiversity loss by mid-century as increases in temperature and associated decreases in soil water lead to gradual replacement of tropical forest with savanna in parts of the Amazon region.

    •People living on small islands, such as those found in the Caribbean and the Pacific, are particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels, extreme weather, and deteriorating coastal conditions associated with global warming. Climate change is projected to reduce water resources on many small islands and to adversely affect the livelihoods of island communities by undermining fisheries, tourism and other core components of island economies.

  • ADiff

    Might, could, risk, chance…and so far all the doomsayers are batting .000. Science 1, crystal ball gazing zip.

  • netdr

    Renewable

    •Projected climate change is likely to affect millions of people who are already vulnerable. Heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts will cause increased death, disease and other harm. Global warming is also expected to lead to more deaths due to malnutrition, diseases that cause diarrhea, cardio-respiratory diseases related to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, and wider distribution of diseases carried by insects, rodents, etc.

    •Millions more people are projected to be at risk from coastal flooding due to sea level rise, especially in densely populated and low-lying settlements that already face other challenges, such as hurricanes and tropical storms.
    ***********
    So far they have ALWAYS BEEN WRONG.

    Whenever the doom and gloomers make a prediction and include a date they are ALWAYS WRONG, but like a stopped clock they keep making the same predictions. Maybe they will be right someday.

    I have a collection of failed predictions as well as failed climate models, which are just another type of prediction.

    In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production.

    [They attempted to remove the evidence but Google has a cached feature and were caught red handed.]

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-disappearing-attempt/

    So the estimates were wrong by 50 million out of 50 million. Is that indicative of the quality of their predictions ?

  • kelly liddle

    netdr

    I like your persistance. Many of the predictions will be true of the doomsdayers actually. But the fact that there are too many people on the planet and they are causing deforestation degrading farmland and water resources very poor wealth distribution. And another one about inundation that is not such a rare thing a tsunami or storm surge can easily sink an island that is only a few metres above sea level. Every weather event from now until the theory is gone will be blamed on climate change. If it is a major weather event climate change average weather is weather variability. So by chance and normal observations they are always right. Do you know what the warmists theory is on antarctica just using common sense should be the perfect place to study this co2 induced warming because it is covered with snow all the time so the albedo never changes?

  • kelly liddle

    the scientists who we now refer to as flat earthers were also the most qualified

  • netdr

    A draft study produced by researchers at Yale University and four other research institutions has arrived at a surprising (to them) finding: The more that people are scientifically literate, and the more that they’re numerate, the likelier that they’ll be climate change skeptics.

    Even more surprising (to them): socialistic types and free market types are poles apart in their thinking on climate change, with those most knowledgeable in each camp having the strongest views.

    http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/SSRN-id1871503.pdf

    BTW:

    Despite a steady drumbeat of predictions of catastrophe none have ever been right.

    I believe Holdren co authored a book which predicted widespread starvation by 2000. Some people are absolutely addicted to doom and gloom. [I think they hate humanity and civilization.]

    Please show me one prediction of calamity which has passed the date the calamity was scheduled for which has been proven correct.

    The alarmists love to say “Its worse than we thought ” but when you read the story it is a new variable which MIGHT make it hotter, colder, wetter, dryer than predicted.

    It is NEVER about a measurement !

  • netdr

    I agree that any weather event and many non weather events will all be cited as a verification of the CAGW religion.

    I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it. Voltaire

    CO2 causes:

    Volcanoes [No joke, just after the Iceland volcano there were peer reviewed studies
    linking it to global warming]

    Earthquakes [Same thing after the Japan earthquake]
    More snow
    Less snow
    Heat waves
    Intense cold
    Floods
    Droughts
    More extreme weather
    Less extreme weather
    Melting ice
    Freezing water
    More hurricanes
    Fewer hurricanes
    More cloud
    Fewer clouds
    Stratospheric warming
    Stratospheric cooling
    etc. etc. ad nauseum.
    The science is settled.
    You are all in denial………

    The alarmists have turned themselves into a bad joke.

  • Ted Rado

    The fact that many “highly qualified” scientists support a hypothesis does not prove that it is indeed correct. Critical study of a hypothesis is part of science. To suggest that one must not question what the majority (or minority) of scientists think of a particular hypothesis is nonsense. That is how scientific progress is made. Einstein was poohood about his theory of relativity until it was clearly proven to be correct. Many hypotheses go the other way.

    The big debate (in my mind at least) is not about the validity of the AGW models, but whether the projected catastrophe is so well proven that we should destroy our industial society without an alternative energy source.

  • Renewable Guy

    Ted Rado:
    The fact that many “highly qualified” scientists support a hypothesis does not prove that it is indeed correct.
    ################################

    AGW is a theory.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Scientific_theories

    Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world.

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

    Global warming is the current rise in the average temperature of Earth’s oceans and atmosphere and its projected continuation. The scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring and was initiated by human activities, especially those that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[2][3] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not rejected by any scientific body of national or international standing.[4][5][6][A]

  • Renewable Guy

    netdr:
    You understand counter AGW better than AGW. How can you know its wrong if you ignor its observations?