I received an email-based interview request on climate a while back from Esquire Middle East. I have decided to include my whole response below. The questions they ask are nearly as informative as anything I say, as they betray that the editors of the publication have pretty much bought into not only global warming alarmism, but all the memes alarmists use to discredit skeptics. Its pretty clear all they know about the skeptic’s position is what they hear from alarmists about skeptics. Anyway, I responded to this from a hotel room in Kentucky and didn’t give it my best but I think it may be interesting to you. The questions are in bold, my answers in normal font.
Do you believe that global warming and climate change are a grave problem to the world at the moment ?
IF NO
What gives you reason to believe that global warming and climate change are not really happening?
I don’t deny they are happening, and neither do any other science-based skeptics. Alarmists like to tell the public that skeptics are taking these positions, in order to discredit them. The climate is always changing without any help from man — a good example is the drying up of North Africa over the last centuries. The period from 1600-1800 was among the coldest in the last 5000 years, so it is natural we would see warming in recovery from this.
Is there any scientific evidence to support that global warming and climate change is not really that harmful
I wrote a 90-minute presentation on this so it is hard to be brief. But here are a couple of thoughts1. I don’t deny greenhouse gas theory, that man’s CO2 can cause some incremental warming. The greenhouse gas theory has to be real, or the world would be much colder right now. No, what I deny is the catastrophe, that temperatures a hundred years hence will be five or ten degrees Celsius higher due to man’s co2
Interestingly, I think most everyone on the scientific end of the debate agrees that the direct warming from man’s Co2 acting alone will be relatively modest – on the order of a degree Celsius by the year 2100 according to the IPCC. Yeah, I know this seems oddly low — you never hear of global warming numbers as low as 1 degree — but it is actually a second theory, independent of greenhouse gas theory, that drives most of the warming. This second theory is that the climate is dominated by strong positive feedbacks that multiply the warming from CO2 many fold, and increase a modest 1 degree C of warming from man’s CO2 to catastrophic levels of 5 or even 10 degrees.
The example I use is to think of climate as a car. Co2 from man provides only a nudge to the car. The catastrophe comes from a second theory that the car (representing the climate) is perched precariously on the top of a hill with its brakes off, and a nudge from CO2 will start it rolling downhill until it crashes at the bottom.
When people say the science is settled, they generally mean greenhouse gas theory. But that means only the nudge is settled. What is far from settled is the second theory of strong net positive feedback in the climate, ie the theory the climate is perched on top of a hill. It is unusual for long-term stable but chaotic systems to be dominated by such strong positive feedbacks. In fact, only the most severe contortions allow scientists to claim their high-sensitivity models of catastrophic warming are consistent with the relatively modest warming of the past century.
2. The amount of unusual climate change we are seeing is GROSSLY exaggerated. We seem to be suffering under a massive case of observer bias in assessing any current effects of climate change. Extreme events, which have always existed, are used by both sides of the debate as supposed proof of long term global trends. But there is little useful we can learn about trends at the tails of the distribution, and it turns out that the means of key weather events in the US, from droughts to wet weather to tornadoes to hurricanes, show no meaningful trends.
We have this incredible hubris that by watching a chaotic system for about 20 years, we fully understand it. But climate has 30-year cycles, 200 year cycles, 1000-year cycles, etc. We don’t even know what is normal, so how can we say we are seeing things that are abnormal. We have seen a lot of melting sea ice in the Arctic, but we think we may have seen as much in the 1930’s, but we didn’t have satellites to watch the ice. And Antarctic Sea ice has been higher than normal while Arctic has been below normal.
Hurricanes are another great example. Al Gore swore that Hurricane Katrina was man-made, but it turns out there is actually a declining worldwide trend in hurricane and cyclone activity and energy, so much so that we hit the lowest level in 2009 since we started measuring by satellite 30 years ago.
Or take sea level rise. Sea levels are rising today and glaciers are shrinking. Sea levels are rising because they were rising in 1950 and in 1920 and in 1880 and in 1850. Sea levels have been steadily rising 1-3mm a year since about 1820 and the end of the little ice age. Ditto glacier retreat, which began around 1800 and has continued steadily to today, though the pace of retreat has slowed of late.
Imagine we wanted to look at customer visitation at a local restaurant that just closed after 60 years in business. If we watched for only a few hours, we might miss the huge variability of the crowds from early morning through each mealtime rush. Watch only for a day, and we might miss the seasonal variation, as vacationers pack the restaurant in March. Watch for just a year, and we might have missed the long, slow decline in visitation that eventually led to the restaurant closing. In climate, we are trying to decide if there is a long term decline at the restaurant after watching for the equivalent of only a few hours.
The reporting on whether manmade climate change is already happening is just awful. We see something happen that we can’t remember happening in the last 20 years and declare it to be “abnormal” and therefore “manmade.” Its absurd, and amazing to me that we skeptics are called anti-scientific when the science being practiced is so awful. The problem is that for academics, who are always scrambling for funds, climate change has become the best source of money. So you can’t just say you are studying acne, you have to say you are studying the effect of manmade climate change on acne. Essentially, we have told the academic world that they can get much more money for their work if they claim to see climate change. So is it any surprise they find it under every rock?
Are most scientists wrong?
I find judging science by counting scientists to be unproductive, so I have no idea. I will say that a lot of folks who sign petitions in support of the alarmist position have not really looked carefully at the science, they are merely showing support because they have been told skeptics are a bunch of religious fundamentalist anti-science types, so they want to express their support for science. It is ironic, as we found in the Climategate emails, that in fact they are supporting bad science, a small core group of scientists who have resisted normal scientific process of sharing data and replication
For some reason, we love to scare ourselves. Or, more likely, many people, particularly younger folks, like to feel that there is some way they can save the world, to deal with their own feelings of insignificance. And one can’t save the world unless it is in crisis. Every generation has these crises, and they are almost always overblown. Look at Paul Ehrlich — he has been wrong about 20 times. He said a billion people would die of starvation by 1980. He is just about never right, but people still lap up every thing he says. Because folks like him give people a sense of mission. And when you demonstrate to them that there is no crisis, they are not relieved (as one would expect someone to be when they find a crisis does not exist) — they are angry that you took their mission away from them.
What do you think is causing temperature changes on a scale never seen before?
Wow, you really are brainwashed. You have an assumption that we are seeing temperature changes on a scale never seen before, and so skeptics must start from this. But in fact the runup in temperatures from 1978-1998 that is the main “proof” of global warming is similar in scale and slope and duration to at least two other temperature increases between 1850 and 1950 which most definitely were not of anthropogenic origins. See here: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/03/oh-maybe-ocean-occilations-are-important.html. There are many issues with which reasonable people can disagree, but your contention about temperature increases being unprecedented is simply wrong and accepted as wrong by about everyone.
What did you think to the results of Copenhagen?
*shrug* Copenhagen had little to do with climate and was much about lesser developed nations trying to extract money from wealthier nations. Climate was just a pretext — do you really think Robert Mugabe or Hugo Chavez care about climate change?
Why do governments seem so concerned with the issue?
The fear of man-made catastrophic climate change gives government officials their best leverage since the repudiation of communism to substantially increase the power of themselves and their government.
If fossil fuels will run out anyway, surely we should move to find alternatives. Why not now?
You are welcome to. Entrepreneurs around the world have been trying to do so for decades. Wealth beyond measure is there for the person or company who is able to do it. What are you going to do to speed it up if such a huge incentive already exists? The government sometimes feels like it can just have its way and wish things into being. It never works.If the technology is not ready, no amount of government prodding or mandating will make it ready. All we will get is more wasted spending and more dead-end technology investments and more public funds poured into the hands of the politically connected. Why hurry if we are not ready? There are still fossil fuels for decades. Why increase the costs to every consumer to hurry this transition to no purpose?
There are perhaps a billion people in the world, particularly in Asia, on the verge of emerging from poverty. They are only able to do so by burning every fossil fuel they can get their hands on. The alternatives that exist today are rich people’s toys, expensive sources of power that we can afford because they ease our guilt somehow. The poor don’t have this luxury.
Even if it is not guaranteed that manmade emissions are to blame, wouldn’t it be wise to act anyway? It’s a hell of a gamble to our children’s future.
Should we spend a trillion dollars on space lasers in case of an alien invasion of Earth? Why not, its a hell of a gamble to our children’s future. We can’t go pre-emptively fix every low-probability problem just because someone claims it might be a catastrophe. Why fix a hypothetical environmental problem when there are 10 other real ones impacting people today that we are ignoring.
The statement you are making only makes sense if the transition if free or low cost. But substantially eliminating fossil fuel use is tremendously expensive. In fact, it is more expensive at this point with current technology than anything the world has ever done. Folks who claim the costs are low are either ignorant or lying. Every major economy will see trillions of dollars of lost output. But forget the rich nations. Remember the billion people emerging from poverty. Strong world action will essentially consign these people to stay in poverty. Do you want your kids 1 degree cooler at the cost of putting a billion people into poverty? It is not the simple question you make it out to be.
Don’t we have a duty to protect or planet for future generations?(i.e. save it from deforestation, pollution etc)
Sure, but as I stated above, we have all kinds of duties to future generations, and not all of them have to do with the environment. But I would argue that the current obsession with small changes to trace levels of CO2 in the atmosphere has in fact gutted the environmental movement. Nothing else is getting done. Take deforestation. My personal interest is in protecting wilderness, and my charity of choice is land trusts that preserve the Amazon. But do you know the #1 cause of deforestation in the Amazon over the last decade? It was the Brazilian ethanol program, which is supposed to be fighting CO2, but now has been shown to do little or nothing for CO2 and it is incentivizing farmers to clear the Amazon to plant more switchgrass and other ethanol crops. Ditto in the US, where ethanol programs are raising food prices and adding to deforestationI would argue that CO2 is not even in the top 10 worst environmental problems in the world. Take clean water in Africa, which I do consider a top 10 problem. The only way Africans are going to get clean water is from using cheap energy to pump and treat water, cheap energy whose only really realistic source is from fossil fuels.
My prediction– 10-20 years from now, environmentalists are going to look back on the current global warming hysteria as the worst thing ever to happened to the environmental movement.
Further comments
Again, this is very off the cuff. I really delve into the science here: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/01/catastrophe-denied-the-science-of-the-skeptics-position.html
SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
OK, so every one of these questions are probing – they are hitting at perceived weaknesses in the skeptic’s position. Fine, it is good when the media is critical. But compare the questions above to the total softballs lobbed at alarmists.
IF YES
How bad is climate change at the moment?
What did you think to the results of Copenhagen?
Is it increasing at an uncontrollable rate? Or is there still a chance to reduce climate change and alter its predicted course of events?
Do you have any comments on the recent e-mail leak scandal that was publicized?
What do you think about the rising levels of climate change skepticism?
How could and/or will climate change or similarly global warming affect the Middle East region in particular the Arabian peninsula?
What about other vulnerable countries?
What can the average citizen do more or less to help reduce climate change and its impact?
What do you predict will happen to major cities in the world if the problem of global warming is not addressed immediately?
How will an increase in global warming change the earth’s natural weather activities i.e. how will people and animals be affected, ecosystems, the weather….
How can we move forward on this issue?
Are you confident we can find a solution?
What are the chances of a new technology saving us? (for example, carbon capture)
Is carbon trading effectively passing the buck? Does it actually help
Only one is arguably critical — the one about the CRU emails — and look at the softball way in which it is asked. The journalists here make no secret of which side they are one.
AGW is dead.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the deniosphere is getting a taste of its own medicine and it’s a bitter pill to swallow. Just ask Mr. Meyer.
A very good response indeed, and with the right attitude. Whilst the questions are clearly from inside an alarmist paradigm, their willingness to ask questions which potentially could challenge their paradigm should be commended. It is clear that many people are now questioning AGW as never before.
I have recently been asking people I meet, mainly engineers and business people, what is their opinion of AGW. I ask them before saying anything about my views. I am surprised to find that I have come across only two answers, “not sure” and “complete c*** “. Of those who were not sure, they were clearly doubting the AGW view but didn’t want to say so becasue they didn’t know what I would think about it, and I suppose, were unable or didn’t want to defend any position that they were leaning towards. At the same time, much of this skepticism was not based on anything particularly scientific. I would guess that there is something of boredom in this, a kind of irritation with the constant banging on the drum about CO2 and AGW without anything substantial to support it. The distrust of leaders, especially to do with politics and money, has added to the disinformation about polar bears, and warmer winters.
As a statistical sample it is clearly meaningless, but as a ‘finger in the air’, it is quite encouraging. So far, I have not come across even one person who believes the AGW scenario eventhough most were concerned about the environment.
“The period from 1600-1800 was among the coldest in the last 5000 years, so it is natural we would see warming in recovery from this.”
This statement, which you bleat frequently, shows that you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of how the climate works. Not even the vaguest idea. You are utterly clueless.
It is “not natural that we would see warming”. There is no such thing as “recovery” in a climate system.
You show no sign of ever reading comments on your website, let alone understanding them. You simply repeat the same mistaken ideas, again and again and again. Such behaviour is far beyond stupidity. It’s mentally deficient.
The two main flaws in the alarmist position are:
1) That the run-up in temperatures since 1978 to 1998 is somehow unprecedented.
2) Positive overall feedback. [Without which there is almost no warming..]
The thermometer was invented at the end of the little ice age and it has warmed slightly since then. Well DUH!
Rapid warming was observed 3 times since then and 2 of these times CO2 could not have been the cause. [1860-1880 , 1910-40 and 1975-1998] The warming rates and duration are similar in all three. What is special about the third ? Nothing !
This is the bedrock of the alarmist position and it is sand.
Positive overall feedback.
I say overall feedback because ice albedo feedbacks are real and positive but trivial. [2 % of the surface of the earth at a very shallow angle for a couple of months a year] If cloud rain feedbacks are negative they are thousands of times stronger.
Studies have been done which compare earth’s temperature response to a black body’s and the radiation output was greater than the black body case. This indicates a negative overall feedback. The study was in a peer reviewed journal and was replicated by 2 other teams of scientists
So the two main premises of the climate alarmists are hopelessly flawed. Yet the true believers continue to believe.
“Do you believe that global warming and climate change are a grave problem to the world at the moment ?
IF NO
What gives you reason to believe that global warming and climate change are not really happening? ”
You have to just love the juxtaposition if these two questions. If you don’t believe it’s a “grave” problem, you are instantly a “denier”. But what else would you expect from the media?
hunter:
“The period from 1600-1800 was among the coldest in the last 5000 years, so it is natural we would see warming in recovery from this.”
This statement, which you bleat frequently, shows that you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of how the climate works. Not even the vaguest idea. You are utterly clueless.
****************
Actually it is you that is clueless.
Here is the sunspot count since 1700, notice the increase since the end of the LIA.
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
The earth is a huge heat sink and I wouldn’t expect temperatures to instantly change in response to increased solar radiation but instead it would be a long term integration.
Alarmists also believe in positive feedback so this warming effect must be amplified by a factor of 6 or more. There is no possible way positive feedback could be selective and only amplify CO2 warming.
There are peer reviewed papers which show that the earth’s temperature since 1860 or so can be approximated by a straight line [because of increased solar activity and a 60 year sinusoid because of ocean cycles.]
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
netdr, you’re as mentally deficient as ‘climate-skeptic.
“The thermometer was invented at the end of the little ice age and it has warmed slightly since then. Well DUH!”
Does it automatically get warmer, just because it’s cold? How did the climate system know it was cold?
“Rapid warming was observed 3 times since then and 2 of these times CO2 could not have been the cause. [1860-1880 , 1910-40 and 1975-1998]”
CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise in the mid-1700s. Why do you think CO2 turned into a greenhouse gas at some time between 1940 and 1975?
“The earth is a huge heat sink and I wouldn’t expect temperatures to instantly change in response to increased solar radiation but instead it would be a long term integration.”
This meaningless statement only confirms that you have no idea at all about how climate systems work.
Why would anyone want to respond to the clueless hunter? It’s clear he is clueless. There’s no point in trying to comprehend what he had to say.
Hunter
You seem to have problems with the simplest concepts. I’ll see if I can explain some basic thermodynamics to you.
netdr, you’re as mentally deficient as ‘climate-skeptic. [Simple name calling – NetDr]
“The thermometer was invented at the end of the little ice age and it has warmed slightly since then. Well DUH!”
Does it automatically get warmer, just because it’s cold? How did the climate system know it was cold?
[***** Response: It does get warmer when the sun’s radiation increases which the sunspots indicated it did. I provided a link which you probably didn’t follow. — NETDR}
“Rapid warming was observed 3 times since then and 2 of these times CO2 could not have been the cause. [1860-1880 , 1910-40 and 1975-1998]”
CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise in the mid-1700s. Why do you think CO2 turned into a greenhouse gas at some time between 1940 and 1975?
[********* It is widely accepted that mankind’s emissions of CO2 didn’t build up enough to be a possible cause of warming until after 1940. Perhaps you know better? Besides it was COOLING in 1940 to 1950 so you shoot yourself in the foot with that line of reasoning.—– NetDr]
“The earth is a huge heat sink and I wouldn’t expect temperatures to instantly change in response to increased solar radiation but instead it would be a long term integration.”
This meaningless statement only confirms that you have no idea at all about how climate systems work.
[Actually the statement has great meaning but you fail to comprehend it. I don’t know how to put it in simpler terms but I’ll try. If you were a fellow engineer you would have understood it the first time. Thermodynamics 101 would help you.
A heat sink is an engineering term for the way a mass absorbs heat.
The greater the thermal mass {heat sink} the longer it takes to absorb a given amount of heat.
The temperature of the earth would not shoot up in a year or two but as the sunspots got higher and higher aftter the end of the Maunder minimum the earth would have gradually warmed. It is like pushing a swing harder and again harder until the swing “builds up”!
I won’t even try to explain integration to you. Just use the word “sum”!— NetDr
That the two main catastrophic AGW promoters at this site cannot even post under a consistent name, or must resort to name stealing, and simply hope to bluster and lie their way to winning, sort of puts their non-credibility and lack of substance into clear perspective: An empty argument inflated with their childish and empty rhetoric.
By the way, the answers given by our host are reasonable, thoughtful and point out some of the fallacies true believers have to assume to sustain catastrophic AGW as a significant issue.
Excellent responce. Well measured, honest and factual.
And the troll alarmist knee jerk responce?
Usual name calling and repetition of the silly term “denialist” (how can we sceptics be denialists of climate change when one point we make as often as possible is that climate has always changed?
On reflection I think I am wrong in the second sentence above,
I think “jerk” is a all that is needed to describe the trolls that have to resort to name calling.
It pleases me when alarmists resort to name-calling tactics. It makes the choice for those who haven’t decided much easier. At the end of the day, it matters little who is “wrong” or “right.” Mankind has always been fairly successful in adapting to a changing climate. We will continue to do so. As to making the climate “static,” which seems to be the goal of alarmists … good luck with that! Excuse me, I see a thunderstorm coming … time to adapt.
*Yet the true believers continue to believe.*
Yes, because of the ‘perfect storm’ — AGW is a perfect alignment of interests between power-hungry narcissistic politicians, anti-capitalist environmentalists, rent-seeking scientists and scare-chasing journalists. No conspiracy required.
#
Arn Riewe:
“Do you believe that global warming and climate change are a grave problem to the world at the moment ?
IF NO
What gives you reason to believe that global warming and climate change are not really happening? ”
You have to just love the juxtaposition if these two questions. If you don’t believe it’s a “grave” problem, you are instantly a “denier”. But what else would you expect from the media?
May 26, 2010, 6:29 am
===================================
And more so, the Bait: “Do you think it is a grave problem?” and the Switch: “If ‘No’, why do you not think is happening?”, not “Why is it not a grave problem?”
Truly biased, but that is obvious.
Hunter
I must have been assuming you had a background in science that you don’t have.
That big round shiny thing in the sky is called the “sun”.
When it gets dark places on it we call them “sunspots”
The more sunspots there are the more radiation the sun emits and the warmer the earth gets.
The little ice age was caused by the big round thing going dormant and having no spots for many years.
[Not much scientific debate about this and CO2 couldn’t have been the cause]
When the spots began coming back it got warmer. Well DUH!
I will skip the part about thermal mass because it is “meaningless “ to you !
The two last cycles of the 20 the century were a grand maximum. Thinking that they might have a connection with the warming which stopped around then is logical.
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
At least part of the warming seen since the invention of the thermometer in the depths of the little Ice Age is not caused by CO2 since it [CO2] didn’t build up until mid 20 th century.
I know that thinking the big shiny thing has some effect on earth’s temperature is eco-treason, and believing that positive feedback [ if it occurs] would apply to any source of warming not just CO2 warming is heresy !
Must be a pretty good interview, this article has made it onto todays Campaign against Climate Change skeptic email alerts where they encourage you to “politely explain in the comments section why global warming is actually happening and why it’s not a big conspiracy”
If you want to receive their alerts as well and politely explain in the comments section why global warming is NOT actually happening select the Get involved link at http://www.campaigncc.org
Keep up the good work.
netdr,
I would point out that the ‘hunter’ you are trying to communicate with is the fraud/troll who, like Waldo, not only understands nothing, but is too lazy and unoriginal to make and stick to one name.
Sort of like the way true believers have to morph between ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ to ‘climate crisis’ to keep the sheep and trolls in line.
Sorry.
You seem to be the victim of identity theft.
netdr,
The alarmists have stolen an entire science. The theft of my handle is just a tiny irritant when compared to the damage the alarmists have inflicted.
“CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise in the mid-1700s.” – Hunter (not original)
Hunter (not original), Surely you’re not trying to suggest that anthropogenic CO2 was effecting the climate in the mid 1700’s? If your’re stating that natural CO2 concentrations began to rise at that time please explain where the increased CO2 emenated from?
Even today the CO2 content of the atmosphere is miniscule (4/100ths of 1%), and the “human contribution” to that content is miniscule (claimed 7% of the increase in CO2, which means by absolute volume a very small percentage). This is one of the things that cracks me up about the warmists. They want to take mankind’s miniscule CO2 output, take draconian and economy killingly expensive measures to cut that small output by some insignificant percentage, and have us pay them for saving the planet.
I would argue it’s not so much “[t]he alarmists have stolen an entire science” as “the alarmists have fabricated an entire ‘science'”.
Studies related to warming and climate variation are quite distinct from the Alarmist movement, which appears largely, and perhaps entirely, based on no science at all (except, perhaps, political ‘science’).
Human contributions to atmospheric CO2 were minuscule in the 18th Century, and didn’t become really significant until after the World Wars.
Even in spite of the logarithmic aspect of CO2 influence on warming, it’s difficult to credit anthropomorphic contributions with any significant impact prior to WWII, and basically impossible to do such at any point prior to the end of the second World War.
Correction of typographical error in prior post:
The final sentence should read
Even in spite of the logarithmic aspect of CO2 influence on warming, it’s difficult to credit anthropomorphic contributions with any significant impact prior to WWII, and basically impossible to do such at any point prior to the end of the first World War.
“The theft of my handle…”
What pathetic melodramatic whinging. You think you’re the only person in the world called Hunter?
“It is widely accepted that mankind’s emissions of CO2 didn’t build up enough to be a possible cause of warming until after 1940. Perhaps you know better? Besides it was COOLING in 1940 to 1950 so you shoot yourself in the foot with that line of reasoning.”
Yet another fuckwit seems to get some kind of kick out of displaying their appalling ignorance to the world. There’s so much wrong in just this one paragraph that it’s even more depressing than most of the shit-dribbling that goes on here.
No, it is not “widely accepted” that 1940 had any relevance at all. CO2 concentrations started rising in the mid-1700s. CO2 did not suddenly become a greenhouse gas in 1940. Any increase in CO2 means less outgoing IR radiation. Anyone who doesn’t know this has no right to hold an opinion about global warming.
OMG it was COOLING! from 1940-1950. You shout in capitals so clearly you think this means something terribly important. Do you think the climate can only be controlled by one factor at a time?
As for your inane comment about heat sinks, you clearly have not got the remotest understanding of the response times of the various parts of the climate system. Perhaps you can explain in your own framework of understanding why it gets colder at night, and why midsummer’s day is never the hottest time of the year.
Hunter [the phony one]
No, it is not “widely accepted” that 1940 had any relevance at all. CO2 concentrations started rising in the mid-1700s. [Cite your source. NetDr]CO2 did not suddenly become a greenhouse gas in 1940. [Who said it did ?– NetDr]
Any increase in CO2 means less outgoing IR radiation. [prove the CO2 increased if you can and what caused it. You are the only one claiming it around 1700.– NetDr] Anyone who doesn’t know this has no right to hold an opinion about global warming. [And you do ? Surely you jest. You make up facts to suit yourself. — NetDr]
**********
You are simply wrong about that supposed fact.
Cite your source.
You have a right to your own opinion you do not have a right to your own facts.
You made that supposed “fact” up. It fools no one.
Climate alarmists do seem to think that the climate is only affected by CO2, are you somehow different ?
Tenths of a degree for a planet wide “AVERAGE” do not occur overnight it takes years of steadily increasing pushes like the example of the swing to get real warming.
When the climate alarmists are quizzed about the lack of feedback they say the feedbacks take hundreds of years but somehow feedback to the sun’s warming should happen overnight. That is about as logical as climate alarmism is about everything else.
There is no logical reason why CO2’s puny warming should be multiplied by 6 or more but the sun’s mighty warming should not, or that one should take place overnight and the other one take hundred’s of years. [ But logic isn’t the strong suit of climate alarmists.]
One other interesting difference between the “No” questions and the “Yes” questions:
Most of the “No” questions are focused on thoughts about the scientific evidence, while several of the “Yes” questions ask respondents for speculation about future catastrophe that await. This difference underscores the media interest in hearing about disaster scenarios, as well as the current lack of actual existing catastrophes to point to (thus the need to imagine future ones).
Wow. You really didn’t know that CO2 started rising in the mid 1700s? That really is some appalling ignorance.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.smooth75.gif
“There is no logical reason why CO2’s puny warming should be multiplied by 6 or more but the sun’s mighty warming should not”
Indeed. Only the mentally incapable think that there would be. Why do you even think you can begin to understand this stuff? You’re simply not intelligent enough to make any headway with it.
Hunter [the phony one]
Here is a reconstruction of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
http://www.who.int/globalchange/environment/en/fig2.2.new.gif
Even your own graph shows no appreciable increase until 1900. Even then it is so small it would have almost zero effect !
[I measure 5 % of a doubling which your own guru Dr Hansen says would cause 5/100 degree warming which he claims will be multiplied by 6 after 100 years or so, the immediate effect would be unmeasurable.]
So we see a flea on the back of an elephant and say the flea is the reason the elephant has put on weight.
Twisting logic to make CAGW work is for scientist in the pay of the climate industry.
You aren’t very good at it.
Since you admit that solar warming would be multiplied by 6 or more and that the effects would take 100 years or more the warming is probably just solar warming and feedback and CO2 did very little.
Hunter, I’m not sure if you noticed it, but your own chart shows that CO2 in the 1700’s was near a relative minimum for previous millenium. Even when CO2 begins to increase in the latter the 1700’s it only gets back to about the average for the previous millenium.
Also due to the way your chart is scaled the entire “massive increase” in CO2 concentration from 1700 – 1799 appears to be around 5 parts per million or less. The measurement tolerance is probably greater than 5 PPM.
One quibble with the author and netdr; sunspots are cool areas. They affect the Earth indirectly, by pushing increased solar wind which protects the planet from cosmic ray seeding of excessively cooling low cloud. The energy fluctuations are minute, not significant.
_____
The Earth is in a CO2 famine, and, were it only possible, we should drive the level back up to the long-term average of 1-2,000 ppm to aid plant growth. Not that it would have any influence on temperatures, unfortunately; the maximum “saturated” effect of CO2 “signature” absorption and re-emission was achieved long ago, at under 100 ppm. Too bad. Warm periods have always been boom times for humanity and Life On Earth.
As for clean alternatives, the ones endorsed by the Warmists and ecofreaks are so un-economic that they would cause a huge global depression, and starve hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest to death. Much of that has already occurred with the biofuel-food-price spike.
Here’s a good modelling of the cost-benefit balances for a 100-year span, ASSUMING AGW is valid: nybooks.com/articles/21494 . Gore’s and Stern’s draconian carbon controls come out the worst, by far.
Hunter (the warmist). Dude. You’re hilarious. “Started rising in the 1700’s…” LOL
Look up the words ‘negligible,’ ‘miniscule,’ and ‘infinitesimal.’ Go ahead. We’ll wait here… 😉
In addition to negligible, miniscule and infinitesimal add “disingenuous” to the list.
“Even your own graph shows no appreciable increase until 1900”
You’re so fucking stupid you can’t even see what’s on the graph. Amazing. You’re too stupid even to understand how stupid you are.
“Even then it is so small it would have almost zero effect !”
Wrong. Look up MODTRAN. Use it to calculate the effect of a 5% increase in CO2 concentrations.
Dave Stephens – your pointless remarks provided a new apogee of pathetic mental inadequacy for this thread.
please keep stating:
No one is sceptical about climae change (the planet does naturally)
most scientists would accept, man made climate change- due to co2, greenhouse gas, if CO2 doubled, of about0.5-1.0C
Sceptics, are merely sceptical, about catastrophic, alarmist man made climate chnange, assuming Feedbacks that are not there, with computer models (many different ones) with a range of +2 to +12C between them
against all observational data.
Hunter [the phony one]
“Even your own graph shows no appreciable increase until 1900″
You’re so fucking stupid you can’t even see what’s on the graph. Amazing. You’re too stupid even to understand how stupid you are. [Name calling indicates low intelligence. Those with even lower intelligence throw in swearing. Anyone can do it. — NetDr]
“Even then it is so small it would have almost zero effect !”
Wrong. Look up MODTRAN. Use it to calculate the effect of a 5% increase in CO2 concentrations.
***************
You are bluffing.
Name calling is easy and any fool can do it and most do.
1) Why should I believe MODTRAN ? Because it is a computer program ? I am not impressed. I can write one which predicts something else. Big deal ! The tendency of people to turn off their brain when confronted with a computer program is amazing.
The relationship between CO2 increase and temperature increase is logarithmic but a simple ratio is close enough to get a feel for the amount and you don’t need any untrusted model. You can name call all you want but the truth is that 5% of a doubling of CO2 will cause about .05 o C. We engineers call it a ” rule of thumb”!
If a doubling causes 1 degree of warming 5 % of a doubling causes about .05 o C. Quibble and name call all you like.
There is a measurable correspondence between the number of sunspots and the warmth of the earth. Despite the fact that the sunspot itself is cool it causes the earth to warm. The effect is measurable but not entirely understood.
Do you think the fact that it is a coincidence that when the maunder minimum came along and sunspots were very low for a long time the earth cooled substantially ?
Do you also think it is a coincidence that when the sunspots returned that the earth warmed ?
I know CO2 is the answer to everything? “To a man with a hammer every problem looks like a nail”.
netdr;
a wee trick for your subsequent posts: to show the degrees symbol, hold the ALT key and enter 0176 on the numeric keypad. Thus: °. For the cents symbol, ALT-155: ¢. One-half: ALT-171: ½. One-quarter: ALT-172: ¼. Lots of others, plus the usual ASCII symbols and letters. x}êôƒªÉ etc.
Hunter [the phony one]
“The rough guide to Climate Change” by Henson says that solar output varies by .1 % over a sunspot cycle.
That means approximately 300 K Times 1/1000 or .3 ° C [K]. With feedbacks of 6 or more which apply to all warming not just CO2 warming that is 1.8 ° C. They take hundreds of years to build up, at least that is what the alarmists claim.
Let’s hear another rant it makes you sound so intelligent.
Brian — Thanks for the trick.
netdr: That solar output would vary by 0.1% in WATTS, not temperature. At current values, earth’s temperature would increase ( or decrease) about 0.25 per watt, so the net fluctuation would be about 342*0.001 *1/4 = 0.085 C
.,085 C
Alan
Why would the temperature rise not be proportional to the increase in solar input ?
Please cite a paper or some other place I can see the reasoning. You may be right but simply stating it is so doesn’t make it so.
Even using your figures for the sake of the discussion.
You omitted the 6 to 12 multiplication of positive feedback the climate alarmists love to use to boost the puny CO2 warming.
If you include it .08 x 6 = .48 C to .08 x 12 = .96 so the bulk of the .7 o C warming in the last 100 years is solar.
CO2 did very little or no warming.
Is there some reasoning which makes solar radiation not eligible for this amplification ? I have never seen adequate justification for this illogical reasoning. Once CO2 provides it’s warming the feedback is entirely caused by other factors.
Actually, CO2 at atmospheric temps is irrelevant.
“Rather, the atmospheric greenhouse mechanism is a conjecture [= preliminary guess without evidence, which may lead to a hypothesis with pass-fail proposals, which may eventually qualify as a theory], which may be proved or disproved already [= previously] in concrete engineering thermodynamics [95{97]. Exactly this was done well many years ago by an expert in this field, namely Alfred Schack, who wrote a classical text-book on this subject [95]. [In] 1972 he showed that the radiative component of heat transfer of CO2, though relevant at the temperatures in combustion chambers, can be neglected at atmospheric temperatures. The influence of carbonic acid on the Earth’s climates is definitively unmeasurable [98].”
—
“Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame of Physics,” International Journal of Modern Physics B, v23, n03, January 6, 2009, pp. 275-364. Free download at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf.
The pathetic thing is how scientist/hunter/mindless drooler/loser troll has no ability to engage, no understanding of the issues, and no ability to communicate to the level of passing a touring test.
Yet persists in posting.
The reality of the world not experiencing a climate catastrophe has driven him/her/it crazy. But it was apparently a short drive.
netdr (the paedophile one)
“Why should I believe MODTRAN ? Because it is a computer program ?”
Do the radiative transfer calculations by hand if you like. You’ll get the same answer. Except you won’t, because you don’t actually understand what radiative transfer is, so obviously there’s no way you could calculate it. This, you see, is the problem – you’re completely ignorant.
“5% of a doubling of CO2 will cause about .05 o C”
Pulling figures out of your arse impresses no-one, except those who like to see shit. Radiative forcing due to a 5% increase = 5.35 * ln(1.05). Climate sensitivity is approximately 0.75 K/W/m2. Do the maths. Tell me the answer. I doubt you understand what I’ve just described but you may prove me wrong.
“Do you think the fact that it is a coincidence that when the maunder minimum came along and sunspots were very low for a long time the earth cooled substantially ? ”
Do you know about grammar?
hunter: oh! what devastating scientific arguments you put forth!
@hunter (the psychopathetic one)
And your scientific arguments are
a) empty
b) wrong
c) psychotic, like the rest of your persona
d) all of the above
Most people will select d).
Hunter [the phony one]
Pulling figures out of your arse impresses no-one, except those who like to see shit. Radiative forcing due to a 5% increase = 5.35 * ln(1.05). [is this in C?]
[You can pull them from yours though ? Interesting. Cite your reference [5.35 * .021 = .11 with 6 X positive feedback is .68 which is almost the entire warming of .7 C Who needs CO2 ?] — NetDr]
Climate sensitivity is approximately 0.75 K/W/m2. Do the maths. Tell me the answer. I doubt you understand what I’ve just described but you may prove me wrong.
[The argument among scientists about climate sensitivity rages on and you know the answer ? Please tell the scientists because that is one of the most important unknowns in all of science. — Netdr
“Do you think the fact that it is a coincidence that when the maunder minimum came along and sunspots were very low for a long time the earth cooled substantially ? ”
Do you know about grammar?
[Great answer, my English was a little sloppy so what? When do you give a rebuttal with meaning ? I am an engineer not an English major.– NetDr]
*******************************
In short your answer consists of lots of calculations pulled out of your *** and a comment that mine are wrong.
Greenpeace could be the source of your calculations. The IPCC loves to cite them or un-named hikers as a reference.
Then you cite the IPCC and suddenly the hiker is a world class expert.
I will never understand why CO2 warming is routinely multiplied by 6 to 12 depending upon how much panic is desired, but solar warming never is. Since CO2 is not involved in the feedback mechanism why do climate alarmists fail to multiply other sources of warming by 6 or more ? Because it spoils their arguments.
You have failed to address this point. Is it because you have no rebuttal ?
netdr (the brain-damaged one)
You don’t know what radiative forcing is. It is expressed in W/m², not in °C.
You don’t know what logarithms are. ln means natural logarithm, not logarithm in base 10.
You don’t know even what the equations I quoted are used for – as I predicted.
You pull figures out of your arse because you have not the slightest idea what they mean. You are certainly not an engineer. Engineers generally know about basic maths like logarithms. You’re a retard. Were you born that way or have you received a brain injury? You are probably incapable of forgetting your bizarre notion about multiplying anything by “6 to 12”, now that it’s found its way into your tiny mind, but you should try, because the notion has no basis at all in reality.
Your English was not just “a little sloppy”. Your question did not make any sense at all. To take part in scientific discourse, you first need to be able to write in English. And then you need to have the ability to think scientifically. You fail on both counts. You seem to think that by randomly throwing around numbers and dribbling, you’re proving something. You are, but it’s not even remotely what you hope it is.
In case anyone less lobotomised is interested, the radiative forcing due to a 5 % increase in CO2 concentrations can be calculated approximately as 5.35*ln(1.05). The relevant equation is from Myhre et al, 1998, GRL, 25, 2715, and is very simple to understand and very commonly used. 5.35*ln(1.05) is 0.26W/m². Climate sensitivity, according to many independent lines of evidence, is around 0.75K/W/m². Thus, a 5% increase in CO2 should cause a temperature rise, in the end, of around 0.2°C, all else being equal.
Hunter (The troll)
You know, I’ve sat and read your entire exchange, and the thing that strikes me is you simulaneously manage to engage in vulgar (and useless) ad Hominem while actually expressing **ZERO** (cap use for emphasis) useful information. You don’t even defend your talking points very well. Interestingly you have called others stupid, ignorant, etc… then have contradicted yourself on simple matters. Example:
“CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise in the mid-1700s. Why do you think CO2 turned into a greenhouse gas at some time between 1940 and 1975?”-Hunter, May 26, 2010, 8:15 am
“No, it is not “widely accepted” that 1940 had any relevance at all. CO2 concentrations started rising in the mid-1700s. CO2 did not suddenly become a greenhouse gas in 1940.”- Hunter, May 27, 2010, 12:43 pm
So, which is it? CO2 “turned” into a greenhouse gas between 1940-1975 or not?
Also, speaking of “staggering ignorance”… Global climate has historically run in CYCLES of various types, lengths and causes; ask any paleoclimatologist (including Gavin Schmidt, or Michael Mann) Apparently you need to look up what a cycle is. If there is a warming *cycle* then neccessarily there is a cooling portion of that cycle. The cooling portion of a climate cycle that included the LIA ended roughly around 1800, give or take a few years. Now, what happens at the end of a cycle swing? Obviously, it goes back the other direction. Therefor, calling the warming that occurred NATURALLY after the LIA a “recovery” is just fine.
Why “recovery”? Because warm is better than cold for 99.9% of all life on this planet. This is an undisputed FACT. (that warm is better than cold, not the 99.9% as I don’t really know the exact percentage, but if you feel the need to argue the point please point to a significant organisim that thrives in cold better. I’m sure there are some out there, but the vast majority of life on Earth would seem to prove different) Warm = good = life. A person “recovers” from a heart attack. recover = good.
See the connection? Did I break it down barney style enough for you? Warm = good, recover = good. Get it?
Meh, I’ve already lost my taste for conversing with you. I’ll just end this here. Other than to say that it is folks like you that continue to drive more and more people to the skeptical side of this issue. You really need to learn to communicate better, and with more respect.
Doc
Doc_Navy (the fuckwit)
You seem to be a bit illiterate. If I ask “Why do you think [something]?”, then that means I want to know why you think that thing, not that I think it. Don’t accuse me of contradicting myself when you’re just too stupid to understand simple English.
Are volcanoes cyclic? Are long term solar changes cyclic? Is atmospheric composition cyclic? You seem utterly oblivious to the fact that the climate has no equilibrium state, and climate variables do not oscillate about a central value. They never have, and they never will do. Anyone who talks about “recovery” in the context of climate does not have a clue what they are talking about. It would be just as stupid to describe the little ice age as a recovery from the mediaeval warm period.
“warm is better than cold for 99.9% of all life on this planet. This is an undisputed FACT”
Obviously, you don’t know what evolution is or how it works. Natural selection doesn’t select for conditions that have never existed. Why don’t polar bears live at the equator? This is primary school stuff, but your pathetic intellect still isn’t up to it. Anyone who writes something as banal as “warm = good” is a simple-minded tosser.
More respect? Like your very respectful greeting, I suppose? Stupid fucking cunt.
@Doc_Navy
In fairness to the somewhat offensive Hunter (The Troll), he didn’t contradict himself. His english may be limited, and his science too, (not to mention his manners) but his “Why do you think …” was not a statement,it was a question addressed to netdr, as though that is what netdr thought. If you read Hunter (The Troll) again, you will see the same form of expression often used. The sentence can be read both ways, but the context shows that he didn’t himself think “CO2 turned into a greenhouse gas at some time between 1940 and 1975”.
Aside from the climate debate, the dynamics of blogs like this are quite interesting. The frustration, intollerance, arrogance and total exasperation are all there.
Hunter (the acerbic one) has to be a skeptic plant. No one could possibly expect anyone to successfully argue this way. I have no desire to pursue his/her/its logic or reasoning based on the overly contentious way the points are delivered. I choose to disagree just to piss it off. Again, who argues this way? 5th graders? Sociopaths? Mafioso? Whatever it is, I choose to save time by moving on to the next post. If on the other hand, it would deliver its points without the insults, people might learn something and possible change or modify their current position. Sadly, I don’t think this is its motivation. It just likes being the all knowing Intelligentsia brought here to belittle the plebes who dare disagree with what Almighty Science has dictated to be the never changing Truth. Because we all know that science is never wrong as has never had to change any of it positions over the past 500+ years. And young sciences such as Climate Science are even more accurate now, aren’t they?